IMPLEMENTATION UNDER NATIONAL LAW treatment is a different type of deprivation of liberty than a prison sentence, which should mainly pursue therapeutic purposes, and therefore there must not be a link to the offence; compulsory treatment should not be conceived of as punishment. 2.5.5. REVIEWS Regular reviews of the necessity of continued compulsory treatment are crucial safeguards for detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. Lawyers have raised concerns that the review mechanisms in place are often insufficiently safeguarding the rights of the persons deprived of liberty and frequently it may appear as if the hearing was a mere formality and decisions were already taken before. In some countries (Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovenia), automatic reviews as to whether the security measure is to be continued occur every six months. In Austria, as regards the continuation of preventive measures, the competent court for the execution of the measure has to decide on the necessity of the continuance on an annual basis.214 As part of the review, the court has to determine whether the preventive measure is still necessary, thus, whether the degree of dangerousness is still existing. Similarly, in Germany, the continuation of preventive detention, as well as detention in a psychiatric hospital, must be reviewed by the courts at least annually. After ten years of preventive detention, the respective period is nine months. The review of the detention in an addiction treatment facility is due every six months. The institution must send regular reports to the Chamber of the Execution of Sentences.215 However, in practice, these regular reviews are often a “mere formality” and do not show any change, and thus, the detention continues. In Slovenia and Austria, persons concerned or the forensic psychiatry unit can also request additional reviews. However, in Lithuania, persons concerned are not able to request a review in addition to the automatic review hearings every six months, where they 62 are usually not present, but they may appeal decisions to continue the measures.216 Legal representation is not mandatory in all countries. While it is, for instance, mandatory in Slovenia, in Austria, persons who are subjected to custodial measures or preventive detention do not have obligatory representation in review proceedings, and their right to be assisted by a lawyer is very often not existent in practice, which lowers the chances of having the case properly reviewed and consequently, the chances of being (conditionally) released.217 This is not the case for persons deprived of their liberty under civil involuntary treatment, who have access to a patient attorney who can advise them on legal matters and in their review proceedings. In Germany, if consecutive preventive detention is ordered in the judgement (which only starts after the end of the sentence in prison), the court will assess the necessity of preventive detention during the prison sentence. For this assessment, the court must request a defence lawyer, if the person concerned does not have one. Another issue is that in review proceedings, the person concerned may not be heard. In Bulgaria, neither the person concerned nor their lawyer are heard when the court rules ex officio on the continuation, replacement or termination of compulsory treatment in a court hearing, after mandatory consideration of the opinion of the relevant psychiatric facility and the conclusion of an expert psychiatrist.218 In Slovenia, an interviewed lawyer mentioned that some of the judges treat these hearings as a matter of formality and that the person’s statement is not really taken into account, and the only information that matters is the expert opinion. The court will acquire the report from the institution where the measure is being implemented, and the report will be sent to the detainee for them to read and comment on it. However, if the court concludes that a hearing is not necessary and the parties to the proceedings do not request one, the court will just issue a written decision regarding the extension of the measure.219