that these practices are in general use (the same practices were noted during the inspection of Roissy Airport43), they are at least in partial use. In any case, at best, it appears that practices often vary according to the official. The second assertion, for its part, is also unverifiable, since there are no documents, signed in the presence of the parties involved, making it possible to retrace foreigners’ brief stays in the airport, from hour to hour, between their arrival and departure. Although there are registers, they are far from being accurately kept: in particular, with regard to the time of departure which, when shown, is not accompanied with the foreigner’s signature. As a result, the facts cannot be established. Finally, with regard to luggage, on several occasions the foreigners questioned contradicted the information given by the police, pointing out that their luggage only reached them after the decision to place them in the waiting zone had been taken. If this is a true indication, the police presumably keep the luggage for as long as there is a chance of being able to quickly remove persons refused entry. Everything seems to indicate a variety of practices, some of which may be highly expeditious. In any case, the effectiveness of the acknowledged rights belonging to foreigners arriving at the border without the required documents (right to apply for asylum, possibility of being notified of refusal of entry, as well as the rights accompanying such refusal, in a language that they understand, possibility of notifying a certain number of people in France, right to the benefit of a clear day) makes it necessary to ensure that respect for these rights is verifiable. It is therefore demanded that the stages of completion of the procedure, or least the parts thereof that guarantee effective application of the above-mentioned rights, should be noted down in the presence of the parties involved44. Such is not currently the case: in one (major) airport, the inspectors ascertained the absence of any directive on the part of the senior management with regard to the application of the clear day and the deadline within which foreigners refused entry may be “immediately” removed. We therefore recommended that a register, comparable to that provided for in waiting areas strictly speaking and mentioned under article L. 221-3 of the CESEDA, should be instituted in the police stations making it possible to retrace the whole of the operations carried out there. 2.1.2.2.2 Facilities It will easily be admitted that there is no airport on French territory that is designed for holding people against their will; and the same applies to ports and railway stations. Transport infrastructures of this kind are by nature places that people pass through quickly, otherwise, in cases where people do stay in them (in transit for example), they are equipped with some facilities to ensure that the experience of spending time in them is pleasant. As a result, the premises used are structurally unsuitable for the deprivation of liberty and dependent upon the good will of the manager of the airport, which is the owner of the premises, whose enthusiasm for accommodating foreigners refused entry to the country is not always readily apparent. Unsuitability of Facilities. Foreigners refused entry, when not confined to a “wing” with a view to their immediate departure, are either housed in narrow rooms, equipped in any manner possible within the premises: such is the case in particular in airports of modest or medium dimensions; at LyonSaint Exupéry Airport there are two rooms containing bunk beds – two in the first, which 43 44 Cf. the aforementioned report of the contrôle général , in particular pages 7 (for the interpreter), 9, 15 and 38. Cf. access to defence rights and access to medical treatment in detention in sections 4 and 5 of this report. 27