Possible termination of the measure before the expiry of the maximum period of five years An interviewed psychiatrist also explained that the forensic psychiatry unit where the security measure is implemented is by nature a hospital and therefore have a limited therapeutic activity. When with medicinal treatment the patient’s state of mental health is stabilised and the unit has no capacities for further therapeutic and rehabilitation treatment, the unit proposes that the compulsory confinement is replaced with placement at the social care institution, where treatment can also be provided in therapeutic communities on open units. However, their opinion is not necessarily heard. The interviewed judge also mentioned that sometimes the medical institution where the security measure is being implemented expresses the opinion that the treatment at this facility can no longer provide any improvement to the patient’s condition even before the expiry of the five-year maximum. In that case the court will stop the security measure, but only after the person’s transfer into an institution under the civil law regime.122 But, as mentioned above, it has to be noted, that this does not necessarily mean the release of the person, just the change of the regime, under which the person is deprived of their liberty. 3.1.1.2. Deprivation of liberty of criminally responsible defendants with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities Identifying disability As mentioned in the beginning of the chapter (3.1.2. National framework concerning deprivation of liberty), the judicial authorities have the obligation to ex officio inquire into whether the defendant is capable of performing procedural acts. The main aim of an expert opinion obtained through psychiatric examination is to determine whether the defendant may be found guilty and/or can they effectively participate in the proceedings. 122 Interview wih a judge. 42