among the guarantees implemented: the obligation to inform the public of the existence of video surveillance devices; the possibility given to persons of gaining access to images concerning them and obtaining the destruction thereof within a deadline of one month; the possibility open to them of referring the matter to a departmental video surveillance committee; and the destruction of images after one month. None of these guarantees is applicable in the case of police custody. It will undoubtedly be pointed out that persons who are in police custody are suspected of having committed or of intention to commit offences and that they do not deserve the same consideration as persons peacefully strolling on the public highway. The objection might also be raised that it is inherent to the very nature of police custody that persons should be under visual and, if necessary, continuous observation. However, these considerations are all the less relevant to the question insofar as “suspicion” rarely gives rise to any charges 85, and cameras can also record the images of persons placed there for reasons of public and manifest drunkenness. The real question is that of determining whether, as far as the images of persons in police custody are concerned, the guarantees established by the act of 1978, which as we have just seen are applicable, are sufficient in terms of the need to reconcile the prevention of risks of assault with the respect due to persons held in police custody. These guarantees, which for the most part are contained in articles 41 and 42 of the Act 86, take the form of an indirect right of access (that is to say through the CNIL on behalf of the applicant) in order to disclose, rectify or delete data. In the case in question, in view of the time allowed for action, applications of this kind can hardly consist of anything more than verification by the CNIL that the data has been deleted (rectification not being relevant in the case of images). However, on the one hand, the deadline of one month within which images have to be deleted, for which provision is m ade with regard to images recorded on the public highway and in premises open to the public, is not applicable in this case, and there is no text providing for such deletion. On the other hand, there are no guarantees other than the right of access: and yet, in the ruling of 18th January 1995 in which it judged the law to be more or less balanced, the Constitutional Council singled out seven guarantees which mutually complemented each other. In this case, persons are not informed of the use of surveillance equipment; there is no possibility of making applications for access to images from the managers of such equipment; and there is no departmental committee offering guarantees of independence to which matters of this kind can be quickly referred. To put it plainly, this constitutes an imbalance, due in particular to the absence of any provision with regard to deletion, which is not satisfactory and should no longer be ignored by the authorities. Finally, in the third place, this impression of imbalance is confirmed by the observations made concerning practices in police custody facilities, especially, for the reason that has been stated, in police stations. When interviewed by the inspectors with regard to the length of time for which images are stored after being recorded, police officers for the most part express either ignorance on this point, or hesitation. When a period of time is stated, it varies according to the establishment, or even according to the person interviewed: thirty-two days, eighteen days etc. In reality, it appears that nobody knows or is concerned about the system of operation. It is true that one might assume, conversely, that this uncertainty is a reflection of the rarity with which the recordings thus made are used. However, with regard to images that concern personal dignity, greater precision should be required. Certain behaviours give even greater cause for concern. Having mentioned the rapidity with which the memory of the video surveillance system installed in a police station became overloaded, the officers pointed out that in order to make up for this lack of storage space, they 85 Similarly, it should be recalled that only 10% of persons placed in police custody are imprisoned, a percentage that remains relatively stable. 86 Concerning, in particular, the processing of data relating to public security. 42