Institutions for persons with disabilities There is also a lack of care staff in the area of education. This opens the door to non-reflective practices that can culminate in measures that restrict freedom. There are now court rulings that make the severity of violation of the right to freedom transparent for the first time. In the case of a nine-year old girl from Salzburg, the competent district court found several measures that restrict freedom, which are untypical for said age group, such as being held tight during class and school activities inside and outside the school building as well as when changing incontinence material, being restrained with a chest strap and in the buggy. The chest strap with guiding “leash” had already been ruled impermissible in the initial hearing. The administration of medication was ruled impermissible. Holding the girl tight and the chest strap in the buggy were ruled impermissible for the past, and ruled permissible under certain conditions for a duration of six months and provided that alternatives were being established (district court of Oberndorf of 23.11.2018, 1Ha 17/18h). 2.4.5 Serious violations of the right to freedom Risk of exploitation through inadequate support The NPM already criticised amongst others the remote locations and unprofessional care in centres for psychosocial rehabilitation in 2017, which affected persons with mental impairments. As a reaction to the NPM’s criticism, the regional government of Carinthia made a considerable effort to improve the situation. A financially secured schedule for the inclusion of these institutions and facilities in the Carinthian Equal Opportunities Act (Chancengleichheitsgesetz), however, was still not available at the time of editing this report – despite multiple assurances from the competent member of the regional government (see NPM Report 2017, p. 96). In 2019 Commission 3 found a large number of deficits in three other facilities for persons suffering from addiction, persons with mental impairments and persons with mental disabilities. The care does not comply with the current human rights standards. The commission also criticised the lack of transparency of the financial situation of these facilities and could not rule out the risk of exploitation of the affected persons. Remote location as an obstacle to inclusion The facilities are in remote locations and are impossible or very difficult to reach by public transport. The residents thus have only a limited possibility to organise their leisure time themselves. Two of the facilities are run as an agricultural and forestry operation; the third facility provides so-called therapy places in an in-house workshop. On principle, the commission welcomed the opportunity of work with animals and working outdoors. At the same time, it was not possible to rebut the suspicion that the residents, as cheap labour, keep the operation running or even make it possible in the first place. In one facility, the working times were regulated without consulting the affected persons and were equivalent to Agriculture maintained by persons with disabilities 96