As far as the application of the Act of 2011 is concerned, in its Annual Report for the year 201284 the Contrôle Général had raised questions about the following points: - in the first place, about the criticisms to which the new provisions gave rise among certain psychiatrists, which led some of them to systematically declare (therefore without any real connection to the patient’s state of health) that patients were incapable of going through a hearing85; in other words, for this reason, the Act was not applied in a uniform manner in mental health institutions; - in the second place, with regard to the doubts concerning the role of the liberty and custody judge in this area and the nature of the control that should be exercised by the latter, in particular in light of hearings at which inspectors had been present; - in the third place, with regard to the conditions of appearance before the judge: on the one hand, manifestations of the illness or of the diagnosis thereof could be revealed in a public hearing; yet, the latter may sometimes be the first circumstance enabling the reuniting of patients and their close relations, including (in the case of committal to treatment at the request of a third party) those having called for their committal; on the other hand, the moving of the patient to the TGI, often in public view, was a source of incomprehension and terror, though probably less so than use of videoconferencing, which was nonetheless recommended by certain judges86. The responses to the first two points did not involve the law itself, but rather the pedagogy with which it needed to be accompanied. Time has not neutralised all criticisms on the part of professionals. However, this situation should change: the Contrôle Général has noted the existence of dialogue between organisations grouping psychiatrists together and the legislature. However, it would be desirable for the law to be applied to all patients in the same manner as rapidly as possible, and all the more so insofar as, as is well-known, sectorial divisions render the choice between different institutions and units very limited, or even inexistent. The rate at which this can be achieved is difficult to assess, in the absence of any statistics, known to the Contrôle Général, concerning use of the second paragraph of article L. 3211-12-2 of the Code, and therefore of any gauge of this form of opposition to the appearance of patients at hearings on the part of professionals. On the other hand, time has helped judges, in the course of hearings, to better evaluate their role, which is that of determining, not whether committal to psychiatric treatment is justified or not, but whether the grounds justifying the continuation of treatment without consent are adequate and appropriate. On the other hand, arrangements for the conditions of appearance of patients at hearings came entirely under the authority of the legislature, subject to areas of jurisdiction with regard to the power to make regulations. Considerable adjustments have been made to the conditions of appearance at hearings for patients, which are in accordance with the Contrôle Général’s recommendations: - with regard to respect for private life, the law (article L. 3211-12-2 of the Code) provides that, if they deem necessary, judges can decide to continue the hearing in chambers (that is to say without any public presence); they may also make such decisions at the request of a party; - all reference to videoconferencing has been abandoned; 84 P. 71 et seq. Cf. the second paragraph of article L. 3211-12-2 of the Public Health Code (Code de la santé publique). 86 On this point see the testimonies collected by the inspectors appearing in Section 6 below. 85 77