To succeed, there needs to be a radical overhaul in the definition of criminal policy guidance by the Ministry of Justice and therefore by the Government; in short, the fight against prison overcrowding must become a fully-fledged public policy in its own right. In the psychiatry sector, we are only seeing the first inklings of awareness: the risks of abuse in terms of solitary confinement and restraint have been identified - if not yet stamped out - but what needs to change is the way patients are viewed: no longer solely as the objects of treatment but as people with rights and whose freedoms must be respected without other restrictions than those associated with their condition - and that includes when they are committed involuntarily (sectioned). Recently, the deprivation of foreign nationals' freedom has gained fresh significance in the CGLPL's work. Over and above the regular checks carried out in detention centres for illegal immigrants, we cannot help but be alarmed by the angle from which the migrant question is currently being addressed. First of all, places where people are deprived of liberty have become less clearly defined: the evacuations from the camps set up in Paris or the Calais region have given rise to brief or informal types of restriction at odds with both the individuals' rights and the deportation target which is nevertheless the condition of the legality of detention. The re-establishment of internal borders has spawned new practices, depriving detained migrants of basic rights: summary proceedings are initiated in precarious places. It was the CGLPL's duty to take up such violations of rights. Furthermore, the number of children detained is rising, the possibility of extending the maximum detention from 45 to 90 days is under consideration, and the President of the Republic has broached the subject before the European Court of Human Rights solely in terms of efficiency, deportation rates and expedited asylum processing times, pointing out that, with failed asylum seekers, it is now necessary "to be uncompromising". On 17 and 18 November 2017, the CGLPL organised a symposium to mark the tenth anniversary of the Act that founded it; these two days were an opportunity to hear from those who had decided on and laid the groundwork for its creation, those who have upheld the institution and those whose work make it possible to identify new challenges. The symposium was also an occasion to go back over the progress and the expectations of the CGLPL in terms of the fundamental rights of people deprived of their liberty. In ten years, the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté will at the very least have changed the way French society views those it locks away. First and foremost - and this is fundamental - it will have put the theme of deprivation of liberty on the public agenda: you can see this in the number of requests it receives from the media, associations and groups of professionals. You can also see this in the number of exchanges the Chief Inspector holds with people deprived of their liberty who ask it to take action so as to guarantee that their fundamental rights are respected. The authority gained by the institution goes far beyond its own message: it also lends weight to the messages of a large number of stakeholders, which their charitable status previously kept out of the limelight or cloaked in suspected bias. The impact of the efforts of the CGLPL can first and foremost be felt in the facilities it inspects. Naturally, in exceptional cases it can obtain far-reaching measures to address exceptionally serious situations: examples in this context are Les Baumettes prison complex, Ain psychotherapy centre or a number of juvenile detention centres. Fortunately, such serious situations are rare, however. More day-to-day, across most facilities, the Chief Inspector works to change the actual lives of people deprived of their liberty with immediate effect, and when one is detained the simplest things can become hugely important. So a recommendation that facilitates access to care, that promotes contact with family members, that limits the use of humiliating security measures or which enhances the confidentiality of exchanges can make a big difference for the people for whom it has been made. 9