information for safety reasons means. The same applies to the right to use the phone. Restricting the right to use the phone may be justified by protecting the caller from threats and / or psychological violence, although it is also possible to take preventive measures in such a way that the patient is not completely restricted from using the telephone. Another issue that the Public Defender emphasizes is, to specify the procedure for restricting the right. It is unclear what the restriction of the right to security means and it is unclear what kind of security and whose security is implied here. In addition, the law does not specify the maximum duration of the restriction. Therefore, to prevent arbitrary decisions by physicians, it is important to clearly determine the procedure and criteria and specify circumstances for restriction of each right. Also, determine the procedure on appealing the decision of physician promptly and effectively. Granting indefinite authority to the physicians and institutions to restrict the patients’ rights, adopt decisions instead of them both with regard to treatment and other matters creates an even greater disbalance between the patient and personnel428 and is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the basic approach of which is that patients are the right holders and not receipents of mercy. Paternalistic treatment of the patient in the institutions not only gives ineffective results, but also represents a gross interference in the autonomy and personal life of patients. In order for patients to be able to lead their own lives and exercise their rights independently, it is important to comprehensively provide information about their rights upon entering the facility. Interviews with patients in the psychiatric institutions revealed that they have no information about their rights. They can not recall the provision of information about their rights in writing and / or verbally. Also, legal advice is not available in the facilities and patients do not have information on complaint mechanisms. One of the most important safeguards against the patient’s ill-treatment is the implementation of an accessible, simple and confidential internal and external complaint mechanism.429 While the legislation lays down a patient’s right to lodge a complaint or an application before the court and other state institutions,430 there is no statutory procedure to ensure the use of these remedies by the patient. Information on complaint procedures, including the Public Defender’s hotline number, is not in the area accessible for patients in the psychiatric institutions. Furthermore, due to the lack of a telephone and the inability to speak in a confidential environment, it is practically impossible to reach the state authorities or the Public Defender's Office by telephone. The situation in terms of the introduction of an internal complaint mechanism has not improved. The Law of Georgia on Psychiatric Care does not oblige a psychiatric institution to develop an internal mechanism for reviewing patients' complaints, neither the psychiatric institutions undertake any effort to either develop or introduce this mechanism on their own Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment submitted before the General Assembly, A/HRC/35/21, 28 March 2017, para. 22, available at, < https://bit.ly/38mYWR4 > [last visited: 07.01.2021]. 429 Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities, Article 13. 430 Law of Georgia on Psychiatric Care, Article 5.1.g. 428 127