a forensic psychiatric ward of a mental health institution that meets special security conditions provided by law.84 Judicial review The measure compulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a medical institution may apply for a maximum of five years. However, the court will not determine in the judgement, how long the defendant will be confined in the mental health institution.85 Namely, in accordance with the Criminal Code, every six months, the court must re-examine whether further treatment and confinement in a mental health institution are still necessary.86 The same court of first instance that imposed the security measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement of the defendant in a medical institution is responsible for the review. The interviewed judge mentioned, that the review at their specific court is organised so that the same judge performs each of the six-month reviews in an individual case: “I think it is good that the same judge monitors the case every six months.”87 The court will, ex officio or on the motion of the perpetrator or the medical institution and on the basis of the opinion of physicians, adopt all further decisions regarding the duration and modification of this measure.88 Prior to making the decision, the judge will, if necessary, schedule a hearing, informing the state prosecutor and the defence counsel thereof. If the defendant’s condition allows it, the court will also hear them if appropriate. Legal representation by a lawyer is also mandatory in these proceedings of reconsidering the duration or modification of the security measure.89 The interviewed judge explained that at the hearing, the person will be given the opportunity to explain how they participate in therapy, how they spend their free time and whether they are receiving any support from their family. The interviewed lawyer on the other hand mentioned that some of the judges treat these hearings as a matter of formality and that the person’s statement is not really taken into account as the only information that matters is the expert opinion.90 84 Article 70.a(1) of the Criminal Code (Kazenski Zakonik), 20 May 2008. Interview with a judge. 86 Article 70.a(2) of the Criminal Code (Kazenski Zakonik), 20 May 2008. 87 Interview with a judge. 88 Article 496(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kazenskem postopku), 29 September 1994. 89 Article 496(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kazenskem postopku), 29 September 1994. 90 Interview with a lawyer. 85 32