consent, when drawing up and enforcing the therapeutic schedule. All files checked by the members of the visit team on a random basis had the Informed Consent attached. This was signed by the patient in most cases. However, in some situations, the Informed consent was not signed (it only bore the psychiatrist’s signature and seal) or was signed by an indicted patient (when the consent is only valid if signed by the patient’s legal representative). The visit team reminded the management of the hospital that, in the following cases, based on legal provisions, the psychiatrist may establish treatment without obtaining the patient’s consent: • the patient’s consent is an imminent danger of damage to himself/herself or to others; • the patient does not have the psychological capacity of understanding the state of disease and the need to establish medical treatment and does not have a legal representative or is not accompanied by a conventional representative; • the patient is minor or indicted, when the psychiatrist must request and obtain the legal representative’s consent. The visit team found that, in the hospital, indicted patients were involved in the decision making process on medical intervention (which was also mentioned in the Hospital’s Rules of Organisation and Operation and was in compliance with the guidelines of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture), but mentioned that obtaining the patient’s consent (when possible) may supplement, but in no way replace the legal representative’s consent. Upon reviewing the files, the visit team found that some patients had multiple admissions to the hospital during 2016-2018 under the diagnostic of paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder. All admissions were voluntary. For one of the patients, it was found that the last form of informed consent was not signed and, for another patient, the consent forms showed different signatures under the patient’s signature. The patients had no conventional representatives appointed and there was no proof of notices to the Custody Authority in the administrativeterritorial unit where the patients had their residence or address. All this raised suspicions regarding the actual supply of information to patients (or to the legal representative, for indicted persons) on the treatment and therapeutic procedures and, implicitly, regarding their capacity of knowingly accepting or refusing the proposed therapeutic conduct. In this context, the 102