who goes home and who doesn't. And whoever doesn't go doesn't go, he stayed there. He didn't need a cop to guard him” (Žagar 2023). Most patients got to use shorter or longer breaks over the weekends (except if assessed that contacts would not be beneficial for either patients or their relatives or both), they could go for walks in pairs or small groups and some were also allowed to go out for walks alone. The team even organized shorter and longer trips – to the cinema, museums, events, including other cities. Sometimes they rented a bus or even drove the patients in their own cars (Kondža and Kobal 2014). Obviously, the effort was made to help patients “establish the contact with the outside world”. After the patients concluded their stay in DFSP they could receive out-patient treatment and continued to be monitored. In case the deterioration of the patient’s condition was detected, rehospitalization could be required (Kobal in Žagar 1994, 268). In 1992–1993 the average stay of the patients in DFSP was 62 days (at that time an average stay in Slovenian psychiatry was 55 days) while the longest stay could last also up to a year (Žagar 2023). In the period 1984 – 1994 there have been no suicides, despite the fact that DFSP often cared for extremely suicidal inmates transferred there from prisons173 (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 269–271). Looking back, dr. Žagar (2023) still considers the DFSP to be successful. The rules were rarely broken and violence among the patients or against the staff was hardly ever detected. The DFSP's success is attributed to the atmosphere of the TC, but also to the fact that lower-risk patients were selected, the small number and homogeneity of the Slovenian society, the socio-cultural tendencies of the population to self-aggressiveness rather than to violence, and the adequate provision of psychiatric and social services (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 269–271). Looking back now, Žagar (20023) says the key was “an agreement and trust” between the staff and the patients. He took upon himself the risk (of potential incidents) when allowing patients to go outside and/or to go home over weekends or holidays. “But if I estimated that someone was really dangerous, I sent him to a closed ward – for a certain period of time.” Žagar (2023) also said: “There should be a forensic open part and a forensic closed part. I don't really like what's there (in Maribor) now because it's mostly a closed part, and 173 However, there were two tragic events: in one case, »a paranoid patient on the visit at home injured his wife« and then, thinking that he had killed her, he committed suicide; in another case, a patient killed his exwife while he went for a walk in the town alone (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 269). However, that obviously happened some time before 1985, as dr. Žagar in his interview (on 11.4.2023) reassured that during more than ten years when he was working there no such incidents occurred. 67