to make a detailed analysis into the patient’s condition and into assumptions necessary for security measures to be used; it is particularly important to examine and assess the risk of the inmate’s committing a serious social crime. Court appointed experts de facto do not assess the level of social crime seriousness, this belongs to court, however, they use this phrase and as a consequence “relieve” the court of doing so. NMPT suggests the following solutions: ☞It is necessary to make decisions to change the status or to end detention based on a risk assessment of a probability to commit violence to be carried out by means of HCR20 v3 and SAPROF tools. Such an assessment enables more holistic look at a patient and more reliable and professional assessment in a form of a description, taking account of which measures to apply in order to prevent violation in the future, without applying detention. ☞Verification of court and psychiatric opinions of people against whom application of a security measure was recommended, by means of establishing special provincial commissions including experts in psychiatry and psychology; such commissions should be composed of at least one person who is experienced in carrying out violence risk assessment by means of HCR20 v3 and SAPROF tools. Ordering the courts to verify qualifications of court appointed psychiatric and psychology experts, not only those who are listed in provincial courts, but all the experts who issue psychiatric opinions for court use, mainly those issuing opinions in “a particular case”. ☞Verification of the qualifications of experts listed in provincial courts, as very often they are retired people who do not practice any more. It is recommended that they undergo periodic examinations or other forms of verifying their knowledge by eminent authorities in a given field. 56 PART IV – Situation in places of detention