JUSTICE FOR ALL According to the CJEU, the concept of ‘criminal proceedings’ also covers proceedings for committal to a psychiatric hospital which, although they do not lead to a ‘sentence’ in the strict sense, nevertheless result in a measure involving a deprivation of liberty provided that such a measure is justified on safety grounds, not merely therapeutic grounds. As a consequence, the CJEU found that the principle of the presumption of innocence referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as requiring that the Public Prosecutor’s Office provides proof that the person whose committal is sought is the perpetrator of acts deemed to constitute such a danger.23 The Court admitted that the purpose of such a procedure at issue in the main proceedings is not to determine the guilt of the person concerned, but to decide on his compulsory committal to a psychiatric hospital. However, since the reasons stated for that measure of deprivation of liberty are not just therapeutic grounds, but also safety grounds, it must be accepted that fair trial principles apply also to these proceedings. Therefore, in this case, the Public Prosecutor’s Office bears the burden of proof for establishing that the person whose committal is sought is the perpetrator of acts deemed to constitute such a danger.24 Referring to Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s opinion, the Court found that the conclusion of criminal proceedings could also be a precautionary measure consisting of compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital or similar institution of a person who has been found to lack criminal responsibility as a result of their mental disorder. For the purpose of imposing both a sentence and a coercive medical measure as a consequence of the offence, national law provided that there must be genuine criminal proceedings. This must mean that the rights protected by Directive 2012/13 must be respected during those proceedings; the safeguards laid down in that Directive cannot be excluded in either situation.25 Although the ruling concerned only certain directives, it can be expected that similar conclusions can be reached for all Directives and the Recommendation. Finally, in the Conclusions on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults across the European Union, the Council recommended EU Member States to implement Directives 2010/64/ EU, 2012/13/EU, 2013/48/EU, (EU) 2016/343 and (EU) 2016/1919, to take into account Recommendation 2013 and ensure that vulnerable adults are promptly identified so as to ensure they can fully exercise their rights. Additionally, it recommended that the European Commission examine the need to strengthen procedural safeguards of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings in line with the UNCRPD.26 As noted above, being a member of the UNCRPD, the EU is subject to the reporting procedure before the UNCRPD Committee. The UNCRPD Committee recommended that “the European Union take all possible measures to ensure the liberty and security of all persons with all types of disabilities in line with the Convention and the Committee’s guidelines on Art 14 (2015).”27 Moreover, under Art 13, the Committee stated that it was “concerned about discrimination faced by persons with disabilities in accessing justice, owing to the lack of procedural accommodation in European Union member States” and recommended the that European Union “take appropriate action to combat discrimination faced by persons with disabilities in accessing justice by ensuring that full procedural accommodation and funding for training justice personnel on the Convention are provided in its member States.”28 23