The Court of Cassation3 held that it was for the ordinary courts to take disciplinary action regarding "false care programmes", i.e. to requalify as full-time involuntary hospitalisation any care provision arrangements which, going by another name, nevertheless bear the same characteristics. And yet, in the very hospital where the measure censured by the Court of Cassation had been taken, and which the CGLPL inspected in 2017, the medical staff considered it justified to continue this practice despite the case law. 1.2.3 Voluntary patients can be deprived of their liberty In almost all of the facilities visited, some patients are accommodated in locked wards when they are not subject to the legal sectioning regime. These patients thus find their freedom to come and go severely restricted, where their access to activities, the fresh air or such hospital facilities as sports amenities, a cafeteria, a chaplaincy or social service - and sometimes even locked courtyards - is inevitably limited. If, except on a rare few occasions, open wards only accommodate voluntary patients4, the reverse is almost never the case. This situation can come about because of organisational considerations: in some facilities only one of the psychiatric hospitals inspected in 2017 but a significant proportion of psychiatry sectors within general hospitals - there are only locked psychiatric wards. There are also hospitals where so-called "open" wards are, actually, locked. In one of the facilities visited, where a voluntary patient is accommodated on a locked ward, s/he must sign a consent form. In several other hospitals, voluntary patients admitted to open wards can, if in crisis, be moved to a locked unit, and sometimes even be placed in solitary confinement for two or three days without their hospitalisation status being updated. 1.2.4 In practically all cases, the provision model for detained patients involves systematic restrictions with no bearing on an assessment of the risks associated with their condition or behaviour Since its founding, the CGLPL has drawn the attention of successive ministers to the provision model for sectioned psychiatric patients in mental health facilities (excluding specially-equipped hospitalisation units/UHSAs). For it is nearly always standard practice for them to be placed in a seclusion room, and sometimes in restraints throughout their hospitalisation, completely regardless of any evaluation of their clinical condition. Such a practice is in clear violation of the fundamental rights of detained patients and of the provisions of the Act of 26 January 2016, on grounds that are entirely security related. In 2017, the CGLPL even inspected two institutions which went even further than the systematic placement of detained patients in solitary confinement by installing devices for accommodating them that are designed solely with a security purpose in mind - the very principle of which is at odds with the purpose of the hospital. The CGLPL thus visited one psychiatric institution, next to a long-stay prison, where the hospital seems to go along with the orders of the prison authorities, no questions asked, without the latter even having to put these officially down in writing. The result is rooms reserved for detained patients which, in all respects, resemble emergency protection cells found in places of detention, and which the patients only leave on the rare occasions the showers do not work. If the long-stay prison is 3 Court of Cassation, 4 March 2015, application no. 14-17824. This principle is itself debatable, incidentally, since there is nothing stopping an involuntary patient from being placed in an open ward. 4 16