INTRODUCTION At the same time, it must be considered that in the European context, other terms are commonly used to indicate the same or similar situations, which adds to the complexity and compounds comparability to some extent. By way of example, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) uses the phrase “persons of unsound mind” under Article 5(1)(e) ECHR, while the ECtHR in its jurisprudence often uses the term “mentally ill persons”. The CPT seems to prefer the use of “patients” or “forensic patients” over the word “prisoners” when talking about persons who were declared not criminally responsible11 but often refers to “prisoners suffering from a mental illness” to indicate such prisoners who are serving imprisonment in penitentiary facilities.12 The Council of Europe (CoE) Council for Penological Co-Operation speaks about prisoners with “mental health disorders”.13 EU law does not regulate this situation. However, it may be helpful to note that the EC Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (2013 Recommendation) uses the term “vulnerable person”, which is the umbrella term used to encompass “all suspects or accused persons who are not able to understand and to effectively participate in criminal proceedings due to age, their mental or physical condition or disabilities.”14 Other terms commonly used to refer to mental health experiences include “mental illness”, “mental disorders”, “mental health problems”, “mental health issues” and “mental health conditions”.15 Moreover, as the project analyses the situation of persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities who are suspected, accused or sentenced for having committed a crime, it refers to “defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities”, based on the different legal contexts in which individuals may find themselves in the criminal justice 18 system. However, the term “persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities” is also used where this distinction is not decisive. Defendants with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities may be deemed unfit to stand trial (or unfit to plead). Fitness to stand trial usually refers to the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the criminal proceedings and whether any such condition impacts his/her ability to understand the nature or object of the proceedings, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel. This is particularly prevalent in common law traditions. Defendants with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities may also be found not criminally responsible (or lacking criminal legal capacity). The capacity to be found criminally responsible refers to the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence and his/her ability (or inability or reduced ability) to appreciate the dangerous nature of a crime or to control his/her behaviour. Depending on the situation, one can be declared fully incapable to be found criminally responsible (not criminally responsible/liable) or partly incapable to be found criminally responsible (i.e., diminished criminal legal capacity, partly criminally responsible/liable). In other cases, persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities whose intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities were identified during trial but have not been considered severe enough to declare the person unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible (in certain jurisdictions, also partly criminally responsible) will be subjected to a criminal trial and sentenced.