JUSTICE FOR ALL • Ensure that the patients concerned receive a copy of the court decision (with relevant information on appeal procedures). The patients should be requested to sign a statement acknowledging receipt of it.38 • Ensure that ex officio reviews of any involuntary forensic placement decisions are carried out at least once every six months by an independent authority, preferably a court. Such reviews should be based on the opinion from a doctor who is independent of the department holding the patient concerned.39 The CPT has criticised situations where court approvals consisted in identical wording stating that the legal requirements for extended hospitalisation were met, and recommended that forensic involuntary hospitalisation decisions include individualised detailed reasons explaining the rationale behind the ruling, that patients have an effective right to be heard in person and that hearings are carried out within appropriately short timescales.40 • Ensure the possibility for an independent psychiatric opinion (external to the clinic) in the context of review of the placement.41 1.1.3. UN STANDARDS Art 14 (2) UNCRPD provides that “States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law…”. Art 14 (2) complements Art 12 and 13 UNCRPD. Establishing the right to equal recognition before the law, “Art 12 introduces a new paradigm of ‘universal legal capacity’, that cannot be limited on grounds of disability or mental incapacity.”42 As noted in the literature, “this right has profound implications for a wide range of legal frameworks for states parties to the Convention, including guardianship laws, the insanity defence, civil and criminal trial procedures …” and for many other articles in the Convention, including access to justice (Art 12), detention (Art 14), forced treatment (Art 15, 17, and 25).43 The General Comment on Art 12 adopted in 2013 by the UNCRPD Committee does not address the question of legal capacity and criminal justice.44 An analysis of the more recent concluding observations on Art 14 of the UNCRPD Committee showed that the UNCRPD has consistently recommended that States adopt a number of measures to improve equal access to justice and procedural guarantees in criminal justice proceedings:45 • Repealing criminal laws that allow persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities to be declared unfit to plead/not criminally responsible, allowing the full application of the rules of due process for a fair trial.46 • Ensure that persons with disabilities who have committed a crime are tried under the ordinary criminal procedure with equal access to due process guarantees established for all persons accused of a crime in the criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence and the rights to defence and to a fair trial;47 • Ensure accessibility and procedural accommodation, including provisions to support persons with disabilities in decision-making and to guarantee the right to a defence at all stages of criminal proceedings for persons with disabilities who are under investigation or being prosecuted.48 The UNCRPD Committee also pronounced itself on several individual cases about Art 14. None of them concerned an EU Member State. However, some general principles established are relevant nevertheless: CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/16/ D/7/2012, Noble v. Australia 2 September 2016 Relevant topic: unfitness to stand trial due to an intellectual disability; inability to plead or be found guilty; deprivation of liberty based on disability; Decision: Violation of Arts 5(1) and (2), 12(2) and (3), 13(1), 14(1)(b) and 15 UNCRPD 25