possibility of persons implicated in the same case communicating between different cells. In such scenarios, at the risk of giving rise to extra travel, it would be better to plan custody in different premises, including by means of better cooperation between the police and the gendarmerie. Nevertheless, in most cases, the only sound in question is that of the shouting necessary in order to make oneself heard in case of need and, if this is not enough, even louder banging against the doors (in anticipation of which persons in police custody often have their shoes taken away – rather than just the laces). Moreover, the prevalence of yelling and banging seems to imply that calls for assistance in front of the camera lens are relatively rarely followed by any short-term effects. The installation of intercom systems in cells constitutes a solution in case of calls for assistance of this kind, which sometimes go unnoticed for too long. Indeed, the Contrôleur général has called for this measure in order to make up for the absence of personnel in gendarmeries at night, when there are persons in custody present in the premises 88. However, it certainly needs to be borne in mind that intercom is not the “poor relation” of video surveillance. In a way it is the very opposite. Whereas the latter allows the presence of distance between guards and persons in custody, the former leads to persons deprived of liberty being placed at the centre of the work of those responsible for them. Personnel sometimes find it difficult to put up with inopportune interruptions of this kind, especially when they occur without good reason, and even more so when they happen repeatedly. Something which can easily happen in a situation that tends to give rise to anxiety and provocation. Therefore, one may well assume that systems of this kind do not attract much enthusiasm among officers. There is another difference between the two different systems. Unlike video surveillance, intercom systems can be disconnected by the persons receiving the calls, because they are busy with other tasks or because they do not consider it appropriate to receive them. Any checks that may be necessary with regard to such cases of disconnection are difficult to accomplish. Similarly, intercom systems require equipment to be installed inside the cell itself: damage may therefore be caused to such equipment, as to everything else. As in the case of other technical equipment, maintenance and repair may require long waiting periods. For these reasons, quite apart from questions of cost, the development of intercom in police custody facilities remains limited and, therefore, shouting and banging on the doors continues to be the usual means of making oneself heard 89. Indeed, in police stations it is extremely rare for officers to forestall these kinds of situations. A number of conclusions can be drawn from these observations. Whatever the technology that is used, the presence of staff and the requirement for dialogue are indispensable. In situations which are always difficult to manage, a human presence is the most reliable guarantee of custody without excessive tensions; and all the more so when there are risks of danger. Whatever the technology used, it must therefore allow the safeguarding of dignity and of personal privacy in particular. Any equipment whose installation disregards this principle should be identified and removed. 88 rd Recommendations of 23 February 2010 concerning the gendarmeries of Chambray-les-Tours (Indre-et-Loire), Ecole-Valentin (Doubs) and Migennes (Yonne) published in the Journal officiel of 4th March 2010. 89 This common feature of deprivation of liberty in France has already been mentioned with regard to waiting areas: banging on doors in order to make oneself heard. The disappearance of this practice would constitute proof of decisive progress in favour of captives in the country. 44