JEAN-JACQUES GAUTIER NPM SYMPOSIUM 2016 (CRPD), ratified by 170 States, prohibits any deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability. This treaty, which has been in force since 2008, marks a paradigm shift by demanding an approach that is based on the person with a disability being a subject of rights and not as an “object” of medical treatment. The Symposium shed light on the difficulty in implementing these international standards and the way in which, depending on the socio-political contexts in which they are operating, the NPMs approach involuntary placement and the right, as set forth in the CRPD, to live independently within the community. Involuntary treatment. The participants held lengthy discussions on involuntary treatment and the deprivation of the right to legal capacity – a right enshrined in Article 12 of the CRPD – who often leads to involuntary placements and treatment of persons with disabilities. There remains a common perception that a person with mental disabilities is “incapable” of autonomous decisionmaking, and the principle of free and informed consent to treatment is therefore often not observed in practice. The participants emphasised that this consent should always be sought and that only exceptional circumstances, where the life of the person or that of others is in danger, could justify treatment without consent. It was pointed out that public policies cannot be based on these exceptional circumstances and that policies must guarantee the right of persons with mental disabilities to make autonomous decisions, in line with the paradigm shift embodied by the CRPD. Situations and risk factors. The common practices of seclusion and restraints present an increased risk to the individual’s physical and mental integrity. These measures should therefore only be used in exceptional circumstances, be tightly controlled, never imposed as a punishment and even completely abolished if they amount to torture or ill-treatment. Some NPMs gave examples of non-violent steps taken to manage crises and underlined the importance of having enough staff duly qualified in de-escalation techniques to prevent the use of these coercive measures. The various daily restrictions imposed indiscriminately in many psychiatric establishments result in other risk situations that are often justified for safety reasons. These can seriously affect the dignity, autonomy and right to privacy of users of psychiatric services. 6