- 25 54. All compulsory placements of criminally irresponsible patients have been subject to court review every three years. In practice, however, these reviews were not systematically carried out. Indeed none of the patients hospitalised pursuant to a Court order under Article 69 of the Criminal Code – including for many years – and interviewed by the CPT’s delegation had ever attended a review hearing. From documentation and interviews with patients and staff, the CPT’s delegation formed the opinion that, in practice, it was extremely difficult for patients to make any progress towards release: psychiatrists were often very reluctant to issue an opinion that the patient, if discharged, would no longer pose a risk to society; and even when the psychiatric assessment recommended the patient’s release, such recommendations were rarely followed. The CPT would like to receive from the Greek authorities information regarding the number, frequency and outcome of the reviews of orders under Article 69 of the Criminal Code carried out in 2016 and 2017, as well as the number of review hearings during which patients were indeed present. 55. The changes introduced in December 2017 to the Criminal Code provisions concerning the placement and treatment of persons found to have partly or substantially reduced criminal responsibility have strengthened the safeguards surrounding such placement and treatment orders and their review. 30 In particular, the amendments have clarified the need for public court proceedings to determine such placements; the pejorative and inaccurate reference to “unrecognised criminals” has been changed to “persons exempt from penalty due to a mental or intellectual disorder”; the seriousness of acts justifying a compulsory measure has been increased (i.e. linked to the seriousness of the offence which would have been committed had the person not been found to be criminally irresponsible); the stigmatising reference to “dangerousness for public safety” has been removed; and the possibility for out-patient treatment is introduced. The duration of the compulsory treatment must be stipulated in the order: up to two years for acts that would have qualified as misdemeanours, and up to five years for acts that would have qualified as felonies. A three-member complaints court decides whether the measure should be extended for up to the same duration. The measure must be reviewed by the court every year. A review may also be prompted at any time by the prosecutor, the treating unit or the person concerned. Decisions to continue the measure must be motivated. Court-appointed legal representation is provided for three-member complaints court proceedings. The CPT welcomes the above-mentioned amendments to the Criminal Code. The Committee’s visit took place too soon after the entry into force of these new provisions for the Committee’s delegation to assess their effectiveness. The CPT would like to be informed of the number of reviews which have been carried out since the entry into force of the amendments, whether the patient concerned was present for the review hearing, whether he or she had legal representation, where necessary appointed by the court, and the outcome of those reviews. 30 See Law 4509/2017.