More specifically, the French National Assembly’s social affairs committee delegated the task of elaborating proposals to a fact-finding mission on mental health and the future of psychiatry. This mission produced a progress report in the spring of 2013: this was used as the basis of Act no. 2013-869 of 27th September 2013 (published on the 29th), which amended the Act of 5th July 2011, within the deadline called for by the constitutional court. The mission handed over its final report to the social affairs committee, which adopted it on 18th December 2013, approving thirty proposals in particular. Further legislative changes are therefore to be expected concerning mental health (the authorities are planning an act in this regard) but probably in areas other than treatment without consent. The Act of 27th September 2013 not only corrected the provisions criticised by the Constitutional Council but was also intended to remedy difficulties highlighted by the application of the Act of 2011. Points were clarified, respectively by article 4 and point b of 5° under section IV of article 10 of the provisions of the text of 2011, of which the uncertainties had led the Constitutional Council to rule that the guarantees for persons thus coming under these measures were inadequate. The Constitutional Council will no doubt return to this question by means of a priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality (question prioritaire de constitutionnalité) referred to it by the Court of Cassation at 4th December 2013 (no. 2013-367) concerning the constitutionality of article L. 3222-3 of the Public health Code, which will be examined below. The Act (article 2) re-establishes the temporary discharge authorisations abolished by the text of 2011, for short periods, as part of treatment programmes that can be partly administered in hospital, and partly by means of outpatient treatment. This should give grounds for satisfaction: these temporary discharges constitute a good way of preparing for final discharge and the limitation of their duration avoids the excesses which prevailed before the Act of 2011 (involving periods of some months or even years), which were sometimes implemented on treatment grounds, but also due to management considerations. It institutes (article 3) visiting rights for mental health hospitals, as the Act of 15th June 2000 had done in the case of penal institutions. The conditions under which liberty and custody judges give rulings on measures of committal to full hospitalisation without consent are specified, in particular, insofar as, on the one hand, they henceforth have to rule within a deadline of twelve days as from admission rather than fifteen as was previously the case. On the face of it, earlier decisions on the part of judges might seem desirable: however, the doctor still needs to be in a position to give them precise information on the disorder affecting the patient; certain pieces of information can only be given after a period of scarcely less than two weeks of observation. On the other hand, the Act provides that judges can rule without a public hearing if the latter is likely to infringe the patient’s right to respect of their private life, which constitutes a satisfactory provision; and that the ruling has to be delivered in a hearing held by the judge outside of the ordinary bench of the court, in a specially-equipped room in the hospital, except in special cases. These two provisions correspond to recommendations made by the Contrôle Général65. Articles 8, 9 and 10 endeavour to limit the number of documents required of institutions and doctors by the Act of 2011 with regard to the management of patients hospitalised without consent. The institutions inspected by the Contrôle Général greatly complained of a marked increase in the number of documents to be produced in this area and streamlining efforts were probably going to be necessary. In the first place, a satisfactory balance needs to be struck: indeed, deprivation of liberty and the terms thereof (as well as treatment) call for a high level of 65 Cf. Annual Report of the CGLPL for 2012, pp. 72-73. 59