JUSTICE FOR ALL In practice, all six partner countries allow deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the criminal context based on perceived dangerousness linked to their disability. This is in violation of the principles enshrined in the UNCRPD, prohibiting deprivation of liberty on the basis of impairment (see Section 1.2.3). Involuntary and non-consensual committal to institutions is a legitimated practice in all countries. Where some form of security measure is imposed, this is often without a conviction and entails a committal to an institution that is frequently under the purview of the health sector. A common theme throughout the project has been the complexity and opaqueness of the different types of systems and facilities for detaining persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who have committed a criminal offence. Depending on assessments of criminal legal capacity, dangerousness and varying other legal, medical and practical considerations, persons concerned come under the purview of different regimes and facilities. There is a reported lack of cooperation and communication between different actors, such as the judiciary, social services and medical personnel in coordinating a suitable response when a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities commits a criminal offence. Several experts have noted that there needs to be more coordination and knowledge about the options. Experts in the consultation workshops have also pointed out an ambiguity in terms of the purpose of the deprivation of liberty. It is often unclear whether it serves primarily the purpose of treatment (and therefore, improvement of the person’s condition) or whether the dominant purpose is merely punishment and prevention of future criminal offences, or whether both purposes are equally pertinent. Experts have frequently highlighted blurred lines of demarcation between medical concerns and security concerns. The notion of treatment as a primary goal has been criticised to be problematic when considering that deprivation of liberty is involuntary and that release is often dependent on participation in treatment and evidence of improvement. This is exemplified by Germany, where in most states, detainees in forensic psychiatric detention are referred to as patients, which conceals that this measure has a coercive context – the structure of many facilities is similar to that of a prison – and that the persons concerned are often patients against their will.177 They are also indirectly forced to cooperate or to participate in any treatment they are offered or they otherwise have no realistic chance of release. Due to the fusion of treatment and control and the constantly perceived dangerousness of the person concerned, treatment evolves into "total therapy".178 2.5.2. GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF NATIONAL SYSTEMS The following infographics depict the pathways by which a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who is subject to criminal proceedings may become deprived of their liberty in the six partner countries. These are simplified depictions of criminal justice processes which aim to illustrate the myriad of different measures and institutions that exist within a national system and to facilitate comparisons between the countries. Hereby, ‘grey’ is used to denote the purview of ‘ordinary’ imprisonment, whereby ‘blue’ is used to denote special security measures and (forensic) psychiatric institutions that deprive persons of liberty but are beyond the remit of ‘ordinary’ imprisonment. As persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities may often serve a ‘regular’ sentence of imprisonment in an ‘ordinary’ prison (where adequate specialised mental health and other treatment services may not be available), the graphics also depict measures within national systems that come into place when such persons develop an acute mental health condition. 53