JUSTICE FOR ALL or the life of the person concerned or to prevent injury to others (provided that the person concerned is unable to give consent) for the shortest possible time and under regular independent review. Procedures should guarantee effective access to judicial review of decisions relating to non-consensual treatment, consistent with Arts 9 and 14 of the Covenant, including by ensuring that relatives and any other legal representatives of patients are sufficiently informed about the procedure for requesting the termination of coercive treatment.112 On the other hand, the HRC recommended that measures be immediately adopted to abolish the use of enclosed restraint beds in psychiatric and related institutions, establish an independent monitoring and reporting system, and ensure that abuses are effectively investigated, prosecuted and sanctioned and that redress is provided to the victims and their families.113 1.4.2. COUNCIL OF EUROPE STANDARDS In turn, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) has focused its efforts on appropriate conditions, monitoring and periodic review, questioning only forced hospitalization or solitary confinement when not based on medical grounds.114 Examining the situation of the detainees with disabilities in Europe, the CoE Parliamentary Assembly denounced “the tendency to imprison offenders rather than impose alternative sentences”.118 In a 2018 resolution it, thus, recommended: 1.4. ALTERNATIVES AND PROBATION 1.4.1. EU STANDARDS At the EU level, in its Recommendation in 2013 on procedural safeguards, the Commission stated that “Member States should take all steps to ensure that deprivation of liberty of vulnerable persons before their conviction is a measure of last resort, proportionate and taking place under conditions suited to the needs of the vulnerable person (…).”115 There are no additional EU standards specifically regulating alternatives to detention and probation of defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. The ECtHR’s jurisprudence tackled the topic of alternatives, notably via the application of Art 5 (1)(e) ECHR, which was found to encompass a fully-fledged necessity and proportionality test. Part of the necessity test includes that other, less severe measures must be considered before detention can be applied.116 Hence, in its assessment under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR, the ECtHR also considers if the national system envisages alternative means and whether the authorities have considered them. The notion of “alternatives” is broadly used. In certain instances, “alternative” means placing the applicant outside of penal facilities, for example in a civilian mental health facility, including psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric wings in civilian hospitals, mental health community centres and residential (care) homes.117 “to provide for and further develop the application of adjusted sentences or alternatives to prison sentences, and systematically to consider non-custodial pretrial coercive measures or sentences, or compassionate release, for disabled persons whose circumstances could otherwise justify detention or imprisonment, depending on the nature and severity of their disability and the capacity of the custodial system to provide appropriate care, bearing in mind the principle of reasonable accommodation”. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation (2004) contains only incidental provisions on alternatives to detention. According to Art 34(2): “Courts should make sentencing decisions placement or treatment for mental disorder on the basis of valid and reliable standards of medical expertise, taking into consideration the need for persons with mental disorder 35