JUSTICE FOR ALL 06. CONCLUSIONS The analysis delved into the legal pathways leading to the deprivation of liberty for individuals with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, revealing substantial challenges in assessing criminal legal capacity and criminal responsibility. Access to justice for defendants and detainees with these disabilities presented notable issues, diverging from principles established in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), particularly the principle of 'universal legal capacity.' Several EU Member States link a denial of criminal legal capacity to disabilities, potentially impacting procedural rights, criminal proceedings outcomes, and the imposition of measures, including security measures, compulsory treatment, or preventive detention. Across partner countries, mechanisms for identifying disabilities pose challenges, characterised by insufficient indicators, inadequate safeguards for early identification, and concerns about the quality and impartiality of expert opinions. The scarcity of expert witnesses compound these challenges. The medical approach to assessments primarily focuses on determining criminal legal capacity, neglecting support needs and the ability to withstand trial pressures. The lack of adequate mechanisms for early disability identification may result in the denial of necessary support for equal access to justice, necessitating a more comprehensive and inclusive approach. Examining procedural rights, the research unveiled a lack of accommodations for individuals with disabilities during criminal proceedings, with partner countries failing to implement relevant international standards, including those from the European Commission. Provisions outlined in the 2013 Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings were not implemented into national law. Ordinary proceedings are often ill-equipped to respond to the needs of persons concerned, potentially excluding them from trials, and trials may be held in absentia if the person is presumed "unfit to stand trial." The research advocates for comprehensive reforms aligning legal practices with the principles of the UNCRPD to ensure equal access to justice for individuals with disabilities. The research explored various paths leading to the deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the six partner countries. All partner countries permit deprivation of liberty based on perceived dangerousness linked to disability, violating UNCRPD principles prohibiting such deprivation. Individuals come under different regimes and facilities based on assessments of criminal legal capacity, dangerousness, and other legal, medical, and practical considerations, contributing to a complex and incomparable system. The research indicated that involuntary/ non-consensual committal to institutions is legitimised in all countries, often blurring the lines between medical and security concerns. In most partner countries, unlimited and indefinite deprivation of liberty is possible under some form of security measure, creating a problematic absence of a concrete time frame for detention. Facilities may not offer necessary treatment, leading to prolonged stays, and individuals may be transferred between measures without clear guidelines. Variations in compulsory medical treatment measures and security measures were observed, including outpatient options, inpatient confinement, and specific conditions for enforcement. The research uncovered multiple concerns related to the treatment of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in places of deprivation of liberty, including prisons, psychiatric hospitals, preventive detention, and other institutions for compulsory treatment. Material detention 113