IMPLEMENTATION UNDER NATIONAL LAW can be discontinued if the person's guilt is considered minimal and there is no public interest in prosecution.268 An expert from the field of psychiatry also reported that in Ireland, judges have the discretion to refrain from conviction and discontinue the proceedings and instead, the defendant donates a designated amount of money to a so-called “Poor Box”, representing a donation to a charity chosen by the judge.269 Similarly, in Germany, in case of a less serious criminal offence, the public prosecution office, with consent of the person concerned and the court, may dispense with the public charges and issue measures if the degree of guilt does not present an obstacle and the measures can eliminate the public interest in criminal prosecution.270 74 means of support. This lack of resources and support within society (and general healthcare system) in many cases leads to persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities ending up in the criminal justice system for minor offences – the criminal justice system being the only system that “cannot refuse” a person due to lack of resources. Instead of pursuing criminal proceedings, “you have to get people around a table and find a tailor-made solution” (as one participant at the regional consultation workshop argued). This should be a multidisciplinary approach and, crucially, involve the person concerned and reflect their views. One suggestion that has been mentioned is the implementation of small-scale, residential, tailored options in the community. In general, in several countries, there are options for judges/prosecutors to discontinue a criminal case concerning a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities if they deem that the offence is not grave enough or the person’s disability does not reach a threshold of severity. However, these decisions do not necessarily constitute diversion. Diversion is an alternative procedure in a criminal case where the prosecution is interrupted through a deal between the defendant and the prosecutor where the prosecutor either dismisses the charges completely or does not bring any charges to begin with.271 In Austria, where pre-trial custodial measures may be applicable at the pre-trial stage, the law dictates a subsidiarity of deprivation of liberty vis-à-vis non-custodial measures/ extramural care and treatment. Pre-trial custodial measures must not be ordered (or continued) if the aims can also be achieved by having the affected person treated and cared for without being subjected to a preventive custodial measure.272 In this case, the court has the possibility to refrain from the pre-trial custodial measure. Before doing so, the court may involve the head of the probation services and request them to organise a social net conference (see case study in Annex 1). Experts from different countries stated that prisons constitute a “revolving door” for many persons and diversion is a key issue when it comes to persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the criminal justice context. These persons have fallen through the “safety net” of their social circle, families, general healthcare and community-based treatment and support providers. The concept of “revolving door” often includes persons concerned being subjected to treatment for short periods (including very often only medication, rather than other forms of treatment) and being released with no additional support or guidance. Often, the situation is aggravated by other factors, such as homelessness, lack of social ties and other 2.7.2. ALTERNATIVES TO DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY Generally, the national research showed a lack of regulations and legislation on the topic of alternatives to deprivation of liberty for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. This leads to inconsistencies in courts’ decisions, and although it may leave courts with the possibility to impose tailored sentences, it can also lead to unchecked arbitrariness and fragmented standards. The research revealed that when legislations on non-custodial measures are available, they rarely provide for the specific situation of sentencing a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, which leads to un-