to the family. It specifies whether or not the request is authorised, the manner in which it is scheduled and the date, time and length of the visit. Within another unit of the same kind, visits may be mediated and take place in the presence of a nurse. The inspectors were informed that, apart from being a security measure, this was above all intended to reassure the families. In the latter UMD, the door is left open during visits. Smoking, eating, drinking, using telephones, taking photographs and making videos is prohibited during visits. Following the section that it devoted to the maintenance of family ties in the Annual Report for 2010, the CGLPL considers that all useful measures should be implemented in order to ensure that visits to hospitalised close relations take place under conditions promoting the maintenance of family and emotional ties. Accordingly restrictions such as the prohibition of items, the presence of a third party or restrictive procedures with regard to visiting authorisations can only be tolerated on a case-by-case basis, following a justified decision on the part of the medical professionals. Similarly, the placing of limitations upon the frequency of telephone calls should be the result of a medical decision and come within the framework of a treatment protocol. Yet, the CGLPL observes that, far from encouraging telephone communications, numerous institutions impose restrictions due either to material considerations, or fear of improper use. The rules applicable to the possession of mobile phones are very diverse, sometimes between units within the same institution, without it always being possible to understand the reasons for which cellular phones are authorised in one department – subject to precautions for the prevention of thefts – and formally prohibited in another. In certain units visited, telephones are thus kept in the nurse’s office, and handed back on request, even in the case of voluntarily hospitalised patients; in other units they are strictly prohibited, without it being possible to determine any general therapeutic grounds for these disparities. A few examples can be used to illustrate these differences. In one institution in the East of France the use of mobile phones is prohibited and the latter have to be handed over to the family or medical staff, even in the case of voluntarily hospitalised patients. Within one institution in Picardy, all mobile phones are taken away on principle on patients’ arrival and, depending on the unit, they may or may not be handed back, on the basis of a medical opinion, when they are allowed out into the grounds, for those who have access to the latter. For its part, one institution in the South of France, only authorises telephone calls by means of the department’s mobile phone, and on the basis of a medical opinion in the case of long-stay patients. In UMDs, patients have their mobile phones taken away, which are placed in a safe until their discharge from the institution. The presentation booklet given to them specifies that telephone access is subject to authorisation by the doctor and managed by the medical teams. The example of one institution in the Paris suburbs constitutes good practice to be promoted. Patients can keep their mobile phones, the only restriction being the prohibition of using them to take photographs. Indeed, the possibility that these apparatuses offer of photographing other patients and staff, without their knowledge, is apparently the original reason for the prohibition of their use in most institutions. This argument is admissible within the framework of image rights and should be given special attention within treatment units. 136