The fact that a psychiatric institution does not have a high security unit in which the measure of involuntary medical treatment should be performed may not be one of the reasons for the use of means of physical restraint on patients. Considering the CPT's view concerning the use of means of physical restraint in psychiatric institutions and the European Court of Human Rights' view expressed in the judgment Bureš v. the Czech Republic (2012), means of physical restraint should be used only as a matter of last resort, for the shortest time possible, in cases when other means of trying to calm down the agitated and/or violent patient had been unsuccessfully tried. Moreover, means of physical restraint should never be applied only because that is convenient for health care workers (e.g. because of the lack of nurses in the ward, etc.) or as a means of coercion, discipline or punishment. As a consequence, for the purpose of preventing any future use of means of physical restraint because a psychiatric institution does not have a high security unit, it was recommended to the Ministry of Health that the conditions regarding premises, staffing and medical and technical equipment, which must be complied with by all health institutions or their units for specialist-consultative and hospital treatment in the field of psychiatry, which carry out involuntary confinement and involuntary placement of persons with mental disorders, should be prescribed in the Ordinance on the minimum conditions regarding premises, staffing and medical and technical equipment needed to provide health services. Until the time of drafting this report, although the period for response has expired, no feedback information regarding this recommendation was received. We submitted a recommendation to the Ministry of Justice to consider reinstating the protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment in the Misdemeanour Act, because its deletion created a legal void. The protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment could have been applied only towards an offender who committed a misdemeanour in the condition of significantly reduced sanity, provided that there was a danger that the reasons for this condition could also instigate the committal of a new misdemeanour in the future. It is important to keep in mind that this refers to involuntary treatment, and not involuntary placement i.e. hospitalisation. Furthermore, some complainants also complained about involuntary taking of psychopharmaceutical medications. In doing so they called upon the patients' right of codecision provided by the Act on the Protection of Patients’ Rights, that is, the right to accept or refuse a particular diagnostic or medical procedure. Moreover, the patient's right to codecision may be limited only exceptionally, when it is justified by his/her health status and in cases and ways specifically determined by the Act on the Protection of Patients’ Rights. Patients have the right to accept or refuse a particular diagnostic or medical procedure, except in cases of emergency medical interventions whose non-performance would endanger the life and health of a patient or lead to permanent damage to his/her health, which is what psychiatric institutions are invoking in these cases. Although it could be concluded that involuntary psychopharmacological therapy refers only to patients who are involuntarily hospitalised, we have also received information which may suggest involuntary medication in cases where no involuntary hospitalisation was involved.