Correctional institutions One of the goals of this draft is to increase the accuracy of the measures imposed. This objective cannot be reached solely by utilising an expert in clinical psychology in addition to an expert in psychiatry, “if necessary”. Obtaining expert opinions from clinical psychologists more frequently is also a demand of the working group. In Switzerland, panels of experts are used to determine whether or not to commit a person to an institution. Expert opinions from different specialised areas Therefore, examination by experts in psychiatry and clinical psychology should be mandatory. Only after an examination and diagnosis by both experts should the court impose measures. If the experts come to different conclusions, an additional assessment should be obtained from both specialised areas. The working group (in its recommendation No. 50) made explicit reference to the importance and expertise of clinical psychology experts. Unfortunately, the authors of the draft did not follow the recommendation (No. 4 lit. c) to prohibit the commitment of juveniles to institutions for an indefinite period, which could include a life-long commitment. Too little consideration given to juveniles No further details are provided on how to handle juveniles and young adults who are not placed in Gerasdorf correctional institution. Their placement in the forensic wards of psychiatric clinics has long been shown to be highly problematic because the socio-therapeutic needs of young persons are often not properly met there. They cannot complete their school education or vocational training in a hospital. Moreover, they are often placed together with adults. XX  Mentally ill offenders should only be detained in specially designed therapeutic centres. XX  The draft of the Detention of Mentally Ill Offenders Act should be revised with respect to the specific needs of juveniles and the accuracy of the decision to impose preventive measures. 2.5.2.2 Observations and recommendations regarding facilities for the detention of mentally ill offenders In addition to the considerations relating to the reorganisation of facilities for the detention of mentally ill offenders which were discussed above, the NPM also dealt with the living conditions of persons who are held in facilities for the detention of mentally ill offenders in the year under review. As of 1 January 2018, 878 persons were being held in facilities for the detention of mentally ill offenders, of which 497 persons were being not accountable for their actions and therefore held pursuant to Section 21 (1) of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). The rest was held pursuant to Section 21 (2) of the Austrian Criminal Code (i.e. because they were accountable for their High occupancy pressure 103