Institutions for persons with disabilities applied under the conditions mentioned above. That staff are trained in this matter – regardless of COVID-19 – should be obvious. Measures that restrict freedom often not justified Regrettably, the NPM observed several times where that no careful consideration was made of whether a measure that restricts freedom is proportionate. In some cases, the measures were also not reported to the representative(s) of the residents. This means that the affected persons were subjected to measures that restrict freedom which were not legally justified. Health protection does not justify impermissible restrictions of freedom Even if institutions and facilities had the best of intentions and no experience with such a pandemic and their staff were stretched to their limits, diverging from the legal framework for serious infringements of fundamental rights is unacceptable. In many cases, the measures constituted a disproportionate restriction of fundamental and human rights, in particular the right to personal freedom pursuant to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This was also confirmed in court decisions according to which residents of institutions shall be given the opportunity to leave the shared accommodation accompanied by one person up to six times per week. The drastic curfews and visiting restrictions in the residential institutions and facilities meant that many younger persons with disabilities in particular left their residential institutions during the first lockdown and were taken care of at home by their families. This meant not only enormous strain for the relatives. The subsequent return to the institutions turned out to be difficult because in the beginning many institutions only consented to a return if the affected persons agreed to several days in quarantine. They were not even allowed to leave their room to eat during this time. Some institutions made visits possible It should not be left unmentioned that some institutions also reacted flexibly during the first lockdown and allowed visits. It was thus possible to meet relatives in the garden and in the garage observing the hygiene guidelines in a facility in Lower Austria, for example. Easing of restrictions The visiting regulations were eased gradually from May 2020. Table visits with masks were possible and, from the summer, staying the night with relatives was allowed again in some cases. That the lifting of restrictions after the first lockdown took too long was conceded even by several representatives of institutions in conversations with the commissions. The NPM urgently recommended the institutions and facilities to plan concrete measures in time for the event that the number of cases increases and with it the risk of infection as well as the re-introduction of stricter measures. This should facilitate an individually appropriate and proportionate way of dealing with curfews and visiting restrictions in the future. Define protection measures individually 89 Examples of such measures could be the personal definition of individual liberties or restrictions based on the competence of the respective person in handling the prescribed social distancing and hygiene measures; for those