OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT STANDARDS to be treated in a place appropriate to their health needs. (…) The provision is without prejudice to the possibility, according to the law, for a court to impose psychiatric assessment and a psychiatric or psychological care programme as an alternative to imprisonment or to the delivery of a final decision”.119 Finally, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has also adopted a more targeted recommendation on community sanctions and measures 120 and on probation 121. Both recommendations reinstate a broad non-discrimination principle, including specific references to “physical or mental condition of the person under alternatives and probation” or “disability”, thereby implying that persons with an intellectual and/ or psychosocial impairment shall be given equal access to alternatives and probation. The recommendations, however, do not provide any additional guidance or procedural accommodation to ensure equal access to alternatives and probation for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. 1.4.3. UN STANDARDS At the UN level, the UNCRPD and its Committee are silent on alternatives to detention but limit themselves to referring to certain diversion mechanisms. In its Guidelines on Art 14, the UNCRPD Committee outlined first that 36 treatments are. The UNCRPD Committee recommended to: “eliminate security measures that mandate medical and psychiatric inpatient treatment and promote alternatives that comply with Arts 14 and 19 of the Convention”, thereby connecting the right to liberty and security with another important Art of the Convention concerning the ‘living independently and being included in the community’.123 Art 19 UNCRPD is defined as “one of the most important rights in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), since choice, freedom, and inclusion are considered as prerequisites for exercising all other rights.” Civil society actors maintained that “diversions from the criminal process to coercive mental health treatment are not procedural accommodations but rather violations of the right to access to justice on an equal basis with others.” Nonetheless, they conceded that “as a minimum requirement, if such diversion mechanisms are in place and some “special care measures” are applied, they must guarantee the same level of respect for due process as would be available in a normal criminal trial. In other words, persons with disabilities considered to lack “cognitive or mental capacity” must be ensured the same substantive and procedural guarantees as others in the context of criminal proceedings”.124 “…deprivation of liberty in criminal proceedings should apply only as a matter of last resort and when other diversion programmes, including restorative justice, are insufficient to deter future crime”; and second that “diversion programmes must not involve a transfer to mental health commitment regimes or require an individual to participate in mental health services; such services should be provided on the basis of the individual’s free and informed consent.”122 The UNCRPD Committee issued several recommendations on the topics of deinstitutionalization. Strictly speaking deinstitutionalization policies concern civil involuntary commitment measures. However, looking at national practices more closely, one realises that often the only reason why persons who have been declared not criminally responsible and subjected to security measures remain in custody is the lack of alternatives in the community. Hence, deinstitutionalization policies may also be relevant for the criminal justice system.125 According to the UNCRPD Committee, not only is any form of deprivation of liberty based on disability prohibited but also any court-ordered mental health commitment regimes and non-consensual mental health On the specific concept of probation, no recommendations by the UNCRPD could be found.