2.4. Institutions and facilities for persons with disabilities 2.4.1. Introduction During the year under review, the commissions visited 93 institutions and facilities dedicated exclusively to persons with disabilities (homes, group homes and workshops). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) proved a suitable and consistently applicable basis for assessment. The detailed guarantees set forth in the CRPD can be used as the basis for determining whether risk factors for torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment are present. This holds true independently of the fact that under Austrian constitutional law the NPM has been granted a mandate pursuant to Article 16 (3) CRPD, in addition to the OPCAT mandate. The CRPD also puts normative emphasis on freedom versus safety and security. UN CRPD as a basis for assessment The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has rightly pointed out that selfdetermination and the scope to make one’s own decisions are essential to the prevention of torture. Lack of self-determination makes persons with disabilities especially vulnerable to degrading treatment or worse. The NPM observed this on numerous occasions. Freedom rights of persons with disabilities, particularly those with major physical or intellectual impairments, can only be effective if the persons are supported to lead a self-determined life. One of the NPM’s key concerns is to overcome or at least reduce conditions involving unilateral dependency, and to increase user perspectives. Reference systems which impede personal development and the process of becoming independent may maximise supposed safety and security but are not conducive to freedom. Lack of selfdetermination as a risk factor Against this background, the range within which facilities and institutions operate in concrete terms is very broad. There is certainly an awareness of having to confront major challenges in and involving one’s own organisation. It is important to stress that although the NPM may take a critical stance, in numerous cases excellent work is done. Broad range of very different organisational cultures As the NPM pointed out in last year’s report (see NPM Report 2014, p. 71), at present the legal protection relating to restriction of freedom of minors with disabilities living in institutions and facilities, which is inappropriate for their age, is by no means uniform. It largely depends on the authority responsible for the institution or facility in question. Homes and other institutions and facilities which provide care to minors and are under the supervision of the competent authorities for child and youth welfare and protection are explicitly excluded from the scope of applicability of the Nursing and Residential Homes Residence Act. Assuming one applies the human rights approach stringently, and in light of the current basic conditions under constitutional law (Federal Constitution, Federal Constitutional Law on the Protection of Personal Freedom, European Convention on Human Rights, Federal Dialogue aimed at improving legal protection for minors 72