Žagar.166 Both were psychiatrists who beforehand had experience as prison psychiatrists. They were also among the main protagonists of this development, and we could say that if it was not for them, an open forensic psychiatry ward would never have existed. But to be precise, the true initiator was Joco Kondža, senior medical technician. Dr. Žagar (2023) explained in our interview: “He took the initiative and said to professor Kobal... This was a closed department in the beginning and there were many patients, probably 30 of them or more. And some could go home, some couldn't go home, because they still had the measure issued by the court) and were new and aggressive and so on... and they weren't allowed to go out. Then he said to professor Kobal "Well, they know who can go out and who can’t go out anyway, what if we try to leave the door open?". And when they opened the ward, nothing happened. Everything went well, according to a program that had been planned before.” However, as written by Kondža and Kobal (2014): “The department became open. But not mindlessly and without control. Safety inside and outside the ward was the basic rule. After the bars were removed, we started to open the doors gradually.” According to Kobal and Žagar (1994, 266) there was a general tendency to organize also other departments as TCs at that time, which helped the DFSP to become a true therapeutic, rehabilitative and environment-oriented TC (for a certain period).167 In 1994, there was room for 15168 patients169 and the department was not hospital like and had open door and non-barred windows. DFSP also provided out-patient services – at that time 20 patients were in family care.170 Not all admitted patients at the DFSP were criminal offenders – the group was mixed, comprised of major offenders (offences such as murder, manslaughter or other grave violent acts), minor offenders (offences involving 166 Due to limited amount of information, we do not have names of all the heads of the department. According to Kobal and Žagar (1994, 266) there was an opposition to these ideas and plans, and they point out three groups that had to be persuaded not to prevent the developments: psychiatrists (and other staff) of the University Psychiatric Hospital, staff of the DFSP “who had to change their basic attitudes and many deeply-ingrained habits”, and the authorities (medical as well as legal). 168 In his article Svoboda in nesvoboda na oddelku za forenzično in socialno psihiatrijo from 1976 Kondža wrote that this unit had room for 51 patients at the beginning. Later on, the number of patients was reduced to around 15 (Kondža and Kobal 2014). 169 Patients admitted to DFSP were all male, due to the fact that female forensic patients were only few and it was not possible to create a mixed ward; female forensic patients were admitted to the neighbouring mixed ward or other wards of the hospital or were in an out-patient care (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 267). 170 In case of family care – especially for the individuals with most severe disabilities– the DFSP staff provided support in the sense of medical and social aid (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 269). According to dr. Žagar (2023) their medical technical staff visited these patients once a month and gave them therapy (medicine) prescribed by the psychiatrist. They were doing a supervision of that patient’s life, how he is doing, how the family accepts him, if there are no conflicts etc. These patients were not involved in any group therapy after they left the hospital. According to Kondža and Kobal (2014) this program of family care was established in 1969. 167 65