subject being mentioned once again is that it constitutes a case in point of a security measure entirely lacking in any justification, neither detected nor a fortiori proven, but of which the humiliating effects are guaranteed with complete certainty44. Such is the nature of the irrational, even (and above all?) in the subjects of most concern to public opinion. e/ In order to complete this examination of the objective conditions of police custody, attention is drawn to the implementation of the rights attached to persons placed in police custody. Not so much from the formal point of view of compliance with the rights guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as, for example, the information given to the person by the OPJ in application of article 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But once again, from the perspective of the effectiveness of acknowledged rights. To this end, three indexes have been taken into consideration. On the one hand, the Contrôle Général focused on determining at what point in the procedure the person in police custody was asked to sign the second page of the police custody register concerning them. This page traces the various stages of police custody (questioning sessions, rest, meals, medical examination, lawyer, return of items and amounts taken away at the beginning of custody etc.). On the other hand, it was noted whether the questioning – which never takes places in the offices reserved for the purpose, but instead always in the offices of OPJs (generally speaking in the floors over the police custody facilities) –, was conducted in the sole presence of the OPJ with authority in the case, or if other persons were also present. Finally, the existence of a police officer (lieutenant, captain or commander) specifically responsible for police custody was verified at the time of each inspection. This post is intended to consolidate managerial control of the conduct of police custody. It results from the ministerial directive of 11th March 2003. The signature of the register by persons in police custody in principle takes place at the time of the return of the items taken away from them, that is to say when the custody is brought to an end. In this context, the signature is doubly important: it certifies that all of their personal effects have been returned; it also establishes, assuming that it has been possible to read it, that the information concerning the various different stages of the police custody are accurate. This fact naturally increases the veracity of the register45. In the course of the inspections conducted in police stations, the Contrôle Général realised that the practice of signature of the register at the end of custody was in no way in general use, but that, on the contrary, a very different practice appeared to be widespread, consisting of getting the person to sign the register at the commencement of police custody, that is to say at the bottom of a blank page as yet containing no information. This way of doing things might be understandable. The formalities for the commencement of police custody are always carried out under the control of an OPJ, since only senior law enforcement officers can make placement decisions. On the other hand, placement measures can be brought to an end at any time and an OPJ may not necessarily be available. However, this argument is unconvincing, since follow-up measures after placement in police custody are decided upon by the State Prosecutor’s Office, and the practical end thereof is not subject to any special formalities. An ordinary police officer can equally well take the person’s signature of the register, under conditions enabling inter partes assessment of the different stages 44 Here we have no wish to mention other more unclear intentions on the part of officers, by nature unverifiable. Strangely, this aspect is disputed by the Interior minister, on the grounds that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide that signatures attest to the truth. However the law is not always necessary for proper sense. 45 43