removed even though the 48-hour time-limit for being able to appeal against an obligation to leave French territory (OQTF) had not expired, and that the person could not therefore lawfully be removed. In response to the CGLPL's requests for explanations, the General Director for Foreigners in France specified that most of the cases submitted could be explained by material errors in the transmission of information between the people concerned by the procedures. He conceded that these unlawful practices should not have happened and that a reminder had been sent to the prefectures concerned in this respect. The Chief Inspector is remaining vigilant as regards respect for the fundamental right to benefit from effective remedies in detention centres, since such removals completely cancel out any possible consequences of having lawfully exercised rights to appeal. Overseas, the right to effective appeal is also neglected. Prior to 2016, appeals against deportation measures in these territories did not have a suspensive effect. The Act of 7 March 2016 introduced a provision in the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum allowing people against whom an obligation to leave Overseas France has been handed down to benefit from suspensive remedy where they demonstrate a serious violation of a fundamental freedom via an appeal on the grounds of Article L.521-2 of the Administrative Justice Code (interim liberty decision). In such a case they cannot be removed "until the court hearing the applications for interim measures has informed the parties that a public hearing will or will not be held (…), or, if the parties have been informed of such a hearing, until the court has ruled on the request"36. And yet, according to information brought to the Chief Inspector's attention, removals from the French Guiana and Guadeloupe detention centres are enforced so quickly that such appeals are sometimes simply impossible to exercise. Accordingly, the CGLPL has been referred cases concerning several detention centres for illegal immigrants where the migrants were removed after having submitted an interim application before the administrative court. In the cases reported, removal was enforced extremely swiftly, before the administrative court had time to rule on whether or not a hearing would be held. In all, fourteen similar situations have been reported to the CGLPL in French Guiana, and four in Guadeloupe. The Chief Inspector contacted the head of Les Abymes detention centre for illegal immigrants about an initial situation in May 2017. He replies that he had received late notice of the existence of the appeal by the administrative court, after the removal had taken place. Upon being referred several other similar cases, the Chief Inspector contacted the Prefect of the Guadeloupe Region in December 2017 as well as the President of the Administrative Court of Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthélémy and SaintMartin to find out what system is in place for enabling immediate suspension of a removal measure where there is an interim liberty application and, where applicable, what measures are taken to prevent recurrence of these situations. The President of the Administrative Court of Guadeloupe, SaintBarthélémy and Saint-Martin confirmed the increase in such procedures en 2017. He explained that these situations were problematic in view of the right to effective appeal, given the swiftness of the removals carried out and lack of suspensive effect of the time-limit for remedy or the presentation of an appeal. The Chief Inspector also contacted the head of Matoury detention centre for illegal immigrants as well as the Prefect of French Guiana about similar cases in April 2017. Despite several reminders, these authorities have still not replied. The Grand Chamber judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of de Souza Ribeiro v. France of 13 December 2012 (following which the provision in the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA) was adopted, introducing a suspensive interim liberty application Overseas) nevertheless indicated that "in order to be effective, the remedy 36 Article L.514-1 of the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum. 87