Finally, brassières are only systematically taken away from women in police custody in one of the four gendarmeries. The number of occurrences may be small. However, the policy adopted is indeed that of adapting the measure to the person’s state and character. The fact that no more tragedies result therefrom clearly shows the difficulty of following the logic of systematic confiscation. It is not deemed necessary to here provide proof thereof: it has already been produced. 2.2.2.2. –Practical details of Rest As recalled above with regard to police stations, periods of police custody should be punctuated with periods of rest for the person, which should be noted in the official record of the end of police custody (article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This prescription corresponds to the necessities of investigations: individuals suspected of offences or serious crimes cannot be questioned all of the time; separate operations have to be conducted in order to carry out verifications, hear witnesses etc. The length of questioning, measured by the inspectors, is very short52 in comparison to the length of police custody. However, rest also serves to protect the physical well-being of persons in police custody and their capacity to defend themselves. On the contrary, deprivation of sleep, above all if it imposed in order to obtain confessions, is an inhuman and degrading treatment according to the meaning of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rest is therefore far from being a minor aspect of police custody: in certainly constitutes an “appropriate guarantee”53 thereof according to the meaning understood by the Constitutional Council of France. The manner in which these rests are organised needs to be clarified with regard to the national gendarmerie. In inspections of gendarmeries the Contrôle Général has often observed that “the periods of rest, as set out in the registers and above all in the official records of the end of police custody, take place in part in cells and also in part, sometimes for significant lengths of time, in the soldiers’ vehicles or in questioning rooms.” There are two practical explanations for this approach: needless movements for short periods should be avoided (on-the-spot investigations without the presence of the person in police custody; no reason to return to the gendarmerie); questioning rooms should be preferred to secure rooms for the “comfort” of the person in police custody, since the latter scarcely present any comfortable elements: in particular, they are often dimly lit even during the daytime (weak bulb behind a block of glass) and above all, with a few rare exceptions (renovations since 2008), the cells are practically never heated. It is therefore, with regard to the latter point, more in accordance with respect for the dignity of persons to spare them from being cold. The Contrôle Général willingly agrees with the latter conclusion, but cannot subscribe to the line of reasoning that leads to it. The issue in question is the nature of the rest. Yet, from the remarks made by the heads of the gendarmeries inspected, the conviction (apart from “those are the directives”, which cannot be deemed sufficient) or the idea emerges that during police custody there are only two possible situations: questioning and rest. Not only, therefore, as moreover is abundantly shown 52 The length of police custody could probably be reduced in a certain number of scenarios, already noted by the Contrôle Général, for example with regard to road traffic offences etc. 53 Cf. Conseil constitutionnel, décisions no. 2010-14/22 QPC of 30th July 2010, consid. 25 and n° 2011-125 QPC of 6th May 2011, consid. 7. 49