OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FRENCH CGLPL If the person is not in a condition to give consent, the agreement of another responsible individual selected outside the administration having charge of the person, where deprived of liberty, must be obtained. For foreigners not proficient in French, an interpreter must be made available before obtaining their consent. In cases where the person has been able to choose a lawyer (apart from officially appointed counsel), the latter can supplant the client in the agreement to be given beforehand. 9/ Even where the person’s agreement to it is secured, the judicial or police authority must be able, in the actual course of proceedings, to decide against the use of video conferencing of its own motion or at the request of the person or of his/her counsel, if such use is shown by the facts of the case or by any other circumstance to be liable to impair their discernment, if the examination of the case requires a hearing in the presence of the person concerned, if a technical difficulty has arisen, or if the confidentiality of the means of transmission is not certified. 10/ Where proceedings are public, the courtrooms needed for audiovisual telecommunication must without exception be open to the public. Where not public, confidentiality must rather be ensured. In particular, a record of both parties’ submissions, drawn up by a person authorised to do so by whoever issues the decision, must certify retrospectively that the admission of the public was made possible or, conversely, that the staff responsible for the custody of the person deprived of liberty did not intervene in the proceedings on any account; it must mention the general conditions under which the operation was carried out. 11/ In every case, it must be ensured that counsel (or any third party, if authorised to act in defence) is present and, if not present, must at all times be able to confer with the person on trial with guaranteed confidentiality. The aforementioned record must establish this. 12/ In matters to be determined where factual questions (particularly of evidence) outweigh strictly legal questions, or where the character or the explications of the person concerned are a decisive factor in the decision to be taken. On the other hand, video conferencing must be possible in a very general way for hearings of a purely formal or purely legal nature. 110