Yet, although such norms exist for detention centres (the value of which will be seen below), none are applicable to waiting areas, as though the fate of newly arriving foreigners was even less worthy of interest than that of foreigners deported from France. The current Act and regulations provide a certain number of elements in this respect. Article L. 221-2 of the CESEDA provides that waiting areas may include13 “one or several accommodation premises” providing “hotel-type services”. Moreover, it mentions that these premises shall include a “space” enabling protection of the confidentiality of interviews between the person held and their lawyer. Finally, pursuant to the same provision, waiting areas and detention facilities shall be physically separate. The requirements of current law as far as waiting area facilities are concerned go no further. They are completely inadequate. In the first place, with regard to the issues dealt with. What is a “hotel-type service”? This should probably be understood to mean board and lodging, that is to say facilities for sleeping and eating. However, the expression “type” leaves the nature of the services open to varying interpretations. In fact, as far as accommodation is concerned, the Contrôle Général has, for example, inspected waiting areas in which the sleeping arrangements consisted of nothing more than the use of an air terminal waiting room, with rows of seats, large windows overlooking the tarmac, no bathroom facilities either for adults or for children, and lacking any protection against noise and light. The formulation of the law is therefore freely open to interpretation. On this particular point it should have referred to regulations. It is also regrettable that foreigners and their lawyers (even if the latter only come infrequently) have nothing more than a “space” at their disposal. This is less than in most police custody facilities, in which a room is at the disposal of lawyers and their clients. The notion of space is extremely vague, allowing full scope for all possible arrangements and disadvantages. As well as with regard to the issues that they pass over in silence. For example, the current law expressly mentions the case of lone minors (article L. 221-5). It does not make any provision for the separation of these children from other persons held in waiting areas. It gives no instructions concerning issues related to health, hygiene, movement and access to the open air and food, not to mention any possible activities (there are none...). Generally speaking, as far as deprivation of liberty is concerned, the French legislature devotes attention to defining (in an abstract manner) the rights attached to individuals. It too often neglects the matter of protection of their dignity. Yet, apart from formal rights (telephoning a consul etc.), international law, and the European Court of Human Rights in particular, has long imposed upon the authorities an obligation to protect individuals’ lives and safeguard them from physical and moral harm. Current laws only reflect this requirement in an imperfect manner. Such is indeed the case with regard to waiting areas. The Contrôle Général therefore recommends an amendment of the law (article L. 221-2) in order to include a few essential general principles therein, corresponding to the considerations mentioned above. For example, rather than a “space” for lawyers, it needs to provide that the practical framework shall protect the secrecy and confidentiality attached to the duties of counsels to foreigners held in detention. The same applies to the privacy, right 13 Our emphasis. 20