EXECUTIVE SUMMARY chiatric or forensic institutions. Criminal responsibility assessments dictate whether individuals proceed along the “regular” track and serve sentences of imprisonment in “ordinary” prisons or are subjected to security measures/compulsory treatment or preventive detention in specialised facilities. Criminal responsibility hinges on retrospective assessments of disabilities, contributing to an individual's failure to recognize the the nature (wrongfulness) and consequences of their actions. The presence of a disability, coupled with an assessment of dangerousness, often justifies confinement for treatment and public protection. Despite violating UNCRPD principles against deprivation based on disability, all partner countries permit the deprivation of liberty for individuals with disabilities in the criminal context. Involuntary committal to institutions is widespread, often occurring without a conviction and falling under the purview of the health sector. The prevalence of intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the general prison population is high across all observed countries, with significant rates of psychiatric conditions and psychotropic medication use. Individuals with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in ordinary prisons often lack adequate support and services, facing isolation and segregation due to security concerns and a lack of resources for other measures. Regarding forms of security measures and compulsory treatment, all six partner countries have legislation for the commitment to forensic psychiatric institutions or specialised facilities ordered by courts when a defendant is found not criminally responsible by the court. Grave concerns are expressed about the conditions, coercive treatment, and potential unlimited detention within these institutions. The absence of a concrete time frame has been highlighted as problematic by experts, leaving individuals feeling powerless and without agency. The research indicates that in many instances, facilities may not offer necessary treatment, hindering potential improvement and leading to prolonged stays. Transferring individuals to civil law and mental health systems has been criticised for perpetuating indefinite detention. Each country has 14 variations in the types of compulsory medical treatment measures and security measures, including outpatient options, inpatient confinement, and specific conditions for enforcement. Preventive detention/measures, as seen in Austria and Germany, offer another pathway for detention, allowing for indefinite confinement based on the commission of an offence, a disability and dangerousness. Concerns about the review mechanisms for compulsory treatment have been raised, with lawyers expressing worries about inadequate safeguards for detainees’ rights. Some countries conduct automatic reviews every six months, but the effectiveness varies. Legal representation in review proceedings is not universally mandatory, potentially impacting the thoroughness of case reviews. Additionally, the person concerned may not always be heard during the review process, raising questions about fairness and due process. Decisions in review proceedings often heavily rely on expert opinions, and the lack of involvement of external experts in some cases has been flagged as a concern. The overall research underscores the violation of UNCRPD principles in all partner countries, allowing deprivation of liberty based on perceived dangerousness linked to disability. The complexity and lack of comparability across different regimes and facilities for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities highlight the need for systemic changes. The report recommends implementing time limits, ensuring comprehensive reviews, and addressing the blurred lines between medical and security concerns in the deprivation of liberty for this population. The four EU instruments used in cross-border criminal proceedings are the European Arrest Warrant framework decision, the Transfer of Prisoners framework decision, the European Supervision Order framework decision and the Probation and Alternative Sanctions framework decision. The report revealed a fragmented state of protections concerning persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities, with general provisions ensuring respect towards fundamental rights but lacking specific safeguards on particular