using these shower cubicles. Once again the response is very simple: it is overwhelmingly negative. Out of the thirteen police stations equipped with these facilities, seventeen showers are available; not one of them is used. Or rather, none of them is used in accordance with their intended purpose. On the other hand, they provide a practical opportunity for storing brooms, various different utensils and old equipment. In this case, the explanations make reference to the unspoken law written above: no requests are made. Once again, the questions are not raised of determining whether the persons have been informed of the existence of a shower and whether they have been placed in a position to be able to use it. Since they are not raised, it is easy to determine the answer. In reality, as already pointed out in the previous reports, staff workloads are here in question. In order for a person to take a shower, it would be necessary to take an individual in police custody out of their cell, take them to the appropriate premises (in principle in the immediate vicinity), give them the necessary items, keep an eye on the proper conduct of the operation, and finally take the person concerned back to their cell. On this point, a clear answer is given without hesitation: there are not enough staff (without, one might add, any effort to improve productivity36) to carry out these tasks. It is only to be regretted that it was not possible to evaluate this assertion earlier, before incurring the expenditure of the funds necessary for the installation of showers to no purpose whatsoever. However, in any case, the Contrôle Général cannot content itself with this situation. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the problem of possible distribution of hygiene necessaries is easily settled in the negative. Thirteen police stations out of fifteen do not have and therefore do not distribute any (with a small amount of uncertainty in the case of SaintDenis). Only the police stations of Amiens and Angers make toiletries available, and the latter alone in the form of issuance of necessaries specifically intended for that purpose. Police logistics have drawn the logical conclusions of absence of use of the showers. These shortcomings with regard to showers and hygiene necessities are open to criticism and, in each case, are obviously to be placed in the context, on the one hand, of the existing bathroom facilities in use (sinks) and the hygiene products placed there (soap, toilet paper etc.) and, on the other hand, the opportunities provided for use thereof. Without here dwelling on details, it must be admitted that to describe the situation with regard to bathroom facilities as being rarely satisfactory37 is an understatement. d/ The fourth criterion is that of the dignity of persons, which, as is well-known, most directly expresses the manner in which fundamental rights are observed. Once again two aspects which dispense with assessments marked by subjectivity were selected: these concern, in the first place, the systematic character of so-called security strip searches (body searches), which consist of getting persons entering police custody to completely undress, in order to examine their clothes and remove any item that could be dangerous for themselves or others. In the second place, the systematic taking away of brassières, in the case of women placed in police custody38. 36 However, the productivity of officers in charge of police custody is a factor that is difficult to assess, and in any case the question is never raised. 37 Further information on this point is given in the inspection reports for police custody facilities, published on the website of the Contrôle Général cglpl.fr 38 It is well-known that this question, to which we will not fail to return in the rest of this report, has been dealt with by the Contrôle Général since its first annual report. 40