to be contrary to the Constitution74, as had already been suggested in legal scholarship 75. However, the latter ruling is marginal with regard to the application of the police custody system. Has the Act of 14th April 2011 manifestly changed the practices of senior law-enforcement officers and police custody procedures, as observed by the Contrôleur général during its inspections after the passing of the Act? It may be a matter of doubt. In the first place, in the course of their interviews the inspectors have not heard any remonstrations or complaints concerning the non-application of the Act (assuming that the details of its provisions are known). Even with regard to questions about which the legislature has taken various different positions over the years (informing persons of the possibility of remaining silent) or that have aroused strong reservations on the part of security professionals (presence of the lawyer during questioning), there has been no mention of any refusal to apply the reform of 2011, the implementation of which, moreover, was quickly passed on through the departments, quite apart from the government circulars, by unequivocal memoranda from their managers. It is sometimes mentioned that “initially” the lawyers had some difficulty in remaining silent during the questioning (the act provides that they have to be present and “take notes”) but that habitual routines quickly became established. In the second place, the presence of lawyers does not appear to cause any major concrete problems, either with regard to compliance with the deadline of two hours between the sending of notice to them and the beginning of questioning (article 63-4-2 of the code of criminal procedure) or in terms of organisation of the Bar in order to ensure the arrival of a lawyer as quickly as possible. In some cases, in particular in gendarmeries, senior law-enforcement officers (OPJ) may agree to a deadline of more than two hours, if they are sure (as a matter of habit for example) that the lawyer is going to arrive within a longer, but reasonable, period of time. There are also situations in which, either the time required for arrival of the lawyers greatly exceeds two hours, or none of the duty lawyers come who have been called upon; however, these situations are very rare, although they may form a significant percentage in certain geographical areas (in particular in gendarmeries and the Parisian suburbs). However, in view of increased organisation among the Bars, the number of lawyers called (usually via a duty number) who do not arrive before the end of the period of police custody has probably decreased. In the third place, the use of lawyers has not been significantly increased by the new system. Before the Act of 2011, the percentage of persons in police custody requesting a lawyer was between 25 and 30%, depending on the facilities inspected. Today it is presumably a little higher. But there has not been any mass trend in this direction. However, the moderate nature of the trend should not lead us to conclude that the increase will not continue. The opposite (a slow but continuous increase) is very likely. This raises problems since there are police stations, and above all gendarmeries, that do not possess any premises equipped for the holding of interviews between persons in police custody and their lawyers. The obligation to promote such conversations constitutes an objective to be fulfilled76. Finally, senior law-enforcement officers did not mention any major inconvenience, in the conduct of investigations, arising for them as a result of the new way of working. Moreover, some of them were very pleased with its implementation, demanding greater openness and more pacified relations with lawyers. 74 th Ruling no. 2011-223 QPC (Priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality) of 17 February 2012, Lawyers of the Bar Association of Bastia. 75 For example, Mrs Julie ALIX, “Les droits de la défense au cours de l’enquête de police après la réforme de la garde à vue : état des lieux et perspectives” [“The right to defence in the course of police investigations after the reform of police custody: assessment of the situation and prospects”], Dalloz, 2011, Chron. [Law Reports] p. 1699. 76 On this point see section 4 of this report concerning access to defence rights. 39