JUSTICE FOR ALL suited decisions from judges concerning how and where the accused needs to undergo criminal punishment, or if such punishment is lawful at all. Especially as it regards pre-trial detention, there are few alternatives for people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. Experts from all partner countries have lamented that there exists too little awareness among judges, prosecutors, lawyers and social workers with regard to available options for non-custodial measures – where they are available. This issue is also linked to the lack of training of judges, prosecutors, police officers, lawyers and probation officers when dealing with a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, as well as a lack of resources. Some experts participating in the workshops have recommended that databases with civil society organisations and facilities that can provide various services could be useful. One option could be to implement a centralised system containing data on available residential care facilities (extra-mural and after-care), therapeutic services, lists of psychologists/psychiatrists, probation services, etc. This would help all actors involved in supporting the individuals to find their way back and prepare an individual package, and it would help courts in ordering alternative measures, as they would have a better overview of the available resources. Non-custodial measures can constitute an important part in the reintegration process. However, while non-custodial measures and sanctions exist in all partner countries, these options are either not sufficient or diverse enough, or not available and tailored to persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. They also might not constitute viable options for persons with specific needs. Probation is also not automatically proposed, and even if it is chosen by the court as a sentence, it is rarely adapted to the specific needs of the person with a mental disability. For example, in Italy, there exists an alternative to the criminal trial called "messa alla prova" or probation, which is widely used. Individuals accused of offences that carry a maximum sentence of six years can apply for it. The program entails a detailed plan and a set of activities, including community work, and its successful completion results in the extinguishment of the offence. However, there are no special provisions for defendants with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. Probation officers from various countries have shared that they seldom work with persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and in such cases, there are no tailored programmes available. A challenge for probation officers is that the available programmes often do not take into account persons with disabilities and/or substance use disorders. The research shows that this category of probationers will show lower success rates in terms of rehabilitation, which is directly linked to the unsuitability of said measures. Moreover, the alternatives made available for detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities are often actually measures depriving them of liberty, including for instance, home detention, closed wards or general inpatient treatment. There is a general lack of “true” alternatives which genuinely focus on the importance of rehabilitation and reinsertion into society (e.g. therapeutic community). Alternatives also require infrastructures, facilities, and professionals which are often missing. It was reported that many defendants needed to wait for months, even years, to be provided an alternative to detention in a specialised facility. Occasionally, some detainees remain in prison just because of the lack of available structures. Furthermore, such non-custodial measures may only be applicable as an alternative to serving a prison sentence, and not as an alternative to a form of custodial measure or preventive detention. For example, electronic monitoring with home detention is theoretically an option in some countries as an alternative to imprisonment (mostly towards the end of one’s sentence) but not as an alternative to a security measure for detainees who have been determined to be not criminally responsible. In Austria, there are several non-custodial measures that are self-standing sanctions: diversion,273 monetary penalties and the electronic monitoring anklet. However, these non-custodial 75