However, these uncertainties also led to a change in the composition of the population of inmates in detention centres: the majority of those present were persons having been in police custody, as well as persons released from prison, for offences other than the sole fact of their residence papers not being in order. There was therefore a change of atmosphere in the centres, with greater circumspection before the placing of persons in detention. 2.1.1.3 Litigation As already recalled, in the follow-up to the “Mazeaud Report” proposals and with the Act of 16th June 2011, changes were introduced with regard to litigation involving foreigners in detention. Although cases can henceforth be referred to an administrative judge within forty-eight hours, for the delivery of a verdict within three days with regard to the lawfulness of deportation measures and placement in detention, the liberty and custody judge (juge des libertés et de la détention / JLD) no longer delivers a verdict on the extension of periods of detention at the end of fortyeight hours, but rather after a five-day period. This change has its rationale, which was defended by the Government when the Act was voted. In the past, the liberty and custody judge (JLD) gave a verdict on the extension of detention periods, without the lawfulness of measures of deportation or placement in detention being firmly established. Henceforth, such lawfulness is first verified – if the foreigner so wishes, by referring the matter to the competent judge. The Constitutional Council of France ratified the principle of a five-day period separating the commencement of detention and referral of the matter to the liberty and custody judge (JLD), on condition that the permissible 48 hours of police custody are not added to this period28. The associations involved in detention issues take a different view29. On the one hand, due to congestion of the courts, in many Administrative Courts submission for hearing was not possible within the allowed deadlines. Moreover, and above all, many foreigners were unable to be referred to the liberty and custody judge, since they were actually deported within the first five days of detention. According to their report, in 2010, 8.4% of persons were deported within forty-eight hours (therefore without appearing before the liberty and custody judge /JLD); in 2011, after the reform, a quarter of persons in detention were deported within five days. In other words, the lengthening to five days of the detention period during which no court action is required, would only appear to have allowed the administration to deport more foreigners in the absence of any effective judicial action. This remark is logical. However, its significance is qualified by the data contained in the report: although there was indeed a “post-reform” fall (-14%) in the number of persons released by liberty and custody judges (JLD), on the other hand, the volume of those released by administrative judges on the contrary increased (+49%) and there was a slight “post-reform” increase (+2.6%) in the overall number of foreigners released by court decision (ordinary and administrative courts) as compared with 2010 i.e. “pre-reform”. However, this data obviously needs to be followed in the long-term, in order to assess the effects, on persons placed in detention, of this reversal of judges’ respective roles. 2.1.1.4 Minors Shortly after his appointment within the Government, the Minister of the Interior announced new directives aimed at avoiding the placement in 28 Ruling no. 2011-631, op. cit., consid. 69 to 73. See the Rapport 2011 sur les centres et locaux de rétention administrative [“2011 Report on centres and facilities for the detention of illegal immigrants or of asylum seekers due to be deported”],drafted jointly by the ASSFAM, Forumth Réfugiés, France Terre d’Asile, the CIMADE and the Ordre de Malte, Paris, 18 November 2012. 29 23