Regarding the outcome of these reviews, the interviewed judge also mentioned that sometimes the security measure in a medical institution is then transformed into the security measure at liberty and it also sometimes happens that the security measure is stopped before the five-year limit, indicating that this is not the predominant practice.91 If the court finds that the treatment and confinement in a mental health institution are no longer necessary, it will either end the confinement or substitute it with the measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment at liberty.92 Right to be heard The Human Rights Ombudsman has reported that it has repeatedly come across cases where the court has not heard the defendant before taking a new decision on the duration or modification of a compulsory psychiatric treatment measure or a compulsory psychiatric treatment at liberty.93 On this issue, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), during its visit to Slovenia in 2017, had already recommended that the Slovenian authorities take the necessary measures - including at legislative level - to ensure that all patients subject to this security measure are heard in person by a judge in the context of the six-month review of the security measure.94 In its response to the CPT report, the Government of the RS replied to the above recommendation that a system of six-monthly review is already duly prescribed at legislative level, and that it would draw the attention of the judiciary to the above recommendation by specifically communicating the text of the recommendation of the CPT. In 2018, the NPM specifically drew the attention of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia to this issue. In response, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia informed all judges of the recommendation.95 However, it seems that this recommendation is not systematically followed. Some of interviewees explained that the court will acquire the report from the institution where the measure is being implemented, and the report will be sent to the perpetrator for them to read and comment on it. But if the court concludes that a hearing is not necessary and the parties 91 Interview with a judge. Article 70.a(2) of the Criminal Code (Kazenski Zakonik), 20 May 2008. 93 Varuh človekovih pravic (2019), Letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije za leto 2018, Ljubljana, Varuh človekovih pravic, pp. 190-191. 94 CPT, ‘Report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on Slovenia (28/3/2017 - 04/04/2017) [CPT/Inf (2017) 27]. 95 Varuh človekovih pravic (2019), Letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije za leto 2018, Ljubljana, Varuh človekovih pravic, pp. 190-191. 33 92