National Preventive Mechanism persons with disabilities and fortifies their dependence on others unnecessarily. Inaccessible outdoor areas with front doors and room doors that either cannot or can only be opened with difficulty, steep ramps and missing lifts, sanitary installations that are unsuitable for wheelchairs and too small sinks, mirrors or wardrobes that are installed too high, unmarked steps, missing handrails, inaccessible light switches, poor lighting and missing pictograms and guide systems for orientation were subjects of complaints. Additional barriers result from the way information such as house rules, etc. is presented. In some facilities, the structural deficits are so extensive that the commissions doubted their suitability and questioned whether the fast evacuation of the residents would be possible in case of fire. The NPM has received numerous commitments to remove structural deficits or plan a move to barrier-free property. However, the realisation of costly reconstruction usually takes a considerable amount of time. The supervisory authorities are called upon once again at this point to pay special attention to the universal guarantee of barrier-free accessibility on their inspections. The toleration of structural measures that restrict freedom is unacceptable. It is also a fact that the medical model is still applied by examining the person’s deficits when estimating the level of disability. This currently determines above all the possibility to attend school and professional training or attain partial qualifications. It also applies in relation to therapy facilities dedicated to rehabilitation and the integration of persons with addictions and psychiatric diagnoses. The priorities must be shifted – away from promoting special structures towards the building up of inclusive education and employment models. As long as persons with disabilities work in special workshops or in permanent rehabilitation places – even if the work is for external companies among others – but have no chance on the general employment market, there can be no mention of fully realising the right to work and employment within the meaning of the CRPD. Lack of inclusion in the school and employment areas Visit reports from the commissions in recent years documented impressively that a focal concern of a total of approximately 22,000 users of workshops is that they are deployed according to their interests. In particular, they want their activities to be recognised as work and not merely receive a little pocket money for their efforts. During some interviews, the commissions had the impression that the users sometimes would prefer to spend more time in their shared accommodation but feel the pressure of having to go to the workshops. A fundamental reform of these special facilities would require a constructive cooperation of legislators at both the federal and the Laender level in to order to achieve an appropriate reorganisation within the existing distribution of competencies. It is evident from a series of court decisions that the engagement of persons with disabilities in workshops is not to be considered a working relationship but is for “education and treatment” purposes. As the Human Rights Advisory Council already iterated in its statement published in 2014, No recognition for performed work 155