JUSTICE FOR ALL found to be without criminal legal capacity, they cannot take part in any proceedings. That is, the person may not be questioned, may not be shown persons, objects or photographs for identification, and so on. This person may only be subjected to such procedural steps in which their role would be passive. For example, such a person may be shown to a victim to be identified.174 In Bulgaria, procedural rights are only guaranteed once pre-trial proceedings have been initiated and the person concerned is accused. However, very often, persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities are not indicted/accused and thus not provided with their procedural rights. Instead of a formal indictment, the prosecution may propose to adopt compulsory medical measures. In this case, the person concerned is not notified of the criminal procedure initiated against them; they are not given access to a lawyer and have no recourse to judicial remedies against the findings of law or fact. While the CJEU found that the concept of ‘criminal proceedings’ also covers proceedings for committal to a psychiatric hospital which, although do not lead to a ‘sentence’ in the strict sense, nevertheless result in a measure involving a deprivation of liberty, provided that such a measure is justified not only on therapeutic grounds but also on safety grounds.175 However, since the judgement of the EU’s highest court, according to research and the national experts, no change in law or practice was detected in Bulgaria. In many cases, states argue that these proceedings are means to support the defendant, who otherwise would not be able to effectively participate, as was argued by the Australian government in the case of Noble v. Australia (See Section 1.1.3.). 2.4.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research conducted in the framework of the project showed that the national systems often do not foresee sufficient support for defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in their criminal proceedings. Relevant provisions foreseen in the 2013 Recommendation have not been implemented into national law. Ordinary proceedings are often not equipped to respond to needs of persons concerned (i.e., appropriate ways of ensuring participation, such as a modified “letter of rights” or inclusion of additional persons to provide support). In some jurisdictions, trials may be held in absentia if the person concerned is presumed “unfit to stand trial”, thus effectively excluding them. At the same time, the special proceedings foreseen under national law, leading to other forms of deprivation of liberty, The research conducted in the framework of the project showed that the national systems often do not foresee sufficient support for defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in their criminal proceedings. Relevant provisions foreseen in the 2013 Recommendation have not been implemented into national law. Ordinary proceedings are often not equipped to respond to needs of persons concerned (i.e., appropriate ways of ensuring participation, such as a modified “letter of rights” or inclusion of additional persons to provide support). In some jurisdictions, trials may be held in absentia if the person concerned is presumed “unfit to stand trial”, thus effectively excluding them. • Member States should implement the Recommendation on Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Persons Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings.176 51