IMPLEMENTATION UNDER NATIONAL LAW Experts from Austria interviewed in the framework of the project heavily criticised the work of some expert witnesses, including both the examination as well as the written expert opinion. They recounted instances of persons being interviewed only for 10-15 minutes. Instead of having a true case by case assessment and individual analysis, expert opinions appear to be a product of copy-paste. Experts have raised concern that some expert witnesses already have specific tendencies to confirm or deny the capacity to be found criminally responsible and the dangerousness.153 In Austria, the quality of experts and their work vary greatly. There are some experts that follow the guidance or direction of the judge or the prosecutor regarding the question of criminal responsibility and dangerousness. Equally, in Slovenia, experts reported that interviews between expert witnesses and the accused are sometimes too short to provide a thorough assessment.154 Additionally, as the opinions are only based on the psychiatric evaluation, insights into the personality of the person concerned are missing. They could be included by opening the assessment to clinical psychologists, for example. Closely connected to the lack of quality is the scarcity of experts. Two countries (Bulgaria and Austria) reported a scarcity of expert witnesses. In Bulgaria, there currently are only four forensic psychiatrist departments and only eight forensic psychiatrists in the whole country. Both countries (Bulgaria and Austria) report that the low salaries are one of the major issues related to the scarcity of experts on the one hand, and the low quality of opinions on the other hand. In Austria, due to the scarcity of expert witnesses, the ones that are available usually write many opinions contemporarily, not giving them sufficient time for each individual case. Contrary to this, in Germany, experts are paid very well, which makes them more prone to follow the tendencies of the court and their expectations, as they wish to be requested and appointed again in the future. 155 46 Due to high salaries, there is no shortage of expert witnesses, but only very few can provide an appropriate level of quality. Usually, persons concerned are not the ones to select the expert witness. 2.3.4. CONSENT TO EXAMINATION In some countries, like Slovenia, the law does not require consent to the examination by the person concerned. In Bulgaria, the person concerned can only be assessed if they agree to the examination. If the person does not consent, the medical authorities can request from the prosecutor or the court a written order and assistance for the outpatient assessment or temporary accommodation in a psychiatric hospital for an inpatient forensic psychiatric assessment, which results in a circumvention of consent. In Germany, if the person concerned does not talk to the expert or consent to the assessment, the expert can assess on the basis of the case file. Additionally, the expert witness can also use the main hearing and include some of the findings there in their expert opinions. The Austrian law foresees the mandatory examination by a psychiatrist in proceedings leading to security measures or preventive detention.156 If the person concerned after having been informed does not provide their consent, the psychiatrist may still observe them during the court hearing and provide an opinion based on the observations or based on the case file. 2.3.5. HIGH VALUE OF EXPERT OPINIONS AND POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OPINIONS The abovementioned grievances are of particular concern, as the expert opinions have a very high value and usually courts follow their assessments and recommendations. Whether or not a person is criminally responsible is usually a “legal question” which needs to be decided by the judge/court, but the arguments of experts often outweigh those of other parties, and usually courts follow their assessments and recommendations. The expert opinion is frequently decisive on whether security measures are imposed and it is very difficult for the defendant or