USE OF VIDEO CONFERENCING (OPINION) extending the time limits) or even deciding to rule without hearing the person summoned to appear. In such instances, it is beneficial. In many other cases however, video conferencing weakens the rights of the defence in that it eliminates the party’s physical presence which is also a means of expression (all the more because many persons charged have great difficulty with their oral expression). It presupposes ease of expression in front of a camera or console and equality of persons in that respect, which are by no means assured, particularly for those who suffer from mental afflictions. Where the person has the benefit of counsel, the lawyer is compelled to choose between standing near the judge (which is done in the majority of cases) or staying close to the client: contact with either is thereby inconvenienced and the counsel’s job made more difficult. Technical contingencies can aggravate the difficulties (showing a document, protesting an exhibit…). While the use of video conferencing is a sometimes unavoidable palliative, it is not to be regarded as an unconditional facility. In order to safeguard the fundamental right held by all to make their defence, it is consequently necessary that the use of this technique, with persons deprived of liberty, be subject to perfectly clear conditions, common to the situations with which persons deprived of liberty may meet, a first approximation of which may be provided by the following principles. 7/ There can be no video conferencing without a statute that institutes it and establishes the conditions under which recourse may be had to it. In particular, even if the asylum request procedure is not judicial it constitutes, even for a foreigner in administrative detention, the exercise of a fundamental right. It is therefore desirable that a legislative provision should govern recourse to audiovisual telecommunications, today purely discretionary. The advent of such a statute is all the more necessary considering that purely factual questions predominate in this field. 8/ Video conferencing cannot be used in proceedings unless the informed consent of any plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings has been obtained. This is the case particularly in matters regarding entry and residence of foreigners, psychiatric treatment without consent, those specified in Article 706-71 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the procedures for adjustment of penalties. 109