regional health agency to provide psychiatric healthcare without consent, to maintain a register that, for each measure of seclusion or restraint, will mention the name of the psychiatrist who decided on this measure, its date and time, its duration and the name of the healthcare professionals who supervised it. This register must be presented, on request, to the departmental committee for psychiatric treatment, to the Contrôleur général of places of deprivation of liberty or to his representatives, and to the members of the Parliament. The law also obliges the drafting of an annual report assessing the practices of admitting patients into seclusion rooms and restraining them, which should also include the policy defined to limit the use of these practices and the assessment of its implementation. These provisions were necessary not only to allow a posteriori oversight of measures of seclusion and restraint, but also to force healthcare professionals to question themselves on their practices and to compare them. The CGLPL will keep an eye on their implementation. However, it is regrettable that these provisions were voted in as part of the law modernising the healthcare system and that this came at the expense of a more global law on mental health. Finally, to date, there is no tool that allows qualitatively and quantitatively evaluating the practices of seclusion and restraint at the national level. The public authorities must develop such a tool urgently for observing and evaluating these practices. The Contrôleur général regrets that such a provision was not included in the law. 3. The consequences of the Recommendations dated 15 February 2011 pertaining to the psychiatric infirmary of the police headquarters The psychiatric infirmary of the Paris police headquarters was visited in July 2009, and was the subject of several conversations with the police prefect, and then with the Ministers of the Interior and Health. In the wake of this procedure, the Contrôleur général of places of deprivation of liberty decided to publish his observations in the Journal officiel. The CGLPL had observed that the physical condition of treatment were satisfactory and that the right to remedy was assured, but there was confusion among the surveillance staff and the healthcare staff, all of whom wore smocks, as well as an organisation that needlessly prolonged the presence of persons deprived of liberty in this place, which otherwise should have had an exclusive role of orientation. Above all, there was a certain confusion in the orientations in place, between procedures that were previously named “hospitalisation by order of the court” and “hospitalisation on the request of a third party”, which were meticulously differentiated by law. The CGLPL decided to publish this recommendation since hospitalisation without consent must come with the guarantees required for maintaining the balance between preserving public order and the rights of the person. These guarantees imply that the decisions should be taken by the persons responsible for them on only these considerations. Yet, the psychiatric infirmary of the police headquarters does not have any independence. The doctor working there, while not under the hierarchical authority of the Paris police headquarters, are paid by the latter, and the physical conditions of their functions and their career management depend on it. The institution therefore has nothing to do with a hospital authorised to receive mental patients, and the provisions specific to the rights of persons admitted to hospitals 55