may result in an entire department being closed down; the refusal to consider the sexuality of patients can allow clandestine and dangerous practices involving coercion, venality and risky behaviour. In administrative detention centres, the foreigner must only be detained in the limits and conditions strictly necessary for his/her deportation. Such is not always the case. House arrest, which should be implemented in numerous situations before deportation, is not treated as a substitute for administrative detention, but instead as an additional form of restraint. Detention becomes, above all, a tool that helps in managing deportations, since there is no need to monitor deported persons in their homes from the crack of dawn. This practice may result in placing children in detention, which must systematically be avoided, as promised by the President of the Republic. In juvenile detention centres or prisons for minors, the imprisoned children retain rights specific to their age, above all the right to education and reintegration. They must also benefit from special protection against the violence that is often seen in these places. This special protection must be provided by a firm and level-headed authority. However, the means to exercise this protection, the educational competence and the capacity to take charge of the children in time are often lacking. The consistency between the surveillance and the educational function often leaves much to be desired. Unstable, precarious or poorly trained teams are in charge of a task that is sometimes beyond their abilities, and take care of the minors insufficiently, applying a variable, ambiguous and sometimes arbitrary discipline. Finally, the reform announced in the Order dated 2 February 1945, pertaining to juvenile delinquency, has yet to be applied, even though it has been a commitment of the President of the Republic since 2012. In the police stations, gendarmeries or customs services, the person taken into custody or detained is deprived of liberty only to allow law-enforcement officers to investigate a case for presenting it to the State Prosecutor’s Office or to a judge. It often happens that the custody measures are extended uselessly due to cumbersome procedures or organisation, such as a difficulty in finding a doctor or an interpreter, or even in contacting the State Prosecutor’s Office. The state of certain detention rooms and rudimentary hygiene conditions, added to the tension that comes with being placed in custody, sometimes makes this procedural necessity, which must be applied frugally, a veritable punishment. While it is true that the reform of 2011 greatly reduced the number of people placed into custody, it is still uncertain whether we have done all that we can in this respect. In general, and even if the concern of security is legitimate, it too often leads to undifferentiated measures that, by the spirit of the system, by concerns of simplicity or as a precaution, are applied to diverse situations. Therefore, certain practices, suited to situations or persons considered to be the most dangerous, are applied indiscriminately to everyone, at the expense of fundamental rights. Sometimes, these measures simply result from the regrettably justified fear of police officers of having their responsibility unfairly called into question. Since 2008, the CGLPL has continuously recommended a personalised treatment, suitable security mechanisms, training measures, a health coverage similar to what free persons benefit from, the protection of family bonds and a sufficient quantity of work. All of these conditions are vital for the effectiveness of the reintegration that must result from the confinement, and are therefore vital for the long-term safety of persons as well as of the society. Progress has certainly been made, for example concerning the number of persons taken into custody, the system of searches in prisons or the situation of young incarcerated mothers and their children. More recently, the rights of patients hospitalised without consent have been reinforced by the law modernising our health system, adopted on its last reading by the National Assembly on 17 December 2015. However, progress is too slow and there is still a long way 12