ANNEX - CASE STUDIES ON GOOD PRACTICES In 1994, there was room for 15535 patients536 and the department was not hospital-like and had open doors and non-barred windows. DFSP also provided out-patient services – at that time 20 patients were in family care.537 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 property for example) and patients with no criminal background (no conviction). Also, their diagnoses varied from schizophrenic psychoses, other psychoses to (severe or minor) personality disorders, sometimes in combination with alcohol or drug addiction.538 The DFSP staff consisted of one psychiatrist, one social worker, one senior medical technician and three nurses.539 Every patient was received by the head of DFSP and the team. First, the Therapeutic Pact was to be signed, which proscribed inappropriate behaviour, excessive drinking, drug-taking and absconding. In case patients breached the Therapeutic Pact, all circumstances were investigated and specific treatment plans could be made. It was only rarely necessary “to proceed to discharge, transfer into one of the closed hospital units, further intensive hospital treatment or return to the prison”.540 Each patient had an individual rehabilitation plan. The goal was to rehabilitate the patient and return him to his home environment as soon as possible.541 Dr. Kobal started TCs and Dr. Žagar continued them – and added even more TCs: music therapy, art therapy, recreational therapy. Multidirectional communications were established between the offenders and the medical staff, among the medical staff and among offenders themselves. In various groups they met daily or several times a week. There was an analytic psychotherapy group,542 some patients were part of music therapy or psychodrama, occupational and recreational therapy groups, and there was one group led by the social worker and one led by medical staff. Together, staff and patients discussed and agreed on how the ward should function. The staff also met with 132 relatives or patients’ other relevant persons to discuss “the circumstances that should be taken into account in their future contact with the offender”.543 During their regular weekly meetings “they also determined who goes home and who doesn't. And whoever doesn't go doesn't go, he stayed there. He didn't need a cop to guard him” (Žagar 2023). Most patients got to use shorter or longer breaks over the weekends (except if assessed that contacts would not be beneficial for either patients or their relatives or both), they could go for walks in pairs or small groups and some were also allowed to go out for walks alone. The team even organised shorter and longer trips – to the cinema, museums, events, including other cities. Sometimes they rented a bus or even drove the patients in their own cars.544 Obviously, the effort was made to help patients “establish the contact with the outside world”. After the patients concluded their stay in DFSP they could receive out-patient treatment and continue to be monitored. In case the deterioration of the patient’s condition was detected rehospitalization could be required.545 In 1992–1993 the average stay of the patients in DFSP was 62 days (at that time an average stay in Slovenian psychiatry was 55 days) while the longest stay could last up to a year (Žagar 2023). In the period of 1984 – 1994, there were no suicides, despite the fact that DFSP often cared for extremely suicidal persons transferred there from prisons546 (Kobal and Žagar 1994, 269–271). Looking back, Dr. Žagar (2023) still considers the DFSP to be successful. The rules were rarely broken and violence among the patients or against the staff was hardly ever detected. The DFSP's success is attributed to the atmosphere of the TC, but also to the fact that lower-risk patients were selected, the small number and homogeneity of the Slovenian society, the socio-cultural tendencies of the population to self-aggressiveness rather than to violence and the adequate provision of psychiatric and social services.547 Looking back now, Žagar (20023) says the