OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FRENCH CGLPL discharge is applied for, the patient continues to pose as much of a danger to themselves or to others as they did on the day they were first admitted to hospital. Regardless of the circumstances, they sometimes commission a police investigation which, since it takes place in the area where the person in question was living before they were compulsorily admitted to hospital, cannot reveal anything further than the initial facts that led to hospitalisation. And since these facts highlight a danger, there is a great temptation to continue to reject the psychiatrist’s proposal. Indirectly, this amounts to acknowledging that nothing has happened between the date of hospitalisation and the moment when the psychiatrist, based on full knowledge of the facts, recommends easing the restrictions applicable. This idea, which in any case, involves disregarding the conscientiousness of care staff, is incorrect and misjudges the spirit of the law in force. In point of fact, the latter is based on the idea that if the treatment provided to the patient – especially any treatment that is prescribed or administered – fails to restore them to a stable condition, in which they no longer pose any danger, on a permanent basis, then it may at least guarantee that the patient no longer poses a danger for more or less extended periods of time. Consequently, based on this assumption, the law allows the restrictions imposed to be eased, in the form of a trial discharge. Admittedly, this is only an option. However, since it involves deprivation of liberty, it can only be held in check on the grounds of a proven risk of danger or serious threat to law and order. It seems to be impossible to base a refusal on historical facts: only current facts should be admissible. A reminder of past facts that led to hospitalisation cannot establish the reality of such reasons. b) The second relates to measures for ending compulsory hospitalisation. Likewise, the opinion expressed by psychiatrists relating to compulsory hospitalisation coming to an end is viewed by the public authorities with a similar degree of mistrust. Identical investigations are ordered, but by definition, these can only relate to facts preceding hospitalisation, which cannot therefore provide any indication regarding the patient’s state of health at the end of the treatment dispensed in hospital. In the words of the Constitutional Council, only “medical reasons” and “therapeutic purposes” (QPC decision n°201080