Court places importance on determining whether the feelings of distress caused to such persons due to their psychic condition “exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent to imprisonment251 ». In addition, the Court appears to have recently started to condemn the increasing penalisation of psychiatric disorders, considering that alternation of treatment, in prison and in specialised institutions, and imprisonment, manifestly constitutes an obstacle to the patient’s state of health becoming stable and violates article 3 of the Convention252. Three criteria have therefore been progressively established by the judge in Strasbourg: vulnerability, adequate and appropriate care and the existence of intensity of suffering beyond the inevitable level inherent to confinement. Finally, should be emphasised that the Court exerts its control over places of deprivation of liberty as a whole. Thus, it found that article 3 had been violated, considering in particular that the maintenance of the applicant in police custody without appropriate psychiatric treatment had harmed the letters dignity, in spite of the absence of deliberate negligence on the part of the police.253 By means of four rulings in 2002, confirmed by a decision of 27th October 2005 and another of 18th November 2010254, the ECtHR condemned France in view of the excessive time taken by administrative courts to rule on the lawfulness of psychiatric confinement and applications for immediate discharge: the Court, finding that the “speedily” of article 5 § 4 of the Convention and not the “ reasonable time�� of article 6 § 1 of the Convention provided the applicable norm of reference for the time required for the completion of expert opinion reports ordered by the judge. 2. The Difficulties of Detection and Identification 2.1 Difficulties Arising from Lack of Assessment The Contrôle Général notes that knowledge enabling action remains uncertain and that initiatives have not been undertaken by the authorities in order to collect precise information with regard to the characteristics of the various different psychic disorders encountered in places of deprivation of liberty. As far as prisons are concerned, there is currently only one far-reaching epidemiological study, undertaken in 2004 for the central health administration (Direction générale de la santé) and the prisons administration Department255. In particular it highlighted that eight men out of ten and seven women out of ten showed at least one psychiatric disorder, with the vast majority showing a combination of several such disorders; these are for the most part depressive disorders (40%), schizophrenic disorders (8%) and chronic psychoses (8%). The same study mentions “heavy personal, family and psychological previous history” of the persons 251 Raffray vs. France (21/12/2010). G. vs. France, 23rd February 2012. 253 M.S vs. United Kingdom, 3rd May 2012 and Rupa vs. Romania 16th December 2008. 254 ECtHR,, 18th June 2002, Delbec vs. France, no. 43125/98; 27th June 2002, D.M. vs. France, no. 41376/98; 27th June 2002, L.R. vs. France, no. 33395/96 and 5th November 2002, Laidin vs. France, n 43191/98. ECtHR, 27th October 2005, Mathieu vs. France, no. 68673/01. ECtHR, 18th November 2010, loc. cit. 255 This study conducted by the Cemka Eval group comprised three stages: prevalence study involving 23 institutions and 1000 prisoners, a "longitudinal" enquiry concerning the follow-up of 300 "persons serving their first imprisonment, incarcerated in four institutions and a retrospective study concerning the situation of 100" persons serving long sentences. The results mentioned here for the most part concern the prevalence study. 252 161