to family life, health etc. of the persons concerned. The draft bill on asylum reform could serve as a vehicle for these additions. It also recommends that, in application of these principles and by statutory reference, the regulatory part of the CESEDA (chapter 1 of title 2 of book II) should be supplemented by a group of provisions comparable (but not identical) to those appearing under articles R. 553-1 et seq. of the same code, concerning norms of habitability. - Period of Detention of Foreigners in Police Stations without controls The law provides that the holding of foreigners refused admission to the territory in waiting areas lasts for “the time strictly necessary for their departure” or, in case of asylum applications, similarly for the time strictly necessary, “for an examination” aimed at establishing whether or not their application is manifestly unfounded. Examination of asylum applications by an officer of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA – Office français pour la protection des réfugiés et apatrides) cannot be organised in an impromptu manner. In this case, in view of the time required, a foreigner has every chance of rapidly leaving the police station in which they are held in the hours following refusal of admission, and being taken to an accommodation area if such facilities are available. However, for foreigners who do not apply for asylum (the vast majority), the procedure can vary dramatically in different cases, it being understood that the law obliges them to return to their country of origin (usually by plane). In cases where the means of transport to be used by the foreigner in order to leave France are unavailable for a considerable length of time (two days for example) the foreigner will in all likelihood, as in the abovementioned case of asylum seekers, be taken from the police station to the place providing them with “hotel-type services”. On the other hand, if a means of transport are available within a short space of time (for example if the aeroplane which brought them to France is set to return to its point of origin half an hour or so later, or after a stopover of a few hours), they will remain in the station, in an area under lock and key, until their departure. These different situations lead to unacceptable inequality of treatment. Indeed, in the first case, foreigners taken to accommodation areas, however uncomfortable, are not only seen by the police, but also come to the attention of third parties: health personnel, associations (French Red Cross, authorised associations), representatives of the UNHCR14, interpreters and lawyers. The possibility of exercising their acknowledged rights (for example to use the telephone) can be verified. Absence thereof can therefore be challenged. Furthermore, after four days in a waiting area, they are taken before a liberty and custody judge for a ruling concerning extension of their stay in the waiting area (article L. 222-1 of the CESEDA). In the second case, the foreigner remains in the police station where they are unable to have any contact with third parties. Admittedly, their rights (to request an interpreter or doctor and to call for a lawyer or any person with whom they wish to speak) are applicable. But nobody can say how these rights are brought to their attention. No more than anybody is aware of the manner in which they are applied. 14 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 21