all rights reserved 1. glossarymental disability advocacy centerand/or emotional development, which may result in a4liberty denied493022/10/2002dddddetention3122/10/2002dddddetention3222/10/2002dddddetention3311/11/2002dddddetention3411/11/2002dddddetention3513/11/2002dddddetention3611/12/2002dddddetention3711/12/2002dddddetention3823/01/2003dddddetention3923/01/2003ddddobjects to detentiondetention4030/01/2003ddddobjects to detentiondetention4130/01/2003rrrrobjects to detentionrelease4226/02/2003dddddetention4328/02/2003dddddetention4406/03/2003dddddetention4506/03/2003ddddobjects to detentiondetention4619/03/2003rrrrobjects to detentionrelease4708/04/2003dddddetention4810/04/2003ddddnot presentdetention4910/04/2003ddddobjects to detentiondetention5004/06/2003dddddetention5104/06/2003ddddnot presentdetention5205/06/2003dddddetention5305/06/2003dddddetention5417/06/2003ddddobjects to detentiondetention5517/06/2003rrrrnot presentrelease5625/06/2003rrrrobjects to detentionrelease5730/06/2003rrrrobjects to detentionrelease5830/06/2003dddddetention5930/06/2003dddddetention6005/07/2003dddddetentioninvite human rights non-government organizations to monitor the conditions human rights6liberty denied47chart: length of hearings 0102030405060mdac case observation numberminutesduration of court hearingsaverage hearing durationpoised to accede to the european union.practice meets the country?s international legal obligations, but despite the many changes since theprison. people suffer the dual stigma of being offenders/patients, both this report analyses whether procedures for restricting liberty of people ? detained through the8liberty denied45length of time1.14/06/200108:3708:54172.14/06/200108:5509:0053.15/02/200208:3908:55164.06/03/200208:3908:4675.06/03/200208:4708:4926.06/03/200208:5008:5337.06/03/200208:5408:5628.06/03/200208:5708:5819.06/03/200208:5909:01210.06/03/200209:0209:04211.27/03/200208:4608:48212.27/03/200208:4908:52313.27/03/200209:0409:06214.04/04/200209:2909:31215.09/04/200208:3108:532216.09/04/200208:5509:01617.09/04/200209:0209:10818.12/04/200208:3508:38319.10/09/200208:5508:57220.10/09/200208:5809:01321.10/09/200209:0309:131022.10/09/200209:1409:16223.11/09/200208:3908:47824.17/09/200208:4608:53725.17/09/200208:5509:02726.03/10/200208:4208:51927.03/10/200208:5209:01928.03/10/200210:1210:164*a professional judge presides over such hearings, which are held in open court. two lay justicesbefore inviting the prosecutor?s opinion on whether the patient should be further detained. finally,continued detention or to order the patient?s release.10liberty denied43bevon?s?t megtagadja, az elk?sz?tett v?lem?ny az ok-?venk?nt megism?tli.-k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lata?venk?nt megism?tli.5(1)everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. no one shall be deprived of his lib-(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;(e)the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, ofthe convention was drafted in the late 1940s, hence the rather outdated and now unpleasant term ?persons of12v?d?, tov?bb? a s?rtett, a mag?nv?dl?, a mag?nf?l, azig?nybe venni. az igazs?g?gyminiszter ? a bel?gymi-(2) a hal?l oka ?s k?r?lm?nyei, valamint az elme?l-lapot vizsg?lat?n?l k?t szak?rt?t kell alkalmazni.(1) v?d? lehet:b) other acts of procedure prescribed by this lawbe used. in other cases more experts may be obligedtive based on authorization in procedures of misde-liberty denied41[?] that the words ?in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? essentially refer back to domestic law; they state the need for compliance with the relevant procedure under that law.however the domestic law must itself be in conformity with the convention, including the general prin-ciples expressed or implied therein. the notion underlying the term in question is one of fair and prop-er procedure, namely that any measure depriving a person of his liberty should issue from and be exe-cuted by an appropriate authority, and should not be arbitrary. (paragraph 45)the echr therefore requires that the admission procedures be codified. in the case of kawka vpolandin the case of winterwerp v. netherlandsis not enough initially to detain someone or to decide to continue to detain that person. , the european court of human rights stated that the validity of continued con-finement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder.38in other words, it is not acceptable formental disability advocacy center33application no. 25874/94, judgment 9 january 2001.34aerts v. belgium, 29 ehrr 50.35the term ?mental disorder? is used by the european court of human rights and is now established in legal dis-course. where possible, ?mental disorder? is avoided in this report, as some people regard the term as inaccurate andderogatory.36winterwerp v. netherlandsop citop citop cit14mdac recommendation 10: ensure that information on legal processes and rights is available to imei patients. ensurethat this information is available in an understandable format and easily accessible.mdac recommendation 11: encourage the formation of patients? advocacy groups within imei.mdac recommendation 12: invite human rights non-governmental organizations to monitor the conditions human rightswithin imei.liberty denied39try. this term, as employed in several articles of the convention (including art. 5(4)), serves to denotebodies which exhibit not only common fundamental features, of which the most important is independ-ence of the executive and of the parties to the case, but also the guarantees (?appropriate to the kind ofdeprivation of liberty in question?) of [a] judicial procedure the form of which may vary from onedomain to another. (paragraph 53)the review by the ?court? (however it is designated)should [?] be wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to the convention, are essen-tial for the ?lawful? detention of a person on the ground of unsoundness of mind, especially as the reasonscapable of initially justifying such a detention may cease to exist.42in the case of d.n. v. switzerlandof judges? independence in civil commitment review hearings saying, ?any judge in respect of whom,case concerning detention similar to the imei population, the court considered three intervals, thefirst of fifteen months, the second of two years and the third of nine months. it decided that the firsttwo could not be regarded as reasonable intervals, but did not criticise the third interval of ninemonths. it therefore seems highly probable that the european court of human rights would acceptannual intervals, but no longer.9. a court must speedilydecide on detentionin musial v. poland45the european court of human rights held that ?article 5(4), in guarantee-ing to persons arrested or detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of theirdetention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicialdecision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful.?46in e v. norway47the european court of human rights held that a period of 55 days (seven weeksand six days) between an application for review and a decision by a ?court? was insufficiently speedyto meet the requirements of article 5(4). the maximum permissible time between an application forreview and a court decision remains undecided, but could be held to be as little as four or six weeks.less urgency is required under article 5(4) when a patient is exercising his right to a second or sub-sequent application. but in koendjbiharie v. netherlands48the european court of human rightsfound a delay of four months to be excessive.the european court of human rights has made it clear that ?the complexity of a medical dossier,however exceptional, cannot absolve national authorities from their essential obligations? underarticle 5(4).49mental disability advocacy center42wassink v. the netherlands, op cit, paragraph 58.43unreported, application no. 27154/95, judgment 29 march 2001, commentary at (2001) 5 ehrlr 589.44application no. 10533/83, judgment 24 september 1992, reported at (1992) 15 ehrr 437.45unreported. application no. 24557/94, judgment 25 march 1999.46musial(1991) 13 ehrr 820.op cit16mdac recommendation 3: amend the code of criminal procedure to require the relevant authorities to send to thepatient in imei and the patient?s attorney copies of the court file (including all expert opin-ions) without additional cost, and without delay.court-appointed psychiatrists always agree with treating psychiatristin every case observed by mdac, the court-appointed psychiatrist always followed the opinions ofthe treating psychiatrist. this brings into question the purpose of the court-appointed psychiatrist.the judge never hears differing professional opinions. although the patient has a theoretical opportu-nity to solicit the opinion of a psychiatrist of his or her choosing, this never happens in practice. mdac recommendation 4: amend the code of criminal procedure to allow patients to use an expert of the patient?schoosing. make available to all patients and their attorneys a list of qualified psychiatrists,and organize a system whereby these experts can be paid by the state. the system mustinclude a provision whereby, if the patient is unable to instruct an expert of his or her choos-ing, an independentpsychiatrist should be instructed to provide an independent opinion. psychiatrists absent from courtin all of the hearings observed by mdac neither the treating psychiatrist nor the court-appointedpsychiatrist were present in court. it was therefore impossible for judges, patients or their attorneys toquestion or challenge the medical evidence on which the person?s detention/liberty hinged. mdac recommendation 5: amend the code of criminal procedure to make obligatory the presence of the imei psy-chiatrist and the patient?s chosen or court-appointed independent psychiatrist at court hear-ings. judges fail as human rights guarantorsthe average duration of imei review hearings observed was just over seven minutes from the timethe judge opens the hearing to when the judge finished reading the judgment. some hearings were overwithin three minutes. given the time spent on each case, the judicial investigation is at best superficial. in every case observed by mdac the judge accepted the agreed conclusions of the treating andcourt-appointed psychiatrists. medical opinion was accepted not only by the patient?s attorney, butalso by the judge as unquestionable truth. these circumstances suggest that the judge is not acting asan independent decision maker, in violation of article 5 of the echr.mdac recommendation 6: implement a system of training on human rights for judges who hear detention review cases. the training should include: the standards of the european convention on human rightsand the case law of the strasbourg court; key medical aspects of mental disability; how toanalyze psychiatric opinion; and risk assessment.liberty denied3711. an attorney representing a patient must have access to information onthe patient from the hospitalthe court procedure must allow the attorney access to information held about the client. innikolova v. bulgariaproceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure ?equality of arms? between the parties, thethe european court of human rights has said that the court review of psychiatric detentionin johnson v. united kingdom59the european court of human rights considered decisions ofthree successive mental health review tribunals that a patient found no longer to be suffering frommental illness should be discharged subject to a condition that he reside in a staffed hostel. the tribu-nal lacked the power to implement this condition, and his detention continued. the european courtof human rights, having found a breach of article 5(1)(e), found it unnecessary to decide theapplicant?s complaint that there was also a breach of article 5(4) by reason of the tribunal?s lack oflegal powers. however the judgment strongly suggests that but for the finding under article 5(1)(e)the european court of human rights would have found a violation of article 5(4).mental disability advocacy center56application no. 31195/96, judgment 25 march 1999, reported at (2001) 31 ehrr 3. nikolova v. bulgariais not amental health case, but a criminal case in which articles 5(1)(c) and 5(4) were argued.57x. v. the united kingdom, application no. 7215/75, judgment 5 november 1981, reported at (1981) 4 ehrr 188.58winterwerp v. the netherlands, op cit, paragraph 39.59op cit.18judgewould you like to say anything here at the court?patientyes. i am here at the court and they say i am mad. i am 76 years old. i would liketo ask for help here because they said that i am mad which is a lie. the psychiatristwho examined me asked me: ?how are you uncle l?szl???118 that was it!neither the judge nor the patient?s attorney responded. there was a short break.judgethe forensic compulsory treatment is continued. according to the professionals?opinion, he may commit an unlawful act.119in the following case the judge read aloud the court-appointed psychiatrist?s report. the reportstated that the patient?s mother indicated in a letter that the mother thought the patient should live ather home. the judge asked just one question during the hearing:judgedo you have an occupation in imei?patientactually i do the cleaning. i?m feeling better and i?m progressing. the doctorsdon?t let me go on adaptive leave. i would like to see my mother. i would like toask another expert because the expert opinion is false. following the patient clearly challenging the medical opinion, the patient?s attorney said to thecourt: ?according to the professionals? advice, the forensic compulsory treatment must be main-tained?. the judge then ordered continued detention.120liberty denied118the name of the patient has been changed. 119court hearing observed by mdac on 11 september 2002. mdac reference number 23.120court hearing observed by mdac on 17 june 2003. mdac reference number 54.35law and practice as to constitute an ongoing violation of hungary?s obligations under international law7.1 presence of patient at court7.2 legal criteria 7.3 length of hearings7.4 social work input7.5 legal representationtreating psychiatrist and the court-appointed psychiatrist, who in every case agreed with each other.mdac found that court hearings last on average just over seven minutes and some less than three7.1. presence of patient at court7.1. presence of patient at courttrial, the chief doctor determines whether the person should be present at court or not, based on thepatient?s mental state, and informs the court.? the ombudsman concluded that because the ministerialcommand gives the decision to one person without any possibility of external control or remedy,there is a danger of violating the patient?s constitutional right to a judicial hearing. court decisions: bh 1977.537., bh 1978.12., and bh 1989.437.209.1 psychiatric reports not sent to patient or patient?s attorney9.2. reports not available free of charge 9.3 court-appointed psychiatrists always agree with treating psychiatrists9.4 psychiatrists never present in court9.1 psychiatric reports not sent to patient or patient?s attorneyliberty denied113see chapter 6, paragraph 11, above, ?an attorney representing a patient must have access to information on thepatient from the hospital?.114interview with attorney who represents imei patients, 28 july 2003.33to future criminality. the judge did not say whether the risk of the criminal offence is a high one, orthe patient ? in imei since 1998 ? had more chance of being released if he obeys internal rules infinement?,as required by the echr.op cit,paragraph 39.74see appendix 3 of this report for more information. 228.5 attorneys? ethical codeliberty denied105decree 7/2002. (iii.30.) promulgated by the ministry of justice in march 2002.106prior to january 2003, an attorney appointed by the court to represent an imei patient at a hearing reviewing deten-tion was paid 1,000 huf (approximately 4 euro) for the first hour or part of an hour spent in court, and 500 huf(approximately 2 euro) for any additional hour. see decree 1/1974 (ii. 15) of the minister of justice, on the feesand expenses of defense counsel appointed in criminal procedures. the structure of payment provided no incen-tive for lawyers to offer anything other than an absolute minimal level of service and represented an in-built disin-centive for attorneys to take time over cases and to carry out appropriate levels of advocacy. no money was pro-vided for pre-hearing conferences, at which an attorney could go to meet the client and take full instructions. 107pesti ?gyv?d (budapest bar association professional journal), 2002/6, p.1-2.108as all court reviews of imei detention take place in the capital court, all court-appointed attorneys in such casesbelong to the budapest bar.109telephone interview with dr. b?n?ti j?nos, president of the budapest bar association (budapesti ?gyv?di kamara), 24 july 2003.31under hungarian law. because the state is legally obligated to ensure representation, it also representsbefore hearings. the first time that i know if a patient wants to leave is when the judge asks them in248. failings of judges and attorneysthis section summarises the international and hungarian legal obligations and ethical standards ofjudges and state-appointed attorneys,90concluding that the conduct observed in 60 hearings revealssystemic violations of international and hungarian law. 8.1 european convention on human rightsthe under-performance of attorneys during mental disability detention cases is certainly an issuewithin the echr. the european court of human rights has stated that, ?where the deprivation ofliberty is at stake, the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation?.91in one case at the european court of human rights the applicant suffered from a mental disabili-ty that prevented him from conducting court proceedings satisfactorily, despite his previous legaltraining. the circumstances of the case therefore dictated the appointment of an attorney to assist himin the proceedings concerning the periodic review of the lawfulness of his confinement. the judge hadassigned an attorney at the outset of the proceedings but the attorney had played no role in the pro-ceedings. the european court of human rights found a violation of article 5(4) of the echr andstressed that the mere appointment of an attorney to the case does not ensure that the client willreceive effective legal assistance.92in another case, the european court of human rights held thatwhilst the conduct of a person?s defense is a matter for the person being represented and that person?sattorney, it is the judgewho retains overall responsibility for ensuring the fairness of the legal pro-ceedings.failure of the judge to exercise such authority is a violation of article 6 (the right to a fairtrial) of the echr.legal representation must be ?practical and effective?.94the european court of human rights hasruled that in criminal cases it is for the authorities responsible for granting legal assistance (in thiscase, the judge) to ensure that attorneys are capable of effectively defending the case. the europeancourt of human rights emphasised that:a state is responsible for ensuring that legal representation is provided, and that the representation isadequate. the convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rightsthat are practical and effective.in the case of artico v. italy, the court stated: [?] mere nomination does not ensure effective assistance since the lawyer appointed for legal aid pur-poses may die, fall seriously ill, be prevented for a protracted period from acting or shirk his duties. ifthey are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace him or cause him to fulfil his obli-gations.96the court went on to say that if the state?s obligation finished with merely ?nominating? an ex offi-cioattorney, ?in many instances free legal assistance might prove to be worthless?.97this is the cur-rent situation with imei hearings.liberty denied90it must be remembered that imei patients are technically able to hire an attorney on a retainer, but the overwhelm-ing majority of people in imei rely on the (lack of) services of an ex officioattorney. 91benham v. the united kingdom, (1996) 22 ehrr 293.92pereira v. portugal, application no. 44872/98, judgment 26 february 2002.93cuscani v. the united kingdom, application no. 32771/96, judgment 24 september 2002.94artico v. italy, (1981) 3 ehrr 1.95?belgian linguistic? case, judgment of 23 july 1968, series a no. 6, p. 31.96artico v. italy, (1981) 3 ehrr 1, paragraph 33.97ibid.mental disability advocacy center82court hearing observed by mdac on 22 october 2002. mdac reference number 31.83court hearing observed by mdac on 11 november 2002. mdac reference number 33.26when will the next hearing be held?to decide to continue or discontinue detention. liberty denied84in the other two cases the judge asked the patient whether he wanted to speak with his attorney, and the judgeallowed one or two minutes for the attorney to speak to his or her client. in these cases the patients (through theattorney) expressed a wish to leave imei, but in neither case did the attorney refer to or challenge the psychiatricreports. in these two cases the judge asked no further questions, nor did the attorney pursue any active advocacy onbehalf of the client expressing a wish to leave imei. the judge decided on continued detention in both these cases.85interview with attorney who represents imei patients, 30 july 2003.86interview with attorney who represents imei patients, 28 july 2003.87interview with attorney who represents imei patients, 29 july 2003.277.5(d) attorneys always accept the psychiatric opinionanother way in which attorneys neglect their duties is that they do not challenge the psychiatricopinions. in 55 out of 57 cases observed by mdac where the judge ordered continued detention, thepatient?s attorney automatically conceded acceptance of the medical reports and the prosecutor?s rec-ommendations to continue the detention of the patient, irrespective of what the patient said or want-ed.84in all cases there was ultimately total agreement between the patient?s attorney, the prosecutor,the treating psychiatrist, the court-appointed psychiatrist and the judge. this brings into question theroles of all of these professionals.in any circumstances one would expect the opinions of expert witnesses to be highly persuasive inthe courtroom. it would therefore seem obvious that a patient?s strategy to persuade the judge toorder release is to vigorously challenge the psychiatric reports. however, in imei hearings the expertopinions are conclusive, and go legally unchallenged without exception. in none of the 60 court hear-ings observed by mdac did the patient?s attorney make any reference to the contents of either thetreating psychiatrist?s or the court-appointed psychiatrist?s report. indeed, mdac observers couldnot discern that the attorney had even read the psychiatric reports, or had asked the client his or heropinions about them. in several cases observed by mdac the patient?s attorney did not have anypapers in front of him or her. answering mdac?s question ?do you meet clients beforehand to talkwith your client about whether s/he wants to challenge any inaccuracies in the psychiatric reports??one attorney answered:well, i meet them at the court right before the trial. but i have never experienced that any of my clientswould have wanted to challenge the experts? reports. and as a [patient?s attorney] i would never suggestanything else but the opinion of the psychiatrists? because it is such a big responsibility. you know?what if a released person commits another crime? 85this attitude appears to be quite common ? a mix of paternalism (the attorney knows what is bestfor the client) and attorney-as-officer-of-the-court (that is, the attorney is acting in the best interestsof society as a whole). in neither role does the attorney act as an advocate advancing the voice of theclient. asked whether it would be better for an attorney to talk to the client about the reports beforethe hearing instead of in the stressful courtroom environment, an attorney answered: of course it?s stressful. but i have to say that these people are ill. they usually tell their opinion in anobvious way because of their mental state.86another attorney echoed this view, and when asked how the patient is expected to challenge thepsychiatric opinions without seeing the reports before the court hearing, the attorney answered: ?thesepeople with diseased minds usually know that they?re sick. they want to take the medication.?87moreover, attorneys believe that even if patients and attorneys were given the psychiatric reportbeforehand, they would still not be challenged. there remains a general deference to medical opinion,interestingly, the imei director claimed that attorneys doread the psychiatric reports before thehearings, but conceded that they do not meet the clients beforehand. the reason given for not meet-ing clients was that the attorney reads in the psychiatric reports that the client has a diseasedmentalstate, the implication being either that such a person?s fate has already been decided, or that a personwith a ?diseased mind? does not need legal representation. the reality, however, is that attorneys nei-ther read the reports nor meet their clients. whether the convention has been complied with.?reviews or challenges the basis on which an individual?s continued detention hinges, non-complianceasked the patient some questions about general health, and whether the patient accepted the opinions, op cit, paragraph 82.89interview with dr. julia szil?gyi , office of the hungarian parliamentary commissioner, 29 july 2003.28liberty denied80court hearing observed by mdac on 22 october 2002. mdac reference number 29. 81court hearing observed by mdac on 17 september 2002. mdac reference number 25.25i don?t know.c) assist in the exploration of facts that may discharge or decrease the responsibility of the 30judge ok. you do not want to appeal it.patient no, i do want to appeal the decision. judge according to advice from two professionals the forensic compulsory treatmentmust be maintained. it would be inhuman to discontinue it: he may commit anunlawful act.75it is questionable whether the court takes into account the patient?s view at all. in the court hear-ings observed by mdac, patients? opinions were rarely solicited or considered, and most of the hear-ings were conducted in a rushed manner with the judge and patient?s attorney not questioning any-thing said by the professionals in their reports, and not taking seriously anything said by the patient. 7.4. social work inputin none of the imei hearings does the judge have a report setting out relevant social circumstancesof the patient. in many european states, a social work report informs the court about the alternativesto the current detention, such as transfer to a hospital of a less restrictive regime, or discharge to fam-ily members. according to the director of imei, the imei psychiatric report includes informationabout options for the patient?s discharge only when the psychiatrist?s medical opinion is that the per-son should be discharged. in other words, the court only has information on discharge when all theprofessionals are agreed. if the patient ? contrary to psychiatric opinion ? would like to be releasedfrom imei, the court does not have information about alternatives to detention. this clearly puts thepatient at a disadvantage and compels the court to agree with the recommendation of the psychiatrist-experts.as the following courtroom dialogue demonstrates, patients are disadvantaged because the courtlacks comprehensive information and is forced to take a defensive decision, namely to order continueddetention:judgedoes anybody visit you?patientmy brother.judgehow often does he see you?patientevery month.judge have you ever been on adaptive leave? patient no.judgedo you know anything about your social care home placement?patienti have had a room since 1 october 2002.judge i can read that your room was applied for in september 2000. have they alreadyarranged everything? patient yes, i believe so.liberty denied75court hearing observed by mdac on 10 september 2002. mdac reference number 21.238.6 attorneys? conception of their role mdac asked attorneys the question, ?what role do you play in imei review hearings?? a standard32nated if its necessity no longer exists?.63however, there are no guidelines about howthe judge shoulddecide on the existence of the necessity to continue with the detention and forced treatment. legislative clarity is of fundamental importance in a democratic society, and is required by interna-tional law. as the european court of human rights stated in the case of kawka v. polandcertainty is satisfied. it is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domes-tic law should be clearly defined, and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meetsthe standard of ?lawfulness? set by the convention?without clear legal criteria about the justification for continued deprivation of liberty, judges arefree to make arbitrary decisions or to show total subservience to the psychiatrist-experts. judgesdecides how often the patient has to be seen, but no less than every 2 weeks. imei retains medical control, but out-219.3 court-appointed psychiatrists always agree with treatingagrees with the treating psychiatrist. in every hearing observed by mdac there was no discernable3414. anybody who has been of victim of any breach of article 5 must have alegally enforceable right to compensation in that person?s domestic courtsthe right to compensation set out in article 5(5) must be enforceable by a court, leading to a legal-ly binding award. a remedy before some body other than a court (for example an ombudsman), or anex gratiaaward, is not sufficient. a state is not prohibited from requiring proof of damage. the term?victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article? includes contraven-tions of any of the paragraphs 5(1) to 5(4).as can be seen from this analysis, the european court of human rights has established a numberof requirements that must be followed in every state party to the echr, including hungary. the nextsection of liberty deniedexamines the extent to which people detained in imei are in practicepro-tected by the stringent requirements of international human rights law set out in this section.liberty denied19in question. 36state authorities may argue that there was another method that the applicant could have used toseek a remedy for the delay (for example, lodging a complaint with a public prosecutor). the europeancourt of human rights will allow such an argument to succeed only if the government can show thatthe body to which they say the applicant should have complained has ?judicial character?.50if there are proceedings before one court, the applicant need generally not have recourse to appealto the constitutional court, as ?[i]n principle, the intervention of one organ satisfies article 5paragraph 4, on condition that the procedure followed has a judicial character and gives to the indi-vidual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question?.51in order to determine whether a court procedure provides adequate guarantees, regard must be hadto the particular circumstances in which such proceedings take place.5210. a patient must have an opportunity to be heard in person, and be repre-sented by an attorneyin megyeri v. germanyin the case of vaes v netherlands,the (now non-existent) european commission of humanrights considered ?that the same principle (as megyeri) should apply to proceedings which ? concernthe initial detention of a person in a psychiatric institution.?in pereira v. portugal,the european court of human rights noted that the applicant was suffer-ing from a mental disorder that prevented him from conducting court proceedings satisfactorily,despite his legal training. the circumstances of the case therefore dictated the appointment of an attor-ney to assist him in the proceedings concerning the periodic review of the lawfulness of his confine-ment. the judge responsible for the execution of sentences had assigned an attorney at the outset ofthe proceedings but he had played no role in the proceedings. the european court of human rightsfound a violation of article 5(4), emphasising that merely appointing counsel did not ensure that theclient would receive effective legal assistance.in summary, court jurisprudence requires that the state make available effective legal assistance toany person who is being detained on the basis of a mental disability.liberty denied50vodenicarov v slovakia, application no. 25430/94, judgment 21 december 2000, paragraph 37.51jecius v lithuania, application no. 34578/97, judgment 31 august 2000, paragraph 100.52see vodenicarov v slovakia, op cit, paragraph 33.53application no. 13770/88, judgment 12 may 1992, reported at (1992) 15 ehrr 584.54application no. 17581/90 report of the commission 2 september 1992.55application no.44872/98, judgment 26 february 2002.17attorneys very rarely meet their clients before the court hearing. in none of the court hearingscourt hearings that the attorney had read the psychiatric reports, or had asked the client his or herwishes and how to analyze and challenge the expert medical opinion.lack of social work inputhuman rights within imei 38psychiatrists to assess someone only once as having a mental disorder that warrants detention. theperson?s mental disability must be assessed regularly. if the person no longer has a mental disability ofsufficient kind or degree, then the person must be released.6. discharge (release) from detention need not be immediate and uncondi-tional. a hospital may defer discharge for a reasonable time to make after-carearrangements (such as arranging a place for the person to live)in the case of johnson v. the united kingdom, the european court of human rights stated thatthe hospital:[?] should be able to retain some measure of supervision over the progress of the person once he isreleased into the community and to that end make his discharge subject to conditions. it cannot beexcluded either that the imposition of a particular condition may in certain circumstances justify a defer-ral of discharge from detention, having regard to the nature of the condition and to the reasons forimposing it. it is, however, of paramount importance that appropriate safeguards are in place so as toensure that any deferral of discharge is consonant with the purpose of article 5 ? 1 and with the aim ofthe restriction in sub-paragraph (e) [?] and, in particular, that discharge is not unreasonablydelayed.397. following detention, a patient must be given an opportunity to test the lawfulnessof his or her detention before a court which is independent of the executive, is impar-tial and has the power to give legally binding judgment about a person?s release if a person is convicted of a criminal act and on account of his mental disorder, the court ordershim to be detained in a hospital, his detention is governed by article 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(e).consequently he has a right to periodic review of detention.in winterwerp v. netherlandsthe european court of human rights laid down the essentialthe european court of human rights, expanding its earlier case law,41explained the notion of a ?court? in this context:it is not within the province of the court to enquire into what would be the best or most appropriate sys-tem of judicial review in this sphere, for the contracting states are free to choose different methods ofperforming their obligation. thus, in article 5(4) the word ?court? is not necessarily to be understoodas signifying a court of the classic kind, integrated within the standard judicial machinery of the coun-liberty denied39johnson v. the united kingdomop citop citjudgment of 27/9/1990, series a no. 185-a, paragraph. 30.15meghat?rozott okokb?l ?s a t?rv?nyben meghat?rozott?rizetbe vett szem?lyt a lehet? legr?videbb id?n bel?lhelyez?s?r?l vagy letart?ztat?s?r?l halad?ktalanul d?n-denki egyenl?, ?s mindenkinek joga van ahhoz, hogy azjogait ?s k?teless?geit a t?rv?ny ?ltal fel?ll?tottjogait ?s k?teless?geit a t?rv?ny ?ltal fel?ll?tott(3) a b?ntet?elj?r?s al? vont szem?lyeket az elj?r?sminden szakasz?ban megilleti a v?delem joga. a v?d?nem vonhat? felel?ss?gre a v?delem ell?t?sa sor?n kifej-tett v?lem?nye miatt.b?ntet? t?rv?nyk?nyv24. ? (1) nem b?ntethet?, aki a cselekm?nyt azelmem?k?d?s olyan k?ros ?llapot?ban ? ?gy k?l?n?senelmebeteg-s?gben, gyengeelm?j?s?gben, szellemi le-?p?l?sben, tudatzavarban vagy szem?lyis?gzavarban ? k?veti el, amely k?ptelenn? teszi a cselekm?ny k?vet-kezm?nyeinek felismer?s?re vagy arra, hogy e felisme-r?snek megfelel?en cselekedj?k.okoz? b?ntetend? cselekm?ny elk?vet?j?nek k?ny-szergy?gykezel?s?t kell elrendelni, ha elmem?k?d?-felt?ve, hogy b?ntethet?s?ge eset?n egy?vi szabads?g-veszt?sn?l s?lyosabb b?ntet?st kellene kiszabni.int?zetben hajtj?k v?gre.int?zetben hajtj?k v?gre.(3) individuals subject to criminal proceedings areentitled to legal defense at all stages of the proceed-ings. defense lawyers may not be held accountable foropinions expressed in the course of the defense.criminal code (act number 4 of 1978)24. ? (1) a person who commits the act in a diseasedmental state ? specifically in a state of mental illness, ofdevelopmental disability, dementia, a confused mentalstate or personality disorder ? which makes him inca-405(2)everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the5(3)??5(4)everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take pro-5(5)everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions6(1) in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against6(2) everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty6(3) everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of theb) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense;c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he hasd) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance ande) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the lan-.european court of human rights considered winterwerp v. netherlands, application no. 6301/73, judgment 24 october 1979, reported at 2 ehrr 387.13tet ment?, illet?leg a felel?ss?g?t enyh?t? t?nyekfelder?t?s?t el?seg?teni.44. ?(1) v?d?k?nt meghatalmaz?s vagy kirendel?sa) a terhelttel a kapcsolatot k?sedelem n?lk?l felvenni,b) a terhelt ?rdek?ben minden t?rv?nyes v?dekez?sieszk?zt ?s m?dot kell? id?ben felhaszn?lni,d) a terheltet ment?, illet?leg a felel?ss?g?t enyh?t?t?nyek felder?t?s?t szorgalmazni.hat, a jogszab?lyokban biztos?tott lehet?-s?gek kereteik?z?tt adatokat szerezhet be, ?s gy?jthet.el?terjeszt?se ut?n k?rd?seket lehet int?zni.?rt?h?z k?rd?seket lehet int?zni.illet?leg a b?r?s?ggal, hogy szakv?lem?nyt k?v?n k?sz?t-?rt?k?nt val? bevon?s?r?l a b?r?s?g, illet?leg az ?gy?sza) contact the defendant without delay,(1) the defendant and the defendant?s attorney42imei also houses offenders originally sentenced to imprisonment, but who have developed mentalhealth problems in prison. these people are still under a prison sentence. no patients detained underthe healthcare act 1997 ? the mechanism for civil (non-criminal) psychiatric commitment ? are sentto imei. there are special regulations governing imei, issued by the ministry of justice.21the director ofimei is the institution?s chief doctor, who also has a function as imei?s ?commander?, a word associ-ated with the prison system. indeed, imei is financed and managed by the ministry of justice, unlikeall other hospitals in hungary which are financed through and managed by the ministry of health,social and family affairs. an attorney who has visited imei reports that it is a ?prison within aprison?.in 1999 the parliamentary ombudsman for human rights described the conditions asprison-like. the ombudsman went so far as to describe the conditions in this hospital as underminingmedical treatment.23an imei orderly described to mdac a typical day at imei: there are up to 14 beds in each ward. they get up at 6am. at 7.15am there is breakfast, and then there?sthe medicine. in the morning until 11.30am there is some activity, but it is rare. they clean the corri-dors and the wards. at 11.30am there is lunch and then in the afternoon, again they clean the corridorand wards. then there is some spare time. at around 5pm or 6pm there is dinner and then medicines.they sleep at 10pm. it?s the same every day.24at the time of going to press, no non-governmental organization has written a human rights reportabout imei. however, during the course of our research, the consistency of comments mdacreceived about the conditions and treatment within imei from a variety of sources calls for an urgentand independent human rights assessment of the conditions at imei. liberty deniedis not such a report about conditions, or of the initial court procedure at which aperson is sent to imei. rather, this report addresses the question whether the procedural humanrights ? for an imei patient to test the lawfulness of detention ? are respected. liberty denied21 36/2003 (x. 3.) im rendelet (decree of the ministry of justice).22 mdac interview with attorney who represents imei patients, 29 july 2003.23 office of parliamentary commissioner for human rights, reports 3041/1998 and 1042/1999.24 interview with mdac at the capital court, 4 april 2002.11mental disability advocacy center44kezel?st v?grehajt? int?zet vezet?j?nek el?terjesz-v?lem?nyt kell beszerezni.v?gz?s ellen a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s alatt ?ll? h?zast?r-a hat?s?g id?z?s?nek eleget tenni, tov?bb? a terhelttel,5. imei:detention and releaseliberty denied4 section 24(1) of the hungarian criminal code. see appendix 1 of this report.5 criminal code (act number 4 of 1978) section 74. (1). see appendix 1 of this report.6 act 19 of 1998, code of criminal procedure, section 101(1) and 101(2). see appendix 1 of this report.7 criminal code (act number 4 of 1978) paragraph 74. (2). see appendix 1 of this report. 8 act 19 of 1998, code of criminal procedure, section 566(2). this section is identical to section 373(2) of act 1 of1973 code of criminal procedure, the provision that was in force until 1 july 2003. see appendix 1 of this report.9 act 19 of 1998, code of criminal procedure, section 566(2). this section is identical to section 373(2) of act 1 of1973 code of criminal procedure, the provision that was in force until 1 july 2003. see appendix 1 of this report.10 act 19 of 1998, code of criminal procedure, section 566(3). this section is almost identical to section 373(3) of act1 of 1973 code of criminal procedure, the provision that was in force until 1 july 2003. see appendix 1 of thisreport.mental disability advocacy center4629.22/10/200209:0909:13430.22/10/200209:1309:17431.22/10/200209:1709:22532.22/10/200209:2209:28633.11/11/200208:4508:53834.11/11/200208:5309:00735.13/11/200208:4908:53436.11/12/200208:4108:44337.11/12/200208:4408:47338.23/01/200311:2511:381339.23/01/200311:2511:401540.30/01/200309:1109:281741.30/01/200309:2509:381342.26/02/200308:3108:451443.28/02/200308:3108:451444.06/03/200309:3209:451345.06/03/200308:3308:40746.19/03/200309:0109:282747.08/04/200309:0009:07748.10/04/200308:3008:401049.10/04/200308:4509:001550.04/06/200308:3008:35551.04/06/200308:4008:501052.05/06/200309:0009:101053.05/06/200309:1009:18854.17/06/200308:3008:39955.17/06/200311:0011:252556.25/06/200308:3008:35557.30/06/200309:0009:05558.30/06/200309:4009:501059.30/06/200310:0010:08860.05/07/200308:4008:455*****standardized data-collection sheet developed by mdac. initially we were concerned to accuratelyliberty denied7mental disability advocacy center48114/06/2001dddddetention214/06/2001dddddetention315/02/2002dddddetention406/03/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention506/03/2002dddddetention606/03/2002dddddetention706/03/2002dddddetention806/03/2002dddddetention906/03/2002dddddetention1006/03/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1127/03/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1227/03/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1327/03/2002dddddetention1404/04/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1509/04/2002rrrrobjects to detentionrelease1609/04/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1709/04/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1812/04/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention1910/09/2002ddnonenonedetention2010/09/2002rrnonenoneobjects to detentionrelease2110/09/2002ddnonenoneobjects to detentiondetention2210/09/2002dddnonedetention2311/09/2002ddddobjects to detentiondetention2417/09/2002dddddetention2517/09/2002dddddetention2603/10/2002dddddetention2703/10/2002dddddetention2803/10/2002dddddetention2922/10/2002dddddetentiondate of observationpsychiatristcourt-appointed psychiatristprosecutorpatient?sattorneypatientcourt 2. executive summarymdac?s report liberty deniedreveals systemic problems in the procedures for reviewing thedetention of people who have committed crimes but who, because of a mental disability, have beensent to imei – hungary?s high-security psychiatric hospital – instead of prison. pro forma annualcourt reviews of detention violate the rights of detainees, rights guaranteed under hungarian andinternational law. mdac, has prepared this report over the past two years by conducting 60 court observations andnumerous interviews with attorneys, prosecutors, judges and psychiatrists who participate in the courtreview of criminal psychiatric detention. the results of the research indicate systemic violations of therights of patients, resulting from the following shortcomings in law and practice: court-appointed attorneys fail to represent their clients. there is inadequate legal criteria for a judge to decide whether to continue a patient?s deten-tion.imei staff wield unchecked power to prevent a patient from attending the annual courtreview.patients and their attorneys rarely see psychiatric reports in advance of the hearing. psychiatric experts that are relied upon exclusively by the court are never present at courthearings, preventing any inquiry into their findings. judges and patient?s attorneys never challenge psychiatric opinions, even in cases where thepatient clearly disagrees with the expert opinion. there is no social work input in the procedure.mdac makes the following recommendations to the hungarian government, which should beimplemented the earliest opportunity: remove the power of the imei director to prevent a patient from attending their annualcourt review, and give this power to the judge.more clearly define the legal criteria for detention/release in imei court reviews. require the relevant authorities to send to the patient in imei and the patient?s attorneycopies of the court file (including all expert opinions) without additional cost, and withoutdelay.allow patients to use an psychiatric or other expert of the patient?s choosing. liberty denied5mental disability advocacy center50treaties and conventions: http://conventions.coe.inthungarian mental health interest forumtel/fax: (+36 1) 209 0046, (+36 1) 279 0755table of contents5.3 imei statistics and conditions107.1. presence of patient at court207.3. lengthof hearings227.4. social work input237.5. legal representation247.5(a) attorneys do not meet clients before the court hearing247.5(b) attorneys make representations without taking instructions from their client247.5(c) attorneys do not challenge evidence even when the client disagrees with the evidence257.5(d) attorneys always accept the psychiatric opinion277.6. judges? acceptance of psychiatric opinion288.1 european convention on human rigts298.2 code of criminal procedure308.3 attorneys act 1998308.4 ministerial decree on attorney?s pay318.5 attorney?ethical code318.6 attorney?conception of their role329.1 psychiatric reports not sent to patient or patient?s attorney33 9.2 reports not available free of charge33 9.4 psychiatrists never present in court34az open society institute t?mogatta.2922/10/2002fffffogvatart?s3022/10/2002fffffogvatart?s3122/10/2002fffffogvatart?s3222/10/2002fffffogvatart?s3311/11/2002fffffogvatart?s3411/11/2002fffffogvatart?s3513/11/2002fffffogvatart?s3611/12/2002fffffogvatart?s3711/12/2002fffffogvatart?s3823/01/2003fffffogvatart?s3923/01/2003fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s4030/01/2003fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s4130/01/2003szszszsztiltakozik elleneszabadon4226/02/2003fffffogvatart?s4328/02/2003fffffogvatart?s4406/03/2003fffffogvatart?s4506/03/2003fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s4619/03/2003szszszsztiltakozik a fogvaszabadontart?s ellenbocs?t?s4708/04/2003fffffogvatart?s4810/04/2003ffffnincs jelenfogvatart?s4910/04/2003fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s5004/06/2003fffffogvatart?s5104/06/2003ffffnincs jelenfogvatart?s5205/06/2003fffffogvatart?s5305/06/2003fffffogvatart?s5417/06/2003fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s5517/06/2003szszszsznincs jelenszabadon5625/06/2003szszszsztiltakozik elleneszabadon5730/06/2003szszszsztiltakozik elleneszabadon5830/06/2003fffffogvatart?s5930/06/2003fffffogvatart?s6005/07/2003fffffogvatart?smegvont szabads?g471. sz?szedetmdacigazs?g?gyi megfigyel? ?s elmegy?gy?t? int?zetaz imei magyarorsz?gon az egyetlen pszichi?triais?r?ltek jogai?rt alap?tv?ny)4megvont szabads?g45t?bl?zat: a t?rgyal?sok hossza0102030405060az mdac ?ltal megfigyelt t?rgyal?sok sz?maperca t?rgyal?sok hosszaa t?rgyal?sok ?tlagos idejerendszert. tegy?k a k?pz?sen val? r?szv?telt a k?nyszergy?gykezelt betegek k?pviselet?nekjogaik-r?l ?s k?telezetts?geikr?l.jogi helyzet ellen?rz?s?be.1.14/06/200108:3708:54172.14/06/200108:5509:005 3.15/02/200208:3908:55164.06/03/200208:3908:4675.06/03/200208:4708:4926.06/03/200208:5008:5337.06/03/200208:5408:5628.06/03/200208:5708:5819.06/03/200208:5909:01210.06/03/200209:0209:04211.27/03/200208:4608:48212.27/03/200208:4908:52313.27/03/200209:0409:06214.04/04/200209:2909:31215.09/04/200208:3108:532216.09/04/200208:5509:01617.09/04/200209:0209:10818.12/04/200208:3508:38319.10/09/200208:5508:57220.10/09/200208:5809:01321.10/09/200209:0309:131022.10/09/200209:1409:16223.11/09/200208:3908:47824.17/09/200208:4608:53725.17/09/200208:5509:02726.03/10/200208:4208:51927.03/10/200208:5209:01928.03/10/200210:1210:164megvont szabads?g43hivatkoz?si sz?mmegfigyel?st?rgyal?s v?geid?tartama (perc)**dul?s?nak f?zis?ban van, az orsz?g a k?zelj?v?ben csatlakozik az eur?pai uni?hozb?ncselekm?nyt k?vettek el, ?m besz?m?that?s?guk hi?nya miatt b?ntet?jogilag nem vonhat?kegyar?nt. a k?nyszergy?gykezeltek k?l?n?sen nagy m?rt?kben vannak kit?ve a k?l?n-, a szabads?gveszt?s?ket t?lt? el?t?ltekt?l elt?r?en, a pszichi?triai int?zetekben elhe-, a k?nyszergy?gykezeltek hat?rozatlan ideig vannak fogva tartva, ellent?tben a b?ntet?s-int?zetbe utaltak l?nyegesen hosszabb ideig vannak fogva tartva, mintha azonos b?ncselekm?ny miattszabads?gveszt?sre ?t?lt?k volna ?ket. az ilyen jelleg? fogvatart?s ?ppen hat?rozatlan id?tartam?ravizsg?latokon. az imei-hez hasonl? int?zetekben elz?rt szem?lyek emberi jogait igen gyakran hagyj?k8esetben is k?telez?v? teheti.44. ?(1) v?d?k?nt meghatalmaz?s vagy kirendel?s alapj?n ?gyv?d j?rhat el.(2) a v?d? a v?delem ?rdek?ben az ?gyben t?j?koz?dhat, a jogszab?lyokban biztos?tott lehet?s?gek keretei k?z?tt ada-bevon?s?r?l a b?r?s?g, illet?leg az ?gy?sz hat?roz. a felk?rt szak?rt? ? e min?s?g?nek elismer?se ut?n ? a szak?rt?imegvont szabads?g41a t?rv?ny nem hat?rozza meg, hogy a szakv?lem?nyben az orvosszak?rt?nek milyenbilincselt ? beteget bevezetik a t?rgyal?terembe. az eln?kl? b?r? ismerteti az ?gyet, hangosan ? ?sfelolvassa a kirendelt orvosszak?rt? szakv?lem?ny?t. el?fordul, hogy n?h?ny sz?t v?lt a beteggel,a b?r?s?g d?nt?se ellen a beteg, illetve a beteg v?d?je, t?rv?nyes k?pvisel?je (pl.gondnoka) ?sh?zast?rsa jogosult fellebbezni.5.3. imei statisztik?k ?s k?r?lm?nyeklenes k?nyszergy?gykezel?sben. ?t szem?ly megfigyel?s alatt ?ll. h?rom beteg 18 ?ven aluli.az imei olyan b?nelk?vet?k elhelyez?s?re is szolg?l, akiket eredetileg szabads?gveszt?sre ?t?ltek,?m ennek foganatos?t?sa sor?n ment?lis zavarok jelentkeztek n?luk. e szem?lyek szabads?gveszt?s?ket?gy?szekkel ?s b?r?kkal k?sz?lt besz?lget?sekb?l egy?rtelm?en kider?l, hogy az ?gy?szek minden esetben k?vetik a14 az 1998. ?vi xix. tv. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l, 566. ? (5). ez szinte teljesen megegyezik az 1973. ?vi i. tv. 373.? (5)gy?gyint?zetbe utalni. ezt ?ltal?noss?gban a szabadon bocs?t?s ir?ny?ba tett els? l?p?sk?nt ?rt?kelik, amelyet?s hetente megjelenik az orvosn?l.mint p?ld?ul azon b?r?s?gi rendelkez?s, amely k?telezi a beteget a pszichi?triai gy?gyszerek szed?s?re, mialatt ak?rh?zon k?v?l tart?zkodik. n?h?ny jogrendszerben a beteget k?telez? jelleggel k?rh?zba sz?ll?thatj?k, ha nem tesz10emberi jogok az imei-benhab?r e jelent?s k?zponti t?m?ja nem ez volt, az mdac k?l?nb?z? forr?sokb?l megb?zhat? ?ll?t?-sokat hallott arr?l, hogy az imei-ben kezelt betegek nem kapnak megfelel? t?j?koztat?st jogaikr?lilletve azok v?delm?r?l. a v?delm?ket az ?ves b?r?s?gi fel?lvizsg?latok sor?n k?pvisel? ?gyv?dek csakritk?n l?togatnak el az imei-be, ?gy a betegeknek nincs lehet?s?g?k bizalmas k?r?lm?nyek k?z?tttal?lkozni v?d?ikkel. az mdac munkat?rsai nem kaptak enged?lyt arra, hogy szem?lyesen besz?l-gethessenek a betegekkel, erre csup?n a beteg esetleg t?bb sz?z kilom?ternyire lak? gondnok?nak ?s ahetente egyszer az imei-ben tart?zkod? betegjogi k?pvisel?nek a jelenl?t?ben ker?lhetett volna sor.az imei-n bel?li emberi jogi viszonyokr?l m?g nem k?sz?tett civil szervezet jelent?st.10. mdac aj?nl?s:biztos?ts?k a betegek megfelel? t?j?koztat?s?t az ?ket megillet? jogokr?l ?s az ?ket ?rint?jogi elj?r?sokr?l. biztos?ts?k, hogy ez a t?j?koztat?s ?rthet? ?s k?nnyen hozz?f?rhet? for-m?ban ?lljon rendelkez?sre.11. mdac aj?nl?s:b?tor?ts?k a betegek ?rdekv?delmi k?pviselet?t ell?t? csoportok megalakul?s?t az imei-nbel?l.12. mdac aj?nl?s:vonjanak be emberi jogok v?delm?vel foglalkoz? civil szervezeteket az imei-ben uralkod?emberi jogi k?r?lm?nyek ellen?rz?s?be.megvont szabads?g395 (1) mindenkinek joga van a szabads?gra ?s a szem?lyi biztons?gra. szabads?g?t?l senkit sema)t?rv?nyes ?rizetben tart?s az illet?kes b?r?s?g ?ltal t?rt?nt el?t?l?st k?vet?en;t?rv?nyes ?rizetben tart?s az illet?kes b?r?s?g ?ltal t?rt?nt el?t?l?st k?vet?en;e) t?rv?nyes ?rizetbe v?tel fert?z? betegs?gek terjed?s?nek megakad?lyoz?sa c?lj?b?l, valamints?ghoz ?s a szem?lyi biztons?ghoz.?, a 9. cikk szerint: ?senkit sem lehet ?nk?nyesen letart?ztatni, ?rizetbe venni?nk?nyesen ?rizetbe venni vagy letart?ztatni. senkit sem lehet szabads?g?t?l m?sk?nt, mint a t?rv?nyben meghat?ro-zavarok alapj?n fogvatartottak jogi helyzet?n, az?ltal, hogy a mental health review tribunal (az elme?llapot alapj?nmaz?s?nak jog?n t?l megkapta a ?szigor?tott ?rizet? betegek? (a magyar imei-ben elhelyezettek megfelel?i)szabadon bocs?t?s?nak jog?t is.helyettes?tett ?elmebeteg? kifejez?st.12v?lem?nnyel. ez megk?rd?jelezi a m?sodik orvosszak?rt? kirendel?s?nek c?lj?t. a b?r?s?g sohasemk?rd?seket a szak?rt?knek, ?s nem vonhatt?k k?ts?gbe a szakv?lem?nyek azon meg?llap?t?sait, ame-megk?rd?jelezhetetlen igazs?gk?nt, hanem a b?r? is. ez arra enged k?vetkeztetni, hogy a b?r? nemmegvont szabads?g37jogban szab?lyozott megfelel? elj?r?s k?vet?s?nek ig?ny?t fogalmazza meg.azonban a hazai jognak mag?nak is ?sszhangban kell ?llnia az egyezm?nnyel, a kifejezetten megjelen??s a benne foglalt ?ltal?nos alapelveket is ide?rtve. a k?rd?ses kifejez?s alapj?ul szolg?l? gondolat alengyelorsz?g2. a szabads?g korl?toz?sa csak akkor t?rv?nyes, ha a szem?lyt k?rh?zban vagyha valakit b?ncselekm?ny elk?vet?s?vel v?dolnak, ?m a b?ntet?jogi felel?ss?g al?l k?ros elme?l-lapota miatt mentes?l, ?s ezen okb?l felmentik vagy nem ?t?lik el, a b?r?s?g ?ltal elrendelt b?rmely?gyben az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?ga a k?vetkez?t fogalmazta meg:?gyben az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?ga a k?vetkez?t fogalmazta meg:orvosi szak?rtelemre van sz?ks?g.364. a ?ment?lis rendelleness?g? olyan fajt?j? vagy m?rt?k? kell, hogy legyen,amely igazolja a szabads?gelvon?staz emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?ga vil?goss? tette, hogy a ?ment?lis rendelleness?gnek olyanfajt?j?nak vagy m?rt?k?nek kell lennie, amely indokoltt? teszi a szabads?gelvon?st.? a ment?lis fogya-t?koss?g valamely fajt?j?nak puszta diagnosztiz?l?sa nem elegend? ahhoz, hogy valakit szabads?g?t?laerts v. belgium, 29 ehhr 50.op citop cit14k?vet?en elrendelte a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fenntart?s?t.megvont szabads?g118a beteg nev?t megv?ltoztattuk.119mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 11. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 23.120mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2003. j?nius 17. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 54.35az x. v. egyes?lt kir?lys?gjez?s alatt nem sz?ks?gszer?en a klasszikus, teh?t az orsz?g ?ltal?nos igazs?gszolg?ltat?si szerkezet?bemindazon?ltal a magyarorsz?gi k?nyszergy?gykezel?shez hasonl? szabads?gelvon?ssal kapcsolatostart? id?intervallumot vizsg?lt. a d?nt?s ?rtelm?ben az els? kett?t nem lehet ?sszer? id?k?znektekinteni, a harmadikat azonban nem illett?k kritik?val. ez?rt nagyon val?sz?n?nek t?nik, hogy az45?gyben hozott d?nt?se szerint?az 5. cikk (4) bekezd?s amellett, hogy a letart?ztatott vagy fogva tartott szem?lyek sz?m?ra biztos?t-ja a jogot a fogvatart?s t?rv?nyess?ge fel?lvizsg?lat?nak kezdem?nyez?s?re, egy?ttal kinyilv?n?tja azt ajogukat is, hogy a b?r?s?g ? az elj?r?s megindul?s?t k?vet?en ? kell? gyorsas?ggal d?nts?n az elz?r?st?rv?nyess?g?t, illetve ? amennyiben a t?rv?nyes felt?telek hi?nyoznak ? megsz?ntet?s?t illet?en.?4641op cit, 53. szakasz. ld. m?g wassink v. hollandia, ?t?let: 1990.09.27, a sorozat 185.-a sz., 30. szakasz.42wassink v. hollandia, op cit 58. szakasz.43jelent?s n?lk?l, 27154/95 alkalmaz?s, ?t?let: 2001. m?rcius 29., komment?r (2001) 5 ehrlr 589.44hivatkoz?si sz?m 10533/83, ?t?let: 1992. szeptember 24., jelentve (1992) 15 ehhr 437.45jelent?s n?lk?l, hivatkoz?si sz?m 24557/94, ?t?let: 1999. m?rcius 25.46musial, 43. szakasz.16amint arra fentebb r?mutattunk, a kezel?orvos ?s az igazs?g?gyi orvosszak?rt? aj?nl?sai d?nt?9. 1.a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nyeket nem k?ldik meg a betegnek vagy v?d?j?nek9. 2.a szakv?lem?nyekhez nem lehet ingyen hozz?jutni9. 3. a b?r?s?g ?ltal kirendelt orvosszak?rt?k mindig egyet?rtenek a beteget kezel? pszichi?terrel. 9. 4. a pszichi?terek soha nincsenek jelen a b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?sokona pszichi?terek soha nincsenek jelen a b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?sokona t?rgyal?son a b?r? ismerteti a szakv?lem?nyeket, ?s ha a beteg ezzel nem ?rt egyet, megmondhatja amegvont szabads?g113ld. 6. fejezet, 11. szakasz ?a beteget k?pvisel? ?gyv?d sz?m?ra hozz?f?r?st kell biztos?tani a beteg k?rh?zi adataihoz.?mdac besz?lget?s egy kirendelt v?d?vel, aki imei betegek k?pviselet?t l?tja el, 2003. j?lius 28.33a pereira v. portug?liak?vetkezt?ben jogi k?pzetts?ge ellen?re nem tudott kiel?g?t? m?don r?szt venni a b?r?s?gi elj?r?sok-s?gelvon?ssal s?jtott szem?ly id?ben hozz?f?rhessen az ilyen szakv?lem?nyekhez.egyezm?ny szerint elengedhetetlenek az elmezavarban szenved? szem?ly ?t?rv?nyes? fogvatart?s?hoz,nem men-t?lis fogyat?koss?gi eset, hanem egy b?ntet??gy, ahol az 5(1)(c ) ?s az 5(4) szakaszokat vizsg?lt?k.57x v. egyes?lt kir?lys?g, hivatkoz?si sz?m: 7215/75, ?t?let: 1981. november 5., jelentve (1981) 4 ehhr 18858winterwerp v. hollandia, op cit, 39. szakasz.18d?ktalanul kezdem?nyezni kell az el?zetes letart?ztat?sban l?v? ?gyf?llel a szem?lyes kapcsolataz ?gyv?deket, hogy a lehet? legminim?lisabb szolg?ltat?st ny?jts?k; kifejezetten g?tolta ?ket abban, hogy id?t 31kapcsolatban. a legf?bb hi?nyoss?gok az al?bb r?szletesen t?rgyalt ter?leteken tapasztalhat?k:7.1a beteg jelenl?te a b?r?s?gon7.2 jogi krit?riumok7.3 a t?rgyal?sok hossza7.4 szoci?lis munka7.5. jogi k?pviseletkezel? pszichi?ter ?s a b?r?s?g ?ltal kirendelt elmeorvos v?lem?ny?t k?vette, akik minden esetben meg-ennek eredm?nyek?nt elmondhat?, hogy a betegek nem rendelkeznek megfelel? eszk?z?kkel ahhoz,ennek eredm?nyek?nt elmondhat?, hogy a betegek nem rendelkeznek megfelel? eszk?z?kkel ahhoz,megjelen?s?r?l, a beteg eg?szs?gi/ment?lis ?llapota alapj?n, ?s ?rtes?ti a b?r?s?got.? az ombudsmanesetekben a beteg t?rgyal?son val? megjelen?s?t az imei ?gyakorlati? vagy ?c?lszer?s?gi? okokra hivatkozva megta-b?r?s?got. ld. bh. 1977/537, bh. 1978/12, ?s bh. 1989/437.20a nemzetk?zi ?s hazai jog-leness?gben szenvedett, aminek k?vetkezt?ben jogi k?pzetts?ge ellen?re nem tudott kiel?g?t? m?don[?] a puszta kirendel?s nem biztos?tja a hat?kony jogi seg?ts?get, mivel a kirendelt v?d? meghalhat,megvont szabads?g90nem szabad elfelejteni, hogy b?r a k?nyszergy?gykezelt betegek elm?letileg meghatalmazhatnak saj?t v?d?t, t?lnyom? t?bbs?g?k a kirendelt v?d?k szolg?ltat?saira t?maszkodik (vagyis ink?bb annak hi?ny?ban szenved).91benham. v. egyes?lt kir?lys?g(1996) 22 ehhr 293.92pereira v. portug?lia, hivatkoz?si sz?m: 44872/98, ?t?let: 2002. febru?r 26.93cuscani v. egyes?lt kir?lys?g, hivatkoz?si sz?m: 32771/96, ?t?let: 2002. szeptember 24.94artico v. olaszorsz?g(1981) 3 ehhr 1.? ?gy, ?t?let: 1968. j?lius 23., a sorozat, 6. sz. 31. old.96artico v. olaszorsz?g(1981) 3 ehhr 1, 33. szakasz.97a k?t orvosszak?rt?i v?lem?ny alapj?n az int?zeti k?nyszergy?gykezel?st fenn kell tartani. nem lennehum?nus dolog megszak?tani a kezel?st, mert lehet, hogy b?ncselekm?nyt k?vetne el a beteg.69egy m?sik esetben, egy m?sik b?r? az al?bbi indokot hozta fel:sz?ks?ges addig v?rni, am?g a beteg ?llapota a mostanin?l jobbra fordul, mert nem lenne j? sem a betegnek, sem a csal?dj?nak, ha ism?t t?rt?nne valami.70a b?r? nem fejtette ki enn?l r?szletesebben, hogy mi az a ?valami?, aminek a bek?vetkez?s?t?l kelltartani; feltehet?leg a b?nism?tl?sre utalt. a b?r? nem ?llap?totta meg, hogy a b?ncselekm?nyelk?vet?s?nek vesz?lye k?zvetlen?l fenyeget, vagy puszt?n t?voli lehet?s?g (ami nyilv?nval?an fenn-forog egy olyan szem?ly eset?ben, aki m?r k?vetett el b?ncselekm?nyt, s?t val?j?ban fenn?llhat min-den emberi l?ny eset?ben). egy ?gy?sz szerint, aki az ?llamot k?pviseli ilyen elj?r?sokban: ?a b?r?ksosem vizsg?lj?k meg, hogy a b?ncselekm?ny elk?vet?s?nek nagyobb vagy kisebb a vesz?lye. ha ennekb?rmekkora vesz?lye fenn?ll, a k?nyszergy?gykezel?st fenn kell tartani.?71egy m?sik ?gyben, ugyanazon a napon, az el?z? p?ld?ban szerepl? b?r? azt k?z?lte az 1998 ?tak?nyszergy?gykezel?s alatt ?ll? beteggel, hogy t?bb es?lye van a szabadul?sra, ha betartja az imeibels? szab?lyzat?t. a fegyelems?rt?sre vonatkoz? ?ll?t?st a beteg vitatta, ?m ezzel sem a b?r?, sem av?d? nem foglalkozott. a b?r? a k?vetkez?k?ppen indokolta v?gz?s?t, miszerint a k?nyszergy?gy-kezel?snek folytat?dnia kell:a beteg ?vek ?ta az imei-ben van. a csal?d v?rja a tal?lkoz?st. vannak probl?m?k az imei-ben ny?j-tott kezel?ssel, a beteg nem akarja betartani sem a szab?lyokat, sem az orvosi kezel?st az imei-ben.bizony?ra neh?z az imei szab?lyait betartani, de a betegnek akkor is ezt kell tennie. most a k?nyszer-gy?gykezel?s nem fejez?dik be. k?vetkez? ?vben ?jra t?rgyaljuk az ?gyet, ?s j? lenne, ha adapt?ci?sszabads?gra bocs?thatn?nk a beteget.72noha azt az echr garanci?lis szab?lyai megk?veteln?k, a b?r? nem ismertette indokol?s?ban, hogymilyen szab?lyokat nem k?vetett a beteg, ?s e magatart?s?nak milyen szerepe volt annak meg?l-lap?t?s?ban, hogy a beteg ment?lis ?llapota ?olyan fajt?j? vagy m?rt?k?, amely indokoltt? teszi aszabads?gelvon?st.?7.3. a t?rgyal?sok id?tartamaaz mdac ?ltal megfigyelt t?rgyal?sok hossza a t?rgyal?s megnyit?s?t?l az ?t?let felolvas?s?nakbefejez?s?ig ?tlagosan 7 perc volt. az egyes t?rgyal?sokra vonatkoz? pontos adatokat l?sd a 2. f?g-gel?kben. n?h?ny t?rgyal?s h?rom percn?l is r?videbb volt. a b?r?knak elviekben ezen id?tartam alattmeg kell hallgatniuk az ?gy?sz el?ad?s?t, a beteget ?s/vagy v?d?j?t, meg kell vizsg?lniuk az elmeorvosiszakv?lem?nyt, ki kell hirdetni?k a v?gz?st, ?s ismertetni?k kell az indokol?st. az egyes ?gyekre ford?-tott id?tartamok ismeret?ben k?nytelenek vagyunk kimondani, hogy a b?r?i elj?r?sok t?lnyom? r?szerendk?v?l fel?letes.az mdac ?ltal megfigyelt 60 t?rgyal?s sor?n a beteg sz?mos esetben kinyilv?n?totta tiltakoz?s?t ak?nyszergy?gykezel?s ellen,74de h?rom esetben a b?r?s?g tov?bbi k?rd?sek felt?tele n?lk?l a k?ny-szergy?gykezel?s fenntart?s?r?l hat?rozott, amint azt az al?bbi p?rbesz?d is illusztr?lja:mdac69mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 10. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 21.70mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 17. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 24.71mdac besz?lget?s egy ?gy?sszel, 2003. j?lius 29.72mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 17. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 25.73winterwerp v. hollandia op cit, 39. szakasz.74ld. a 3. f?ggel?ket tov?bbi inform?ci?k?rt.22megvont szabads?g83mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. november 11. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 33.84a m?sik k?t ?gyben a b?r? megk?rdezte a beteget, hogy akar-e a v?d?j?vel besz?lni, ?s egy vagy k?t percet enged?-lyezett erre. ezen esetekben a betegek (a v?d?k ?tj?n) kifejezt?k az imei elhagy?s?ra ir?nyul? k?v?ns?gukat, de egyikesetben sem utalt a v?d? a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nyekre, ?s nem vitatta azokat. ebben a k?t ?gyben a b?r? nem tettfel tov?bbi k?rd?seket, ?s a v?d? sem tan?s?tott akt?v magatart?st az imei-t elhagyni k?v?n? v?denc ?rdek?ben. ab?r?s?g mindk?t esetben a kezel?s folytat?s?r?l hat?rozott.85besz?lget?s imei-s betegeket k?pvisel? ?gyv?ddel, 2003. j?lius 30.86besz?lget?s imei-s betegeket k?pvisel? ?gyv?ddel, 2003. j?lius 28.27m?st, mint ami a pszichi?ter v?lem?nye, mert ez olyan nagy felel?ss?g. tudja, mi van, ha a szabadonbocs?tott szem?ly ?jabb b?ncselekm?nyt k?vet el?85meglehet?sen gyakorinak t?nik ez a hozz??ll?s, amely a paternalizmus (a v?d? tudja, mi a legjobb av?denc?nek) ?s a ?v?d?-mint-b?r?s?gi-tisztvisel?? mentalit?s (azaz a v?d? a t?rsadalom, mint eg?sz?rdek?ben tev?kenykedik) saj?tos kever?ke. egyik felfog?s sem ?gy tekint a v?d?re, mint olyasvalakire,akinek els?dleges feladata a beteg sz?nd?k?nak kifejez?sre juttat?sa volna. arra a k?rd?sre, hogy vajona v?d?k sz?m?ra jobb lenne-e, ha a betegekkel a szakv?lem?nyekr?l a fesz?lt b?r?s?gi k?rnyezet helyetta t?rgyal?sok el?tt tudn?nak konzult?lni, egy ?gyv?d ezt v?laszolta:tud valamit a szoci?lis otthonbeli elhelyez?s?r?l?v?denc?t, ami nagyban val?sz?n?s?ti, hogy kor?bban nem tal?lkoztak. ehelyett a v?d? a beteget k?s?r?24megvont szabads?g80mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. okt?ber 22. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 29.81mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 17. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 25.25hogy az ?gyv?d nyilatkozata nem t?kr?zheti v?dence k?v?ns?g?t:mit csin?l eg?sz nap?k?rd?seket tiszt?zhatott volna, ? azonban nem sz?lalt fel v?dence ?rdek?ben:mdac82mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. okt?ber 22. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 31.26hogy ?rzi mag?t?b?r?: a t?rgyal?s miatt?milyen a kapcsolata m?sokkal az int?zetben, ?s mit csin?l ott?igen, vannak bar?taim.mit csin?lnak a bar?taival?szem?ly kifejezi az imei elhagy?s?ra ir?nyul? hat?rozott k?v?ns?g?t, ?m e k?zponti k?rd?sre a v?d?nem reflekt?l, hanem ink?bb a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nnyel val? egyet?rt?s?nek ad hangot:beteg (halkan):nem, fellebbezni szeretn?k.[az orvosszak?rt?i v?lem?nyek ellen.]b?r?: rendben. maga nem akar fellebbezni.cselekm?nyt k?vetne el a beteg.van, aki megl?togatja?megvont szabads?g75mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2002. szeptember 10. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 21.23egy m?sik ?gyv?d ugyanezt ?ll?totta, ?s amikor azt k?rdezt?k t?le, hogyan vitathatn? a beteg azv?lem?nyeket a t?rgyal?sok el?tt, de abban egyet?rtett, hogy nem tal?lkoznak v?denceikkel el?zetesen.ama ?llapota, amely a pszichi?triai int?zetekben fogva tartott szem?lyeket jellemzi, fokozott figyelem-7.6. a b?r?s?g mindig elfogadja a pszichi?triaieln?ke feltett n?h?ny k?rd?st a betegnek az ?ltal?nos eg?szs?gi ?llapot?r?l, illetve arr?l, hogy elfogad-betekint?st a beteg ment?lis ?llapot?ba, a szakv?lem?nyekkel kapcsolatos v?lem?ny?be vagy a szabadonbocs?t?s?val kapcsolatos ?ll?spontj?ba.op cit28a nemzetk?zi jog ?ltal is megk?vetel pontos jogszab?lyi krit?riumok alapvet? fontoss?g?ak egy64?gyben:amikor a szabads?g megvon?s?r?l van sz?, k?l?n?sen fontos hogy a jogbiztons?g k?vetelm?nye?rv?nyes?lj?n. ez?rt l?nyeges, hogy a szabads?gelvon?s felt?teleit a hazai jog vil?gosan meghat?rozza,valamint hogy a jogalkalmaz?s kisz?m?that? legyen, ezzel eleget t?ve a ?t?rv?nyess?g? egyezm?nybenfoglalt k?vetelm?ny?nek.a szabads?gelvon?s fenntart?s?nak indokaira vonatkoz? vil?gos jogi krit?riumok n?lk?l a b?r?k?nk?nyes d?nt?seket hozhatnak, vagy teljes m?rt?kben al?rendel?dhetnek az orvosszak?rt?knek. ab?r?k nem k?rd?jelezik meg a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nyeket, aminek k?vetkezt?ben gyakorlatilag apszichi?ter v?lik d?nt?shoz?v?. a fel?lvizsg?lat ?rdem?re vonatkoz? jogi ir?nymutat?sok hi?nyamegs?rti az echr 5. cikk?b?l fakad? k?telezetts?get, amely szerint szabads?g?t?l megfosztani b?r-kit csak ?a t?rv?nyben meghat?rozott elj?r?s ?tj?n?65lehet.amikor az mdac munkat?rsai a betegeket a fel?lvizsg?lati t?rgyal?sban k?pvisel? ?gyv?deknekfeltett?k a k?rd?st, ?hogyan d?nti el a b?r?, hogy sz?ks?ges-e a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fenntart?sa?? av?lasz valamennyi esetben az volt: ?a b?r? d?nt?se mindig a szak?rt?k v?lem?ny?t k?veti?.66az al?bbi p?lda tipikusnak mondhat?. ebben az esetben a beteg 1999-ben ember?l?si k?s?rletetk?vetett el, ?s ez?rt az imei-be utalt?k. a 2003 ?prilis?ban tartott fel?lvizsg?lati t?rgyal?son a b?r??rvel?se a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fenntart?s?t illet?en a k?vetkez? volt:a beteg ?llapota javul. n?h?ny ?ve m?r az imei-ben van ?s sosem volt adapt?ci?s szabads?gon.67d?nt?s ellen fellebbezni lehet, a b?r?s?g j?v?re ism?t megvitatja ezt az ?gyet.68ebb?l a r?vid kijelent?sb?l nem tudhat? meg, hogy a b?r? milyen ism?rvek alapj?n hozta d?nt?s?t.egy m?sik ?gyben a b?r? a j?v?beli b?nism?tl?s vesz?ly?re utalt:megvont szabads?g63btk., 74 . ? (3) 64hivatkoz?si sz?m: 25874/94, ?t?let: 2001. janu?r 9., 49. szakasz.65echr. 5. cikk (1)66imei-s betegeket k?pvisel? ?gyv?ddel t?rt?nt besz?lget?s, 2003. j?lius 30.67az adapt?ci?s szabads?g int?zm?ny?t a b?ntet?sek ?s az int?zked?sek v?grehajt?s?r?l 1979. ?vi 11. t?rv?nyerej? ren-delet 84/a ?-a hat?rozza meg: ha a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s megkezd?s?t?l egy ?v eltelt, a beteg gy?gyul?sa ?rde-k?ben, k?l?n jogszab?lyban meghat?rozott adapt?ci?s bizotts?g javaslat?ra a f?igazgat? f?orvos enged?ly?vel adapt?-ci?s szabads?gra bocs?that?. az adapt?ci?s szabads?g tartama legfeljebb 30 nap, amely egy alkalommal legfeljebb 30nappal meghosszabb?that?. a imei rendelet 9-10. ?-a szerint az adapt?ci?s szabads?g a beteg gondoz?s?ra alkalmas? ?s ezt ?r?sban v?llal? ? szem?lyn?l t?lthet? el. az adapt?ci?s szabads?gra bocs?t?sr?l rendelkez? bizotts?gnakfigyelembe kell vennie a beteg ?llapot?t ?s szoci?lis k?r?lm?nyeit, valamint az elk?vetett b?ncselekm?nyt is. az adap-t?ci?s szabads?g kezdet?n a beteg k?teles 48 ?r?n bel?l, majd ezt k?vet?en az orvos el??r?sa szerint, de legal?bbk?thetenk?nt orvosi ellen?rz?sen megjelenni. az orvosi ellen?rz?s helye a f?v?rosban az imei, budapesten k?v?lpedig a beteg tart?zkod?si helye szerint illet?kes pszichi?triai gondoz? int?zet. az imei ?rtes?ti az orvosi ellen?rz?stv?gz? szervet ?s az illet?kes rend?rkapit?nys?got. az pszichi?triai gondoz? int?zet ?rtes?ti az imei-t a beteg ?llapot?-nak roml?s?r?l. 68mdac ?ltal megfigyelt b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s, 2003. febru?r 28. mdac hivatkoz?si sz?m: 43.21tott t?rgyal?sokon.ha az ?llamnak meg kell fizetnie a v?d?t az?rt, hogy egy kiszolg?ltatott szem?lytjogainak v?delme ?rdek?ben k?telezni?k kell ?ket a megfelel? munkav?gz?sre.a)a terhelt ?rdek?ben minden t?rv?nyes eszk?zt ?s m?dot k?sedelem n?lk?l felhaszn?lni,b)a terheltet a v?dekez?s t?rv?nyes eszk?zeir?l felvil?gos?tani, jogaira kioktatni,c)a terheltet ment?, illet?leg felel?ss?g?t enyh?t? t?nyek felder?t?s?t el?seg?teni.az ?j b?ntet?elj?r?si t?rv?ny eggyel t?bb k?vetelm?nyt tartalmaz: a v?d? k?teles ?a terhelttel aa b?ntet?elj?r?si t?rv?ny egy?rtelm?en k?telez?v? teszi,8.3. az ?gyv?dekr?l sz?l? t?rv?ny (1998)hat?s?g id?z?s?nek eleget tenni, tov?bb? a terhelttel, illetve, ha az ?gy term?szete lehet?v? teszi, as?get k?vet el, aki nem tesz eleget a t?rv?ny ?ltal el??rt k?telezetts?geinek vagy megs?rti az ?gyv?dek3013. amennyiben a b?r?s?g a beteg elbocs?t?s?r?l hat?roz, ?s az elbocs?t?stut?gondoz?si int?zked?sek megt?tel?t?l teszi f?gg?v?, hat?sk?rrel kell ren-delkeznie az ilyen int?zked?sek v?grehajt?s?nak kik?nyszer?t?s?re annak?rdek?ben hogy az elbocs?t?s ne szenvedjen indokolatlan k?sedelmeta johnson v. egyes?lt kir?lys?ggyult beteget szabadon bocs?tott?k volna, azzal a felt?tellel, hogy egy szem?lyzettel ell?tott sz?ll?sonmegvont szabads?g59op cit.19k?vetkez?t felelte: ?nem igaz?n tudom, hogy a v?d?k elmehetnek-e az imei-be.?32az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?g?nak az e. v. norv?gianap) nem el?g?ti ki az 5. cikk (4) bekezd?sben foglalt k?vetelm?nyeket. b?r a fel?lvizsg?lat kezde-m?r t?lzottnak tal?lta.m?r t?lzottnak tal?lta.()fenn?ll?] l?nyeges k?telezetts?geik gyakorl?sa al?l?.lat?t ?ttekintve a b?r?s?g kijelentette:meg?llap?totta, hogy ?ugyanezen [teh?t a megyeri ?gyben alkalmazott] alapelv vonatkozik ama elj?r?-megvont szabads?g47hivatkoz?si sz?m: 11701/85, ?t?let: 1990. augusztus 29., a sorozat, 181-a, jelentve: (1990) 17 ehrr 30.48(1991) 13 ehrr 820.49musialop cit, hivatkoz?si sz?m: 25430/94, ?t?let: 2000. december 21., 37. szakasz.51jecius v. litv?niahivatkoz?si sz?m: 34578/97. ?t?let 2000. augusztus 31., 100. szakasz.52ld. vodenicarov v. szlov?kiaop cit, 33. szakasz.53hivatkoz?si sz?m: 13770/88, ?t?let: 1992. m?jus 12., jelentve (1992) 15 ehhr 584.54hivatkoz?si sz?m: 17581/90, bizotts?gi jelent?s: 1992. szeptember 2.17tal?n a f?ggetlens?g hi?ny?nak k?zvetlen k?vetkezm?nye, hogy az igazs?g?gyi orvosszak?rt??rt?k?nt k?nyszergy?gykezel?si ?gyekben. mikor megk?rdezt?k t?le: ?mi a c?lja annak, hogy afel?lvizsg?lati ?gyekben a b?r?s?gnak k?t szak?rt? v?lem?ny?t kell beszereznie??, a k?vetkez? v?lasztkezel?orvos v?lem?ny?vel kapcsolatban, felelete ink?bb azt sugallta, hogy az imei-ben dolgoz?k?t szakv?lem?ny k?z?tt.345. a k?telez? jelleggel k?rh?zba vagy egy?b int?zetbe utalt beteget addig kell elz?rva tartani,am?g ment?lis rendelleness?g?nek fajt?ja vagy m?rt?ke szabads?g?nak elvon?s?t indokoljaa winterwerp?gyben az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?ga kifejtette, hogy a folyamatos elz?r?sjogszer?s?ge a ment?lis rendelleness?g tart?s fenn?ll?s?nak f?ggv?nye.38m?s szavakkal: nem fogad-hat? el, hogy a pszichi?ter a terheltn?l csup?n egyetlen alkalommal ?llap?tsa meg a szabads?gelvon?stindokoltt? tev? ment?lis rendelleness?g fenn?ll?s?t. az egy?n ment?lis ?llapot?t rendszeresen vizsg?l-ni kell. ha m?r nem ?ll fenn a szabads?gelvon?st sz?ks?gess? tev? fajt?j? vagy m?rt?k? fogyat?koss?g,a szem?lyt szabadon kell bocs?tani.6. a szabadon bocs?t?snak (elbocs?t?snak) azonnalinak ?s felt?tel n?lk?linekkell lennie. a k?rh?z – ?sszer? id?re – elhalaszthatja a beteg elbocs?t?s?t, annak?rdek?ben, hogy ut?gondoz?s?r?l gondoskodjon (pl. lak?hely biztos?t?sa a szem?-ly sz?m?ra)a johnson v. egyes?lt kir?lys?g?gyben az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?g meg?llap?totta, hogy ak?rh?znak:[?] k?pesnek kell lennie arra, hogy a kezelt szem?ly felett a t?rsadalomba val? visszaenged?se ut?nbizonyos m?rt?k? fel?gyeletet gyakoroljon, ?s ennek ?rdek?ben elbocs?t?s?t meghat?rozott felt?telekt?lteheti f?gg?v?. az sem z?rhat? ki, hogy valamely ilyen jelleg? felt?tel teljes?t?s?ig a k?rh?z elhalassza abeteg elbocs?t?s?t, tekintettel a felt?tel term?szet?re ?s el??r?s?nak indokaira. m?gis els?dleges fontoss?g?,hogy megfelel? garanci?k ?lljanak rendelkez?sre annak biztos?t?s?ra, hogy a szabadon bo-cs?t?s elha-laszt?sa ?sszhangban ?lljon az 5. cikk (1) bekezd?s?vel ?s az (e) pontban foglalt megszor?t?s c?lj?val[?] ?s k?l?n?sen, hogy az elbocs?t?st ne k?sleltess?k indokolatlanul.397. a szabads?gelvon?st k?vet?en a betegnek lehet?s?get kell biztos?tani arra,hogy fogvatart?sa t?rv?nyess?g?nek fel?lvizsg?lat?t kezdem?nyezhesse egyolyan b?r?s?g el?tt, amely f?ggetlen az int?zked?st alkalmaz? t?rv?nysz?kt?l,p?rtatlan, ?s jogilag k?telez? d?nt?st hozhat a szem?ly szabadon bocs?t?s?r?lha valaki b?ncselekm?nyt k?vet el ?s a b?r?s?g ment?lis rendelleness?g?re tekintettel elrendelik?rh?zban t?rt?n? k?telez? elhelyez?s?t, szabads?g?nak elvon?s?ra az 5. cikk (1) (a) ?s (1) (e) pontjaivonatkoznak. k?vetkez?sk?pp a szem?lynek joga van a szabads?gelvon?s id?szakonk?nti fel?lvizs-g?lat?hoz.a winterwerp v. hollandialeges elj?r?si garanci?k ig?nyeltetnek az olyan szem?lyek ?rdekeinek v?delm?re, akik ment?lis fogya-megvont szabads?g38 winterwerp v. hollandia, op cit, 39. szakasz.39johnson v. egyes?lt kir?lys?g, alkalmaz?si sz?m: 119/1996/738/937. ?t?let: 1997. okt?ber 24-?n, jelentve (1998) 27ehhr 296.40op cit, 60. szakasz.15megfelel? b?r?s?gi fel?lvizsg?latot a k?nyszergy?gykezelt szem?lyek sz?m?ra. a pszichi?triai szak-a betegeket az imei f?igazgat? f?orvosa megfoszthatja a b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?son val? megjelen?slehet?s?g?t?l. az eff?le ellen?rizetlen diszkrecion?lis hivatali hatalom s?rtheti a magyar jog ?s azmeg azon jogi krit?riumokat, amely alapj?n a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fenntart?s?nak vagykezel?st meg kell sz?ntetni, kiv?ve, ha az azt foganatos?t? int?zm?ny ?ltal szolg?ltatottvitathatja eredm?nyesen azok tartalm?t a t?rgyal?sokon.5(3)(?) 5(4)szabads?g?t?l letart?ztat?s vagy ?rizetbe v?tel folyt?n megfosztott minden szem?lynek joga5(5 )6 (1)mindenkinek joga van arra, hogy ?gy?t a t?rv?ny ?ltal l?trehozott f?ggetlen ?s p?rtatlan6(3)minden b?ncselekm?nnyel gyan?s?tott szem?lynek joga van ? legal?bb ? arra, hogya)a legr?videbb id?n bel?l t?j?koztass?k olyan nyelven, amelyet meg?rt, ?s a legr?szlete-b)rendelkezz?k a v?dekez?s?nek el?k?sz?t?s?hez sz?ks?ges id?vel ?s eszk?z?kkel;c)szem?lyesen, vagy az ?ltala v?lasztott v?d? seg?ts?g?vel v?dekezhess?k, ?s ha nem ?llnakd)k?rd?seket int?zzen vagy int?ztessen a v?d tan?ihoz ?s kieszk?z?lhesse, a ment? tan?ke)ingyenes tolm?cs ?lljon rendelkez?s?re, ha nem ?rti vagy nem besz?li a t?rgyal?sonegy?b, a ment?lis fogyat?koss?ggal ?ssze nem f?gg? fogvatart?si form?kra vonatkoz? szab?lyoz?s ?s32?gyben bontot-ta ki. az emberi jogok eur?pai b?r?s?ga szerint:megvont szabads?g32 winterwerp v. hollandia, alkalmaz?si sz?m: 6031/73, ?t?let: 1979. okt. 24-?n, jelenti a 2 ehhr 387.13?ll?t?sait ?s az ?gy?sz javaslat?t a beteg k?nyszergy?gykezel?s?nek fenntart?s?t illet?en. sz?mos?s a nemzetk?zi jogi k?vetelm?nyeknek.szigor?ts?k az ?gyv?dek szakmai ellen?rz?s?t ?s az el?gtelen teljes?tm?ny?rt j?r? szankci?kat,tov?bb? hozzanak l?tre egy ?gyf?lbar?t – az imei-ben kezelt betegek sz?m?ra is hozz?f?rhet?nem rendelkezik a f?ggetlen d?nt?s meghozatal?hoz sz?ks?ges inform?ci?kkal. egy szoci?lis munk?s,vagy a csal?dtagokhoz vagy egy?b int?zetbe t?rt?n? elbocs?t?s.munk?s tal?lkozzon a beteggel, ?s t?j?koztassa a b?r?s?got a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s lehets?gesint?zet ?b?rt?n a b?rt?nben?.az int?zet egyik alkalmazottja a k?vetkez?k?ppen festette le az imeimegvont szabads?g21 36/2003 (x. 3.) im rendelet.22 imei-s betegeket k?pvisel? ?gyv?ddel k?sz?lt mdac besz?lget?s, 2003. j?lius 29.23 az ?llampolg?ri jogok orsz?ggy?l?si biztosa hivatal?nak 3041/1998. ?s 1042/1999 jelent?sei.24 mdac besz?lget?s a f?v?rosi b?r?s?gon, 2002. ?prilis 4.11tott hat?rozatban szabadl?bra helyez?s?r?l vagy letart?ztat?s?r?l halad?ktalanul d?nteni. emelt b?rmely v?dat vagy valamely perben a jogait ?s k?teless?geit a t?rv?ny ?ltal fel?ll?tott f?ggetlen ?s p?rtatlanemelt b?rmely v?dat vagy valamely perben a jogait ?s k?teless?geit a t?rv?ny ?ltal fel?ll?tott f?ggetlen ?s p?rtatlan(3) a b?ntet?elj?r?s al? vont szem?lyeket az elj?r?s minden szakasz?ban megilleti a v?delem joga. a v?d? nem vonhat?felel?ss?gre a v?delem ell?t?sa sor?n kifejtett v?lem?nye miatt.b?ntet? t?rv?nyk?nyv24. ? (1) nem b?ntethet?, aki a cselekm?nyt az elmem?k?d?s olyan k?ros ?llapot?ban ? ?gy k?l?n?sen elmebeteg-s?g-ben, gyengeelm?j?s?gben, szellemi le?p?l?sben, tudatzavarban vagy szem?lyis?gzavarban ? k?veti el, amely k?ptelenn?cselekm?nyt fog elk?vetni, felt?ve, hogy b?ntethet?s?ge eset?n egy?vi szabads?gveszt?sn?l s?lyosabb b?ntet?st kelleneaz al?bbi felt?telek megval?sulnak:k?vetett el; ?sb?ntethet?s?ge eset?n egy?vi szabads?gveszt?sn?l s?lyosabb b?ntet?st kellene kiszabni.az elme?llapot vizsg?lat?n?l k?t szakv?lem?nyt kell beszerezni,azt azonban a t?rv?ny k?zelebbr?laz fel?lvizsg?lat el?tt elmeorvos-szak?rt?i v?lem?nyt kellmegvont szabads?g4 btk. 24. ?. (1). ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.5 az 1978. ?vi iv. tv ( a btk.) 74. ? (1) bek. ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.6 az 1998. ?vi xix. tv. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l, 101.? (1) bek., ill. 101.? (2) ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.7 az 1978. ?vi iv. tv (a btk.) 74. ? (2) bek. ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.8 az 1998. ?vi xix. tv. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l, 566.? (2). ez megegyezik az 1973. ?vi i. tv. 373.? (2) bekezd?s?vel, amely2003. j?l. 1-j?ig volt hat?lyban. ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t. 9 az 1998. ?vi xix. tv. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l, 566.? (2). ez megegyezik az 1973. ?vi i. tv. 373.? (2) bekezd?s?vel, amely2003. j?l. 1-j?ig volt hat?lyban. ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.10 az 1998. ?vi xix. tv. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l, 566. ? (3) ez megegyezik az 1973. ?vi i. tv. 373.? (3) bekezd?s?vel, amely2003. j?l. 1-j?ig volt hat?lyban. ld. e jelent?s 1. f?ggel?k?t.9szab?lyok szerint haszn?lhat? fel. a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lata373. ? (1) a b?r?s?g a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lat?r?l tan?csban, t?rgyal?son hat?roz. ha els? fokon nem(5) a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lat?r?l hozott v?gz?s ellen a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s alatt ?ll? h?zast?rsa ?sa k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lata566. ? (1) a b?r?s?g a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lat?r?l tan?csban, t?rgyal?son hat?roz. ha els? fokon nemvezet?j?nek el?terjeszt?s?re is. a b?r?s?g a k?nyszergy?gykezel?snek ind?tv?nyra t?rt?n? fel?lvizsg?lat?t mell?zheti, ha(5) a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?lat?r?l hozott v?gz?s ellen a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s alatt ?ll? h?zast?rsa ?srnok), oliver lewis, hannah roberts, simor eszter (mdac program koordin?tor) ?s oliverb?rd k?roly professzor (a k?z?p-eur?pai egyetem jogi tanulm?nyok tansz?k?nek veze-amennyit csak tudnak. az e jelent?sben olvashat? p?rbesz?deket az azokat lejegyz? kutat?k ellen-munk?nk megtervez?s?hez a b?r?s?gi ?gyint?z?kt?l k?rt?nk felvil?gos?t?st a t?rgyal?sokat illet?en.megvont szabads?g729.22/10/200209:0909:13430.22/10/200209:1309:17431.22/10/200209:1709:22532.22/10/200209:2209:28633.11/11/200208:4508:53834.11/11/200208:5309:00735.13/11/200208:4908:53436.11/12/200208:4108:44337.11/12/200208:4408:47338.23/01/200311:2511:381339.23/01/200311:2511:401540.30/01/200309:1109:281741.30/01/200309:2509:381342.26/02/200308:3108:451443.28/02/200308:3108:451444.06/03/200309:3209:451345.06/03/200308:3308:40746.19/03/200309:0109:282747.08/04/200309:0009:07748.10/04/200308:3008:401049.10/04/200308:4509:001550.04/06/200308:3008:35551.04/06/200308:4008:501052.05/06/200309:0009:101053.05/06/200309:1009:18854.17/06/200308:3008:39955.17/06/200311:0011:252556.25/06/200308:3008:35557.30/06/200309:0009:05558.30/06/200309:4009:501059.30/06/200310:0010:08860.05/07/200308:4008:455****al?bbi vezethet?k vissza:megvont szabads?g53. f?ggel?k ? imei t?rgyal?sok meg-114/06/2001fffffogvatart?s214/06/2001fffffogvatart?s315/02/2002fffffogvatart?s406/03/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s506/03/2002fffffogvatart?s606/03/2002fffffogvatart?s706/03/2002fffffogvatart?s806/03/2002fffffogvatart?s906/03/2002fffffogvatart?s1006/03/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1127/03/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1227/03/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1327/03/2002fffffogvatart?s1404/04/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1509/04/2002szszszsztiltakozik elleneszabadon 1609/04/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1709/04/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1812/04/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s1910/09/2002ff??fogvatart?s2010/09/2002szsz??tiltakozik elleneszabadon2110/09/2002ff??tiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s2210/09/2002fff?fogvatart?s2311/09/2002fffftiltakozik ellenefogvatart?s2417/09/2002fffffogvatart?s2517/09/2002fffffogvatart?s2603/10/2002fffffogvatart?s2703/10/2002fffffogvatart?s2803/10/2002fffffogvatart?s?gy?szv?d?beteg?t?let5.1 beker?l?s az imei-be95.2 a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s megsz?ntet?se95.3 imei statisztik?k ?s k?r?lm?nyek107.1. a beteg jelenl?te a b?r?s?gon207.2. jogi krit?riumok217.3. a t?rgyal?sok id?tartama227.4. szoci?lis munka23a v?d?k nem tal?lkoznak v?denceikkel a b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?s el?tt24a v?d?k a betegekt?l kapott utas?t?sok n?lk?l l?tj?k el a k?pviseletet25nyilv?nval?an megk?rd?jelezik azokat25a v?d?k sohasem vitatj?k az orvosszak?rt?i v?lem?nyt277.6. a b?r?s?g mindig elfogadja a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nyeket288.1. az emberi jogok eur?pai egyezm?nye298.2. a b?ntet?elj?r?sr?l sz?l? t?rv?ny308.3. az ?gyv?dekr?l sz?l? t?rv?ny (1998)308.4. az ?gyv?dek d?jaz?s?r?l sz?l? miniszteri rendelet318.5. az ?gyv?dek etikai k?dexe318.6. a v?d?k v?lem?nye saj?t szerep?ket illet?en329.1. a pszichi?triai szakv?lem?nyeket nem k?ldik meg a betegnek vagy v?d?j?nek339.2. a szakv?lem?nyekhez nem lehet ingyen hozz?jutni339.4. a pszichi?terek soha nincsenek jelen a b?r?s?gi t?rgyal?sokon341.f?ggel?k2.f?ggel?k3.f?ggel?k4.f?ggel?k egyezm?nyek ?s szerz?d?sek: http://conventions.coe.inttel/fax: (+36 1) 209 0046, (+36 1) 279 0755megvont szabads?gemberi jogi jogs?rt?sek a k?nyszergy?gykezel?s fel?lvizsg?latasor?n magyarorsz?gon?zsi?ban. az mdac m?k?d?s?nek els?dleges c?lja, hogyegy?ttm?k?d? szervezete a nemzetk?zi helsinki sz?vets?g
