JUSTICE FOR ALL In Lithuania, the judge has the right to require attendance at the review hearings (occurring every six months), provided that, according to the opinion of the medical board, the nature of the health condition does not preclude the attendance.220 In Germany, persons concerned usually participate in the review hearings. However, the research showed that their statements are usually used (twisted) to confirm the continuation of the custodial measure. Their statements may be interpreted as lack of taking responsibility for their actions.221 The research has revealed that very often, decisions in review proceedings are based almost exclusively on the expert opinions. For example, in Austria, with regard to security measures and preventive detention, the court has to consult a medical expert once every two years as part of the hearing regarding the conditional release.222 However, in some cases, review decisions are based on the expert opinions from the criminal proceedings, which can date back years.223 Very often only statements of internal experts (medical doctors at the hospital/forensic centre) are taken into account. The CPT, in its recent report, raised concerns about this practice, as involving external experts independent from the institution where the person is deprived of their liberty offers an important safeguard, particularly for persons who have already been detained for a long time. In some cases, years go by without “new” expert opinions being requested and taken into account.224 In Germany, external expert witnesses are always requested regarding the continuation of preventive detention, whereas for the continuation of compulsory measures, this is not the case. Instead, internal experts are requested to provide their opinion on the situation and condition of the person concerned. Also, in Bulgaria, the duration of stays in psychiatric hospitals for compulsory treatment are sometimes prolonged, for a lack of alternatives. If a person does not have a home, ties to social services or a social net in the community, getting released is very difficult. At the same time, reportedly, persons might be discharged too soon, before any improvement of their condition in the sense that their danger to society has diminished. A representative from Bulgaria has noted that security measures might last for a very long time, not because of the persisting danger the person concerned supposedly poses to society, but rather because of a lack of alternatives for care in the community.225 2.5.6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research examined the variety of paths that can lead to deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the six partner countries. All partner countries allow deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the criminal context based on perceived dangerousness linked to their disability. This is in violation of the principles enshrined in the UNCRPD, prohibiting deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability. Depending on assessments of criminal legal capacity, dangerousness, and varying other legal, medical and practical considerations, persons concerned come under the purview of different regimes and facilities, which are embedded in complex systems and difficult to compare across countries: imprisonment (in ‘ordinary’ prisons), as well as detention in psychiatric hospitals, forensic psychiatric institutions, or special units in public hospitals for the purpose of compulsory treatment. The research found that involuntary/non-consensual committal to institutions is a legitimated practice in all countries. Deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities often blurs the lines between medical concerns and security concerns. The research indeed showed that security concerns very often prevail and that the needs for support and care of the individual are not taken into account sufficiently. In most partner countries, unlimited and indefinite deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities is possible under some form of security measure. It is difficult to be discharged/released from a security measure and sometimes one compulsory measure is simply substituted by another. 63