before. It pointed out that from 1999 on, there had been repeated complaints and suggestions for reassessing the living situation at the association’s premises; it also alleged that the official grounds for an intervention had undergone assessment. However, the regional government of Upper Austria took the view that in family-type living arrangements such as this, those grounds were not fulfilled for persons under legal guardianship who in legal terms are not the decision-makers regarding the location of their residence. In the opinion of the operators of facilities for persons with disabilities, in cases where the choice of a legal guardian about the place of residence is deemed contrary to the individual’s interests, the only remaining option is to submit a petition to the relevant court requesting that a new legal guardian be appointed. This response prompted the NPM to consult the Human Rights Advisory Council, and concrete recommendations were able afterwards. In light of this case, the question of how to allocate responsibilities within Austria in order to fulfil the duty to protect human rights and prevent degrading and inhuman treatment of and violence against persons with disabilities needs to undergo in-depth analysis. Various federal and Land regulations apply to aspects of whether such care settings are permissible and to sanctions in the event of infringements. This may be one of the reasons why there has been diffusion of responsibilities. Human Rights Advisory Council consulted Case 2: In Salzburg, Commission 2 visited an officially approved facility where 35 persons with disabilities – aged between 14 and 52 and requiring a high level of care – have been divided into five residential groups. Some of these individuals have been receiving care for a long time. On the day of the visit, the NPM observed how warmly the care staff treated the residents, even though the basic conditions and prerequisites under which the work had to be performed ultimately seemed unacceptable to the NPM. The building, which does not ensure barrier-free accessibility for persons with disabilities, is not equipped for providing care to so many people. Due to a shortage of space, nine people live not in rooms but rather simply occupy beds situated in communal rooms, corridors or passageways. Furthermore, the privacy of children, women and men is infringed in an inhuman and degrading manner. None of the residents’ toilets is situated in a closed-off location; all the toilets are in an open setting adjacent to showers or baths. None of the bathrooms contains visual protection. Toilets are used while other residents are being washed within a confined space. There is no gender segregation when going to the toilet or attending to bodily hygiene. Gender-specific care as a component of violence prevention has not even been considered. Inhuman and degrading conditions 79