the issues resulting from these shortcomings; after the inspection she may have been able to take the first corrective measures. At the CEF of Hendaye, the dangers at the time of the inspection were of a far more material nature, threatening the children’s health and placing them in danger of physical injury. On the one hand, at the time of their on-site investigations, the inspectors discovered meat that was several months past its use-by date in the institution’s freezers. It is impossible to assert that this meat could have been eaten, but proof of the contrary was obviously not provided. A real risk therefore existed. On the other hand, pedestrian access to the institution is not possible in a manner ensuring safety. Although children accompanied by tutors could therefore enter the institution by car, via a roadway prohibited to walkers (because lacking the corresponding areas), they can only leave and return to the institution by crossing the railway (and tramway) lines that connect France and Spain, at their own risk. It is well known that adolescents in young offenders’ institutions tend to run away, often for short periods (to buy cigarettes etc.). The layout of the premises exposes these children to risks above and beyond those usually incurred in leaving an institution without authorisation from the team of youth workers. It is obviously not enough to assert that, in leaving an institution without permission, children are defying a prohibition and therefore do so at their own risk. The fundamental right to life means that appropriate measures need to be taken in view of the usual behaviours observed in such places. In other words, respect for fundamental rights is an extremely realist consideration. This spirit constitutes the foundation of the Contrôle Général’s action. 1.2 The three Opinions Published in 2013 This refers to three documents made public according to the ordinary procedure under article 10 of the Act of 30th October 2007. One is concerned with psychiatric institutions and the other two with prisons. 1.2.1 Discharge from Units for Difficult Psychiatric Patients1 In the course of their inspections of units for difficult psychiatric patients2 (two had been inspected at 31st December 2013), it came to the attention of the inspectors that, while there are sometimes issues of waiting time as far as admission to UMDs is concerned (due to availability of beds), discharge is often an equally sensitive matter. This is not attributable to the illness. Contrary to generally accepted preconceptions, under appropriate treatment, the illnesses suffered by many UMD patients undergo a process of change, and the danger that they may have presented to themselves and others at a given stage of their condition is abated or disappears3. There is therefore no longer any reason for these patients to remain in units which are no longer suitable for them, and are moreover often far from their places of residence, and they should return to their treatment institution of origin, after a Journal Officiel of 5th February 2012, text 0030. Units for difficult psychiatric patients or UMD (Unités pour malades difficiles) are hospital units catering for patients suffering from mental illnesses, whose violent state has led to their being judged undesirable in ordinary psychiatric units. 3 Thus in 2011, in the UMD of Montfavet, the average length of stay in the unit showing the longest stays (Les Tilleuls) was 170 days. In Cadillac, in 2010 the number of admissions to the UMD was equal to the number of discharges: forty-eight (for a capacity of forty-six beds). 15 1 2