strongly institutional, a fact which had adverse and catalytic effects on their health and their disability. Furthermore, it was found that the process of deinstitutionalisation was carried out with no vision and without approaching through specific steps and policies the goal of independent living of these people. It is also noted that the whole evaluation procedure was aimed only at establishing their ability to be deinstutionalised, as though deinstutionalisation is a privilege to be acquired, ignoring the primary need to establish whether there is a justifiable need or not for the hospitalisation to continue in the psychiatric institution. Thus, the decision whether the hospitalisation of persons with disabilities should continue or not was the result of an evaluation carried out on the basis of whether they are able to respond to a predetermined deinstitutionaliation plan based on (a) their disability and (b) functionality. As stated in the Stance, however, when the State is called upon to manage issues relating to people with disabilities, the policies to be implemented should be tailored to the needs and abilities of these people, and not the other way around. It was highlighted that both the Ministry and the Department for Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities did not take any measures to promote and prepare the deinstitutionalisation of those still in the Psychiatric Hospital of Athalassa, except, as stated during the relevant meetings of the competent Parliamentary Committee, the issue is expected to be resolved at ministerial level through the cooperation of co-competent Ministries. The Stance also notes that the situation, as it is today, unfortunately does not meet the international obligations of Cyprus both in regards to the rights of these people and the prevention of inhuman and degrading treatment. 32