to the proceedings do not request one, the court will just issue a written decision regarding the extension of the measure. The judge also mentioned that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the hearings took place via videoconference. Due to staff shortages, this practice also persists after the pandemic, as the prison that is responsible for the transfer of the person to the court for the hearing often requests that the hearing takes place remotely. But the judge also explained that the hearing in person is important: “In a recent case, where the prison asked for a remote hearing, I opted for a postponement so that I could see him for once in person, I believe that such personal contact is different.” 96 An interviewed lawyer mentioned that at the hearings, it is very difficult or impossible to dispute the opinion given by the forensic psychiatry unit where the measure is being implemented. Similarly, the interviewed prosecutor reported that the court gives the greatest weight to the opinion of the unit, while the prosecutor's opinion has no significant influence on the court's decision on whether or not to extend the measure.97 Remedies The defendant may submit an objection against the motion of the state prosecutor to the court to order the security measure. The district court panel of judges then decides on the objection by the mutatis mutandis application of the provisions of the CPA on an objection against the indictment.98 By linking this remedy to the provisions regarding an objection against an indictment, the law ensures that the prerequisites for filing a criminal indictment are also met in the proceedings for ordering security measures. Namely, mutatis mutandis, the panel of judges deciding on the objection rules that the motion is inadmissible, if: • the act which is the subject of the indictment is not a criminal offence; • circumstances exist which exclude guilt or criminal liability and there are no grounds for the application of safety measures; • the criminal prosecution is statute-barred, or the act is covered by an amnesty or pardon, or other circumstances exist barring prosecution; 96 Ibid. Interview with a prosecutor. 98 Article 491(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kazenskem postopku), 29 September 1994. 97 34