USE OF VIDEO CONFERENCING (OPINION) At all events, there can be no obligation to employ video conferencing, except in the following three (alternative) circumstances, which a legislative text should settle: if counsel could not otherwise assist the person concerned; if a hearing with the person present is liable to pose a serious and documented threat to public order, particularly the physical integrity of the person appearing, of third parties, of victims or of witnesses; finally, if it constitutes the sole means of complying with the reasonable time within which the procedure must be completed. 13/ The savings made on extraction costs or the difficulties of marshalling the necessary escorts do not in principle constitute adequate grounds for resorting to video conferencing. 14/ Whatever the circumstances of its use, the decision to employ video conferencing must be taken case by case and solely by the authority holding responsibility for the proceedings and for the decision. As provided by the Public Health Code for psychiatric treatment without consent, it must be linked with the possibility for the judge, where the person to appear cannot be moved, to resort to an external hearing. This must be conceived, far more so than video conferencing, as an alternative to the hearing in court where the situation precludes transport for appearance. These are the considerations that should guide a policy yet to be determined, which cannot be the upshot of immediate necessities. 111