JUSTICE FOR ALL detainee to prove otherwise. In Slovenia, the expert opinion is the basis of the decision of the court about whether or not to impose security measures of compulsory psychiatric treatment in a medical institution. Equally, during review hearings, the person concerned may be given the opportunity to be heard and to explain their participation in therapy, for example, but this is often a matter of formality and lastly, only the expert opinion’s statement is taken into account. It is very difficult for the defendant or detainee to combat the opinion. As regards second or alternative opinions, reports show that it is generally difficult to request a second or alternative opinion. Even where second opinions are possible, their value may be different from the first.157 In Bulgaria, neither the defendant nor the court can appeal the forensic findings. Both parties can, however, request a second opinion should they disagree with the first. In this case, it is up to the receiving authority to decide whether or not to order another opinion.158 In Germany, persons concerned can request the commission of another expert opinion, or simply have another assessment on their own initiative. However, these assessments are usually not granted the same value and are regarded as biased submissions and do not have strong influence on the proceedings. The persons concerned have to cover the costs for these opinions, which poses difficulties in practice as they do not have the resources.159 Similarly, in Austria, the person concerned can request an expert opinion themselves, but this does not have the same value as the court commissioned expert opinion and usually exceeds the financial resources of the person concerned. In Slovenia, the person concerned can request another expert if they argue on reasonable grounds that there are doubts regarding the correctness and competence of the expert. The court will then re-examine the first opinion. Only if the doubts cannot be resolved, the judge will request another expert opinion. To encourage the court to appoint a second expert, the person concerned sometimes hires an expert witness to challenge the first expert’s opinion. However, this requires financial resources that not all persons concerned can afford.160 In Lithuania, the person concerned can request further examination if they disagree with the expert’s report. However, in practice, the documentation is very complicated and difficult to understand. 2.3.6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing assessment mechanisms do not correspond with the broad variety of needs that a person with a disability may have. Currently, there is a very strong (purely) medical approach to the assessment of the person concerned and their disability. Usually (forensic) psychiatrists are requested to conduct the assessment. At the same time, the aim of the assessment is purely focused on determining criminal legal capacity and sometimes fitness to stand trial. Considerations regarding the need for support, or the persons’ ability to withstand the pressure of trials, are not part of the assessment. Psychologists are rarely included and other stakeholders or persons from the social environment of the person usually are not involved. Consent to the assessment and examination by an expert witness is usually required, however in some countries it can be circumvented by committal to a psychiatric institution, where consent is no longer necessary. Persons concerned usually do not have the possibility to choose the expert witness and additional or second opinions often do not have the same value as appointed expert witnesses. The scarcity of expert witnesses, influenced by low salaries, further exacerbates these challenges. The prevailing medical approach to assessments focuses primarily on determining criminal legal capacity, lacking consideration for support needs and the ability to withstand trial pressures. Overall, the lack of adequate mechanisms for early disability identification may result in the denial of necessary support for equal access to justice, emphasising the necessity for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach. 47