JUSTICE FOR ALL for potentially alleviating the detainee’s condition, precluding any possibility of improvement and leading to overlong stays. A lack of demonstrated “improvement of the situation” and “reduction of danger” may also prevent a detainee from accessing conditional release, where it exists. Experts in Austria have furthermore raised concern with regards to persons concerned whose situation cannot “improve” as is foreseen by law as a necessary requirement for release, due to their mental condition. In these cases, there is little to no perspective of being released.209 Another reason for long durations of detention is that in order to be granted (conditional) release, there has to be a plan in place for post-release care. Experts have raised concerns that a lack of social support systems or a lack of adequate housing options in the community can negatively impact release prospects, preventing equal access to justice for all (see Section 2.7.3). The research has shown that in many countries, it is difficult to be discharged/released from a security measure and sometimes one compulsory measure is simply substituted by another, which may be an outpatient arrangement or within the civil law system, as long as it is a court-ordered compulsory treatment. Even if there is a time limit prescribed in law for compulsory treatment within the criminal context, there are still avenues through which a person may be detained indefinitely under the purview of different measures (e.g., a health regime). For example, in Slovenia, compulsory treatment in the criminal context can only be imposed for a maximum of five years. However, the duration is not determined in the judgement. Instead, every six months, the court must re-examine whether further treatment and confinement in a mental health institution are still necessary.210 After the five-year period ends, if it is deemed necessary for the purpose of continuing treatment or further custody of the person concerned, further measures and treatment under civil law may be imposed.211 Once the person is transferred under such a civil law regime, they can be either treated and supervised within the community (at liberty) or, if they are considered unable to do so, they are placed in a social care institution. In such a case, there is no time limit as the security measure and the deprivation of liberty can be periodically extended indefinitely.212 Experts recommend that such a transferral into the civil law and the mental health system should be avoided and instead, community based support should be strengthened. In Italy, there exists a maximum duration of compulsory treatment (in the REMS) that cannot exceed the maximum sentence for the type of crime for which the person is accused or convicted (see case-study in Annex 4). Following a stay in the REMS, few persons are discharged into the community without additional measures; a survey from 2020 showed that of 172 patients that had been discharged from the REMS, 56% saw their measure transformed into probation, 30% were allowed a form of leave that may be granted in preparation for the end of the security measure, 5% had their measures revoked, 3% were imprisoned in a prison and 3% were ordered another measure.213 Nonetheless, the REMS system in Italy has been perceived as a good practice by many other EU Member States due to the introduction of a maximum duration of deprivation of liberty, as well as their small scale approach to deprivation of liberty and prevention of overcrowding by limiting capacities (although there are also downsides to these limitations. or For more information, see case-study Annex 4). Experts in the consultation workshops have recommended that a time limit should be implemented in every national system, especially because the absence of a time limit entails a lack of legal certainty and a lack of perspective and hope for the person concerned. Some experts have recommended that the length a person is detained in an institution, be it a hospital or a psychiatric facility, should not exceed the maximum sentence that is possible for the committed offence. This would arguably be fairer than stating an arbitrary time period for all offences and detainees across the board, to demonstrate a link between the offence and the detention. On the other hand, some experts have expressed that compulsory 61