informed of the measure. Contrary to procedures applied to adults, police officers or gendarmes are often sent to the family home if it has not been possible to speak with anybody directly by telephone. These procedures should draw the consequences of the provisions of article 4 of the statutory instrument of 2nd February 1945 concerning juvenile delinquency, which confers upon “legal representatives” the right to appoint a lawyer for their child if the latter has not requested one and to request a medical examination for minors over sixteen years of age 232: at the time of contacting parents, police officers or gendarmes should inform them of this right. However, it has been ascertained that the latter is rarely implemented. However the absence of details with regard to requests for lawyers and doctors in both official records and police custody registers does not make it possible to determine to whom this situation is attributable and, above all, to verify that such information has indeed been issued to the legal representatives. Notification of employers The notification of employers provided for under article 63-2 of the code of criminal procedure enables the latter to bring professional documents to persons in police custody, which they can cite in the police report concerning them. When requested, this notification is sent in a very short space of time, under conditions comparable to those governing the notification of close relations. Nevertheless, in practice the inspectors have rarely ascertained notification of an employer in addition to that issued to the family, as henceforth provided for by law 233; in view of the police reports, it appears that in most cases persons in police custody either inform a member of their family or their employer, without it being possible to determine if this is really the result of conscious choice or whether the full information provided for by law was not issued to them. Notification of guardians and conservators Senior law-enforcement officers (OPJ) affirm that they systematically question persons placed in police custody with regard to the existence of legal protection measures, but that they only rarely encounter situations of this kind. The official records handed over to the inspectors do not make it possible to verify the reality of these assertions. Above all, from the comments made by OPJs it emerges that they do not have a detailed knowledge of legal protection measures and of the effect thereof. In fact, the software application which they use for the notification of rights does not provide for the questioning of persons placed in police custody on this point. The law provides, as in the scenario mentioned in the preceding section above, that notification of guardians and conservators can be combined with that issued to employers, but not with the possibility of informing a close relation. This restriction is regrettable, close relations and guardians having different roles with regard to adult wards. The law does not attribute a special role to guardians; at this stage, in practice, the latter simply take note of the measure; sometimes they may be interview subsequently, if the OPJ considers this to be useful. In reality, the difficulties of persons protected by wardship – impairment of physical or mental capacities – and the position of guardians responsible for their protection, should lead to the latter being granted the possibility of requesting medical and, if necessary, psychiatric examinations. Notification of consulates 232 Minors under sixteen years of age are automatically subject to medical examination. th 233 Act no. 2011-392 of 14 April 2011 concerning police custody, article 4. 150