Access to computers and the Internet remains especially difficult and rare in psychiatric institutions. In the best case scenario, the patients have the right to keep their computer with a release of liability against theft - note that very few of these rooms are equipped with cupboards that can be locked by the patient. In the worst case scenario, computers are forbidden, without any justification related to the treatment. During its visits, no therapeutic activity organised around computers was observed by the CGLPL. Similarly, the institutions do not generally have access to the Internet or an internal network open to the patients. It appears that the need for safety, and especially the fear of absconding, is sometimes considered much more important than the need for healthcare. Therefore, the freedom of movement is abnormally restricted. Outings of patients admitted for psychiatric healthcare on the request of a third party (ASPDT) within the premises of the institutions are sometimes only permitted if accompanied by caretakers, for security reasons, even if the psychiatrists believe that the patient’s condition does not justify it; this practice is contrary to the provisions of the Public Health Code. Outings of patients admitted for psychiatric healthcare on the request of a State representative (ASPDRE) outside the institution are sometimes subjected by the government agency to conditions that go beyond the medical prescriptions (progressive conditions: first, accompaniment by two caretakers, then by one caretaker before authorising an accompaniment by a family member). It is also necessary to allow patients the possibility of being by themselves if they wish. In this respect, access to the rooms is often difficult: sometimes, the patients do not have the right to remain in their room during certain times “to present themselves for activities”, even though there are no or very few activities. Due to this, they remain in the living room, drowsy or even asleep. These restrictions are violations of the fundamental rights as they do not result from a requirement connected to the state of health of the patient and are not the subject of a medical decision. Such a decision must be explicit, proportional, personalised and justified by the requirements of healthcare. The absence of any recourse against this only makes for a stronger case in favour of a strict assessment of the patient’s needs. This does not imply advocating the definition of a standard institution, but reflecting on this question is a prerequisite to question whether we wish to progress in respecting the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty in psychiatric institutions. In 2015, the attention of the inspectors was especially drawn to the application of the new provisions of the Public Health Code. In fact, when these provisions were modified by the Law dated 5 July 2011, and then by the Law dated 27 September 2013, the legislator consolidated the rights and guarantees given to persons placed under psychiatric treatment without consent, in particular revising the terms of informing the patients and the intervention of the liberty and custody judge (JLD). The new provisions, integrated in Articles L 3211-1 et seq. of the Public Health Code, are fully applicable with effect from 1 September 2014. 1.1 Notifying the patient of the measure of hospitalisation without consent and informing the patient about his rights are done in principle, but this poorly controlled and often too formal act does not appear to fulfil its objective Article L. 3211-3 of the Public Health Code states that when a person is affected by mental disorders and is subjected to psychiatric healthcare without consent, any restriction upon the exercise of their individual liberties shall be adapted, necessary and proportioned to their mental state and to the implementation of the required treatment. In all circumstances, the dignity of the 15