CAT/OP/CYP/1 80. At the time of the Subcommittee’s visit all 11 patients in the ward for men had been hospitalized by court order; some had been hospitalized at the request of their parents. The Subcommittee was informed that parents and police officers had jointly requested patients’ involuntary hospitalization and that the requests had been granted seemingly automatically by a judge, allegedly within minutes, while the patients, whose views were not taken into account, were waiting outside in a police car. 81. The Subcommittee is aware that, after admittance, some patients may wish to leave. There appears to be some uncertainty concerning the legal situation of patients who have been hospitalized voluntarily or those who have been hospitalized involuntarily, which can result in the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Patients do not have legal counsel to represent their interests separately from the interests of their relatives and doctors. This is even more worrying given that independent medical experts are not consulted and that there appears to be no institutionalized right to appeal. The Subcommittee is also concerned about the process and practice for the admission and, in particular, the discharge of patients. 82. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that there is effective judicial oversight in respect of decisions to detain and treat patients, especially juveniles, involuntarily and that all necessary legal safeguards are applied to involuntary placement procedures. To that end, the Subcommittee draws the attention of the State party to the Subcommittee’s document on the rights of persons institutionalized and treated medically without informed consent (CAT/OP/27/2) and stresses that the decision to institutionalize a person should be taken only after a qualified, impartial and objective medical expert has been consulted. The Subcommittee recommends that juveniles be given the opportunity to express their views concerning the measures proposed and that due regard be given to their specific wishes and preferences. F. Children’s home in Larnaca 83. The children’s home in Larnaca mainly houses minors who have been placed in State-run institutional care owing to social and economic problems faced by their families, but it also houses unaccompanied migrants. At the time of the Subcommittee’s visit, 13 children aged between 5 and 14 years were housed in the facility. 84. The material conditions at the children’s home were good. Both sleeping and recreational rooms offered a relaxed and convivial environment, in terms of decoration, hygienic conditions and overall atmosphere. However, the practical arrangements for the accommodation of children could be improved. 85. The Subcommittee recommends that, in order for each child to have sufficient privacy and personal space, no more than two children share a room. Bedrooms should not be shared unless the children involved freely agree to the arrangement. Moreover, the children should be of the same gender and of a similar age (except in the case of siblings). G. National preventive mechanism 86. Further to the ratification by Cyprus of the Optional Protocol in April 2009, the Office of the Commissioner for Administration and Human Rights (Ombudsman) was designated as the national preventive mechanism by virtue of Law No. 2 (III) of 2009. The mechanism has carried out visits to places of deprivation of liberty and has published a number of reports containing recommendations urging the relevant authorities to improve the situation in those places. 1. Legal framework: access 87. The Subcommittee is seriously concerned by subsections (2) and (3) of section 5 of Law No. 2 (III) of 2009, which require the Commissioner to provide prior written notification of the intention to visit a place of detention and the time and date of the planned 13