received to cover all expenditures and pay their own wages. The buildings are small in scale and structured in a makeshift manner, they do not have adequate barrier-free accessibility and are minimally equipped, and they do not provide sufficient living space during the day or at night. There are serious ongoing infringements upon the privacy rights of men and women with disabilities. There are no separate toilets and there is no visual protection at all when a person goes to the toilet or takes a shower. On the day of the visit, the hygiene situation was disastrous, not just in the toilets and bathrooms. For example, the commission was unable to discern any toiletry items that were assignable to a specific resident. The commission encountered among others a deaf man with spastic paralysis who was wrapped in a dirty woollen blanket up to his face and “placed” on a small sofa. No care documentation was being maintained, which the responsible couple even admitted. No individual needs plans, documentation regarding diagnoses, doctor’s reports or doctor’s letters were available at the facility. Degrading living conditions According to the married couple, they never go out, are never sick, and never need a holiday or leisure time. All of this is allegedly intended as the basis for maintaining a “residential family” for people who otherwise no-one would take care of. Most of the residents have previously undergone treatment in psychiatric facilities. Their contact with other people is limited to rare visits by family members and general practitioner visits. For most of the individuals receiving care, the courts have assigned legal guardianship to lawyers. These lawyers have drawn up “rental agreements” with the association and handle all financial matters. According to the married couple, the lawyers never visit their clients at the facility. Complete isolation and dependence The psychiatrist of Commission 2 established contact with a general practitioner who is providing treatment and found that the general practitioner’s documentation contained approaches which were not always comprehensible. In some cases, treatment with medications was described with the appropriate precision; however, in other cases there was an overall lack of clarity concerning the residents’ psychiatric diagnoses and required medications. Most of the residents are treated with high doses of psychiatric drugs, mood stabilisers or antiepileptic substances. It was not possible to demonstrate for all of them that they have had regular psychiatric consultations. As a result, in the commission’s opinion there may in some instances be dangerous interactions between the various medications. In some cases, the treatment with medications does not appear appropriate to the diagnosis. Doubts over medications In its statement to the NPM, the regional government of Upper Austria responded that the nature of the care being provided definitely did not meet current standards and that sponsorship for and official recognition of the facility under Land law had been refused years The authorities took the view that there is no need for and no legal grounds for intervention 78