UMDs remain and are henceforth governed by the provisions of ordinary law concerning treatment without consent. The interministerial directive (instruction interministérielle) of 15th September 2014 17, only answers the demands set out by the CGLPL in a very partial manner. Indeed, the directive provides that: “as far as regulatory provisions with regard to UMDs (articles R. 3222-3 to R. 3222-8 of the CSP) are concerned, they remain for the most part applicable but may rapidly change in the short-term. However, the Council of State case law (CE, 13th March 2013, SCP PEIGNOT, no. 354976) henceforth has to be taken into consideration, according to which: “The representative of the State for the French department in which a person is hospitalised by court order is competent to decide alone, by virtue of their special police powers, upon the transfer of this person to another institution, even if the latter is located in another department. There is no need for the representative of the State for the latter department to take any measure of hospitalisation by court order for the transfer procedure”. This decision invalidates article R. 3222-2.” Since neither of the two recommendations previously addressed to the authorities by the Contrôleur Général have received any precise response, the situation of the patients concerned has scarcely improved. Certain patients are still waiting for their transfer to a site providing greater respect for the maintenance of their family ties and promoting favourable development of their state of health. 2.5 Opinion of the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté of 14th October 2011 concerning the use of videoconferencing with regard to persons deprived of liberty The Contrôleur Général published an Opinion concerning the use of videoconferencing with regard to persons deprived of liberty in the Journal Officiel of 9th November 2011. By means of this Opinion, the CGLPL recalled that although the use of videoconferencing may sometimes be an unavoidable palliative measure, it should not in any case come to be used as a convenience without further qualification, and should above all be specifically supervised. The Annual Report for 2013 (cf. § 6 of section 2) examined the creation of courtrooms within psychiatric treatment institutions with a view to ending the use of videoconferencing. The provisions of article 14 of the Act of 27th September 2013, amending certain provisions resulting from Act no. 2011-803 of 5th July 2011 concerning the rights and protection of persons subject to psychiatric treatment and the practical details of their care and treatment, came into effect on 1st September 2014. This represents a move in the right direction, although the number of visits conducted in 2013 and 2014 does not yet enable an overall Opinion to be given with regard to the practical application of the requirements provided for by law. Certain hospitals have taken measures to fit out courtrooms in accordance with both legal requirements and patients’ needs; in certain urban centres, patients are to be transported from their places of hospitalisation to a single courtroom: the improvement intended by the Act needs to be verified. 17 Interministerial directive (instruction interministérielle) DGS/MC4/DGOS/DLPAJ no. 2014-262 of 15th September 2014 concerning the application of Act no. 2013-869 of 27th September 2013 for the amendment of certain provisions arising from Act no. 2011-803 of 5th July 2011 concerning the rights and protection of persons subject to psychiatric treatment and the practical details of their care and treatment, published in the Bulletin officiel Santé – Protection sociale – Solidarité no. 2014/10 of 15th November 2014. 30