increase, under no circumstances must it become an unconditional convenience: above all it must be clearly regulated. The CGLPL has thus set out the following recommendations: - as a general rule, video conferencing cannot be used without any official legal basis that lays down its conditions for use, and it can never be compulsory; - in the same way, no video conference may be held unless the informed consent of any plaintiff or defendant or responsible third party excluding the administration has been obtained; - in subjects where questions of fact prevail over questions of pure law or when the personality of the person concerned or his or her explanations are determining factors in the decision to be made, use of video conferencing must be the exception. On the other hand, it must generally be possible for hearings of a purely formal or purely legal nature; - even when the person concerned has given their consent, the police or judicial authority must be able to decide not to use video conferencing, including during proceedings, at the request of the person concerned or their legal counsel or in the event of a technical hitch; - when the law provides for the hearing to be broadcast publicly, all of the rooms connected by the video conferencing system must be open to the public; on the other hand, when the law provides that the hearings are confidential, the video conferencing system must be able to guarantee this confidentiality; - in all cases, the presence of legal counsel must be ensured as must the guarantee that exchanges between the person concerned and their legal counsel remain confidential; - the consideration of the savings made on the cost of external movements is not sufficient grounds for using video conferencing; - in all cases, the decision to use video conferencing must be made on a case-by-case basis and solely by the authority responsible for the proceedings and the final decision. The Ministers of the Interior, Justice and Health were all consulted prior to the publication of this opinion, but only the Minister of State for Health responded, to the tune that she did not wish to make any comments. The Prison Administration Director did, however, send a reply to the CGLPL concerning this opinion on 16 September 2016, so five years after its publication in the Journal officiel (Official Gazette). She particularly maintained that the use of video conferencing remained optional and that it could only be enforced in the event of a serious and characterised risk of public disorder or escape. She indicated that its use and development as a communication tool between lawyers and people placed in custody was in no way under consideration. Finally, she considered that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Cassation struck a relevant balance between respect for rights of defence and use of video conferencing. Act No. 2016-274 of 7 March 2016 on foreigners' rights in France has extended the possibility of using video conferencing to hearings before the administrative judge when the latter is referred an appeal to annul a decision to deport a detained foreigner. All of the CGLPL's recommendations on the use of video conferencing naturally apply to this new procedure. In view of an extended use of video conferencing, the CGLPL draws attention to its previous recommendations, according to which the use of such means may only be volunta ry, subject to a decision that is always reversible by the judge with the final say and subject to the consent of the person concerned. It particularly points out that the use of video conferencing may not alter the public or confidential nature of hearings or affect lawyer-client privilege. 59