46 - the national legislation in the field of mental health does not offer the possibility for patients to receive, during the hospitalization, free legal assistance provided by a person independent of the hospital (the law only stipulates the obligation to ensure the patient's defense, which that will be exercised ex officio, if the patient hasn’t appointed a defender – in the case of court actions regarding the involuntary admission procedure); informing about rights is the responsibility of the staff of the psychiatric institution; - In the files of the involuntary admitted patients, as well as in the files of the voluntarily admitted patients, accommodated in the surveillance rooms monitored by the NPM team during the visit to the Voila Psychiatric Hospital, there were no documents proving that the patients have been informed strictly regarding the rights or the procedure of involuntary admission. ►complete Law no. 487/2002, republished, by introducing the obligation for the court which decides in the case of involuntary admission to listen to the opinion of a psychiatrist independent of the hospital (through the forensic expertise report or a psychiatrist proposed by the parties). In formulating the proposal, the NPM considered the following: - some courts, when pronouncing the decisions to confirm the involuntary medical admission, mainly take into account the psychiatric background of the patients and the conclusions of the on-call doctor and of the Commission of involuntary admission; in one case, in which the lawyer asked to be carried out a forensic psychiatric examination, the court rejected the evidence invoking the aforementioned aspects; - The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has repeatedly stressed that, when pronouncing the decision of involuntary admission, the court must take into account the opinion of a psychiatrist independent of the hospital (this aspect which should be provided in the national law), this additional safeguard is necessary because there are persons admitted against their will who are not always in a position to assess the appropriateness of a second medical decision. ► the modification of Art. 34 paragraph (2) of Law no. 46/2003, with subsequent additions and modifications, to no longer be provided that the patient can offer to the employees additional payments or donations. NPM members found that in the list of the Rights of patients with mental disorders, displayed in each section of the Voila Psychiatric Hospital, it was mentioned: "the patient can offer employees [...] additional payments or donations, in compliance with the law". When formulating the proposal for legislative amendment, were considered the decision no. 19/2015, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, according to which, the deed of the doctor from the public health system, who has the status of civil servant, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 175 paragraph (1) lit. b) thesis II of the Criminal Code, of receiving additional payments or donations from patients, within the meaning of Art. 34 paragraph (2) of Law no. 46/2003 regarding the rights of the patient, does not constitute an exercise of a right recognized by law that will draw the incidence of the provisions of Art. 21 paragraph (1) thesis I of the Criminal Code (justifies the deed provided by the criminal law consisting in the exercise of a right recognized by law). Regarding the aforementioned legislative amendment proposals, the Public Health Commission of the Romanian Senate was notified. ► harmonization of the provisions of Art. 82 letter. ț) and Art. 100 paragraph (2) of Law no. 254/2013 regarding the execution of the punishments and measures of deprivation of liberty ordered by the judicial bodies during the criminal trial, regarding the prohibition of PEOPLE’S ADVOCATE ANNUAL REPORT 2019