IMPLEMENTATION UNDER NATIONAL LAW This option is not available to detainees in the preventive measures system, who might be detained indefinitely. Experts have recommended that conditional release should be a possibility for people serving preventive detention or preventive custodial measures, as a ‘built-in’ feature of the system. Another difficulty relates to the issue that the possibility of release might be tied to an “improvement” or “recovery” of the person’s condition and – related to that – their (continued) dangerousness. Naturally, with some disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, no “cure” can be expected, even after serving compulsory treatment in a psychiatric facility. In Austria, as in other countries, whether a non-custodial measure is deemed suitable often depends on the assessed level of ‘dangerousness’ that a person presents. This is despite an absence of evidence that dangerousness can be assessed accurately and that such assessments can predict further offending. In Austria, there are indications that recidivism rates of persons who were in preventive detention are rather low.286 2.7.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research has revealed several issues and shortcomings regarding alternatives and probation vis-à-vis defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and a stagnating and unsuited legal framework. In most countries, once a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities has been convicted of a criminal offence, deprivation of liberty is the default. As a consequence of unsuitable legislation and rules, persons with psychosocial and/ intellectual disabilities are often given lengthy prison sentences instead of being granted an alternative measure. Experts have argued that non-custodial measures, which are often considered ‘alternatives’, should become a real option rather than a divergence from the default. In terms of post-release support, the research has found that there is a lack of tailored services for persons with intellectual and/ 78 or psychosocial disabilities to help with their reintegration after release. When services are available for detainees in prisons, they may not be suited to persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities, and for persons being discharged after being subjected to a security measure or compulsory treatment measure, no such services may be available. Also, a lack of social support system or a lack of adequate housing options in the community can negatively impact release prospects. Recommendations on alternatives to deprevation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities • Strengthen prevention efforts in the community and the general healthcare systems through enhanced social support structures and low threshold (mental) health services for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities to prevent them from “ending up” in the criminal justice systems. • Strengthen the use of diversion measures for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disability who come into contact with the criminal justice system. • Establish mechanisms to strengthen cooperation between courts and social services to identify the social conditions of a defendant, such as family conditions, social net, employment, etc. For all cases concerning persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities, establish a multidisciplinary approach in case management for social workers/service providers, psychiatrists/psychologists, relatives/close persons and judges. • Create centralised systems collecting information on existing facilities and services for treatment, care and implementation of non-custodial services for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in a country or state, while also respecting the right to privacy and medical confidentiality. This could serve to provide a better overview and raise awareness on available resources, including outpatient treatment options to support courts in ordering alternative measures.