IMPLEMENTATION UNDER NATIONAL LAW disorders are exposed to stigma and discrimination in prisons”.131 Hence, the assumption in Europe is that specialised mental health facilities under the egis of health ministries focusing on the treatment of persons with disabilities are more suitable places of detention for persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities. 2.1.2. LACK OF DATA One general issue throughout the research has been a lack of data. States do not collect specific data on persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities within the criminal justice system, which makes the assessment of their situation difficult. In federal states, for instance, if data is collected, it is usually done at the state level and not at the federal level. As a result, the situation of defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, particularly the challenges they face when in contact with the criminal justice system, largely remains opaque. Moreover, justice practitioners working with defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities are often not aware of the applicable legal framework and available options at the national level, especially with regard to non-custodial measures. While some countries (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria and Slovenia) collect and publish data on all persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who are subjected to security measures/compulsory treatment, in Germany, official data is not updated regularly and the last statistics are from 2013/2014, including only some federal states. Other countries like Italy do not collect any data, which makes it very difficult to properly assess and analyse the situation of persons concerned, respond to their needs and provide proper support. 40 instead for the medical model. Legislation in the partner countries uses discriminatory terminology. The Austrian criminal laws refer to “mental disorders” in the context of security measures, Italian legislation talks about “psychic stress” and the Bulgarian Criminal Code uses “mental retardation” or long-term or temporary “mental disorder”. The Lithuanian law conveys “mental deficiencies” with a special procedural legal meaning for such conditions “due to which the suspect or accused person supposedly cannot exercise their rights to defence independently”. Many of the terms used contrary to the social model and the human rights approach conveyed in the UNCRPD provide a negative connotation, supporting a stigma that defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities often face, also causing them emotional distress. Furthermore, national legislations of the partner countries focus on the medical model of disability in the context of criminal proceedings. They do not apply the human rights approach, recognizing the intrinsic value of every person for their own end “rather than focusing on a lack of overall capabilities as measured against a functional baseline”. At the same time, the project revealed that the breadth of terminology, particularly when it comes to “intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities” and the lack of a unified definition of the term has proven challenging. 2.1.4. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1.3. DISCRIMINATORY TERMINOLOGY, STIGMA AND DEFINITIONS • Raise awareness on the various international human rights standards relevant and applicable for defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, including particularly the UNCRPD. National criminal legislations have not yet adopted terminology that seem to be compliant with the UNCRPD nor have they applied the human rights model of disability, opting • Harmonise international and regional standards and increase dialogue between international actors with a view to come to a consensus on the way forward.