CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDF837F39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B65A808 { margin-left:34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s11485D2C { width:148.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF K.A. v. AUSTRIA (Applications nos. 44001/22 and 22881/24)       JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 1 (e) • Persons of unsound mind • Art 5 § 4 • Review of lawfulness of detention • Applicant’s confinement in a “forensic therapeutic centre” (formerly known as an institution for mentally ill offenders) ordered along with his conviction for numerous acts of domestic violence • Applicant reliably shown, by the domestic courts on the basis of objective medical expertise, to suffer from a “true” mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement • Existence of the applicant’s mental disorder reliably established and persistence reliably reviewed on the basis of an objective up-to-date medical assessment justifying his continued confinement   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of K.A. v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   44001/22 and 22881/24) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a national of Kosovo [1] , Mr K.A. (“the applicant”), on 10   September 2022 and 8   August 2024; the decision to give notice to the Austrian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s confinement in a forensic-therapeutic centre under Article   5 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention, and concerning alleged breaches of his defence rights under Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (d) and   (e) of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application no.   22881/24; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 3 February and 28 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the applicant’s confinement in a “forensic ‑ therapeutic centre” (which, until 1 March 2023, was known as “institution for mentally ill offenders”) after committing numerous acts of domestic violence against his wife and children. The applicant complained mainly that it had not been reliably shown that he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of the Convention. He also complained that he had not been able to challenge and question the witnesses for the prosecution during the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article   5 §§   1 and   4 and Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (d) and   (e) of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant is living in Austria since 2001; he was born in 1971 and is confined in Garsten, Austria. He was represented by Mr   H.   Graupner, a lawyer practising in Vienna. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador G.   Schusterschitz, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         Background 5.     The applicant has been married to E., who is also from Kosovo, since 1997. They have four children: A., born in 1999; B., born in 2001; C., born in 2003; and D., born in 2005. 6.     Until the end of May 2021 the applicant and his wife E. lived together with two of their daughters (A. and D.) and their son (C.) in the same house in a small town in Upper Austria. Their third daughter (B.) moved out in January 2021 and lived in an apartment in another town. From November 2020, B. was in contact with the Centre for Protection from Violence ( Gewaltschutzzentrum – see Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, §§   71-72, 15   June 2021). After moving out, B.   obtained a ban on the disclosure of her new address in the civil register in order to keep it secret from the applicant. 7.     According to B., C. and D., their family life was marked by frequent domestic violence on the part of the applicant against his wife E. and all four of his children. The applicant physically and verbally abused his family members over many years by insulting them with vulgar language, spitting at them and striking them with an open hand, his fists, his feet and with household objects such as tools and kitchenware. He hit his family members both in the face and on the body and became particularly aggressive under the influence of alcohol. A restraining order ( Betretungs- und Annäherungsverbot ) was issued in 2011 against the applicant following an incident of domestic violence. The applicant did not adhere to the order; he was angered by the fact that his family had sought the order, and his behaviour became even more violent against them.       The applicant’s arrest (May 2021) 8.     On Sunday 30 May 2021, at 12.18 p.m., B. called the police because her father had beaten her siblings in their parents’ house. Police officers arrived at the scene and talked to the applicant’s children. B. and C. stated to the police officers that their father (the applicant) had been constantly physically abusive towards all family members. The evening before, on 29   May 2021, the applicant had struck their mother E. on the head with a drill. The applicant had told C. to leave the house after the latter had tried to intervene. C. had not left the house, so the applicant had taken a 30-cm-long knife and threatened C. with stabbing motions in his direction. C. had become frightened and had fled to a nearby forest. From there he had called his sister B. on his mobile telephone; she had taken him to her apartment to spend the night there. 9.     The following morning of 30 May 2021 – a few hours before B. had informed the police of what had happened – the applicant had forced D. to call B. and to tell her that she and C. should collect all their belongings from the house – otherwise he would burn their belongings. During the telephone call, B. and C. had noticed that their sisters had been crying and had assumed that the applicant had been intoxicated and had hit them, and that they had accordingly decided to call the police. 10.     The police officers confronted the applicant with the allegations, which he flatly denied. While still at the scene, the police officers issued a restraining order against the applicant. This order obliged him to stay away from the house and the surrounding areas – as well as from his wife and children – for fourteen days. The applicant did not comply with the order, even though he had been urged several times by the police officers to leave the property. Accordingly, the police officers enforced the order at 13.14   p.m. and took the applicant to the nearby police station. 11.     On the same day, the police officers questioned the applicant with the assistance of an Albanian-language interpreter. The applicant availed himself of his right to remain silent. His wife E. also refused to give a statement. Thereafter, C. was questioned at around 4 p.m.; he gave a detailed witness statement concerning the events that had happened the evening before and alleged that his father had been abusing him, his mother, and his siblings verbally and physically for many years. Furthermore, C. stated that the applicant had called A. at around 3 p.m. on his mobile telephone after the applicant had been taken to the police station, and had threatened to kill the whole family. 12.     The applicant was arrested at 6.10 p.m. because it was deemed that otherwise there would be a serious risk that he would commit further offences – such as bodily harm, coercion, or issuing dangerous threats – against his family members. 13.     On 31 May 2021 the applicant was taken into pre-trial detention after he had been interrogated at the competent Regional Court by a judge (with the assistance of an Albanian-language interpreter).     Criminal proceedings (2021-22) and confinement (as of october 2022)    Cross-examinations (June 2021) 14.     The Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant and requested the Regional Court to cross-examine ( kontradiktorische Vernehmung ) at the pre-trial investigation stage the children with the use of audio-video facilities, in accordance with Article   165 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 64-66 below). 15 .     The cross-examinations of the children (as particularly vulnerable victims, see paragraph 63 below) took place at the court on 30 June 2021 and were recorded via an audio-video facility. During the cross-examinations, which were conducted by a judge who was in the same courtroom as the children, the applicant, his State-appointed defence lawyer and the public prosecutor were present but physically located in a separate room, where they could follow the questioning via an audio-video facility. They were able to direct questions to each respective child via the audio-video facility. The applicant was assisted during the interviews by E.B., an Albanian-language interpreter, as the children gave their statements in German. 16 .     B. was interviewed from 8.30 until 10.06 a.m. She made serious allegations against her father and recounted numerous instances of domestic violence to which he had subjected her since her early childhood. During a break from 9.35 until 9.45 a.m., the interpreter, E.B., provided to the applicant a summary translation of B.’s statements thus far. After the break, E.B. continued to translate B.’s statements to the applicant and facilitated the applicant’s communication with his defence counsel. The defence lawyer asked B. several questions and also asked the applicant (via E.B.) if he had any further questions. In response, the applicant stated that B. had stolen something from someone in 2011, that she had received everything from him, and that he had even bought her a car. He had nothing more to say. Lastly, B. was asked whether she would testify again in the event of a trial hearing against the applicant or whether she would like the audio-video recording of her cross-examination to be played or the transcript thereof to be read out. B. replied that the audio-video recording should be played or the transcript thereof should be read out. 17.     C. was interviewed from 10.15 until 11.26 a.m. He also recounted numerous experiences of domestic violence with his father that had occurred since his early childhood and provided a detailed account of the events of 29   and 30 May 2021 that had led to the applicant’s arrest. During a break from 11.10 until 11.20 a.m., E.B. provided a summary translation of C.’s statements thus far to the applicant. After the break, E.B. continued to translate to the applicant. Neither the defence lawyer nor the applicant asked C. any questions. The applicant was asked directly if he had any questions, but he just stated in response that he had not hit his son. At the end of his cross-examination, C. was also asked whether he would testify again in the event of a trial hearing. C. replied that the audio-video recording should be played or the transcript thereof should be read out; however, in the event of additional questions, he was prepared to testify again if it was really necessary. 18 .     D. was interviewed from 13.00 until 13.55 p.m. She corroborated her siblings’ accounts, recounting numerous acts of domestic violence committed by her father that she had experienced since her early childhood. During a break from 13.40 until 13.50 p.m., E.B. provided a summary translation of D.’s statements to the applicant. After the break, E.B. continued to translate to the applicant. The applicant and his defence lawyer did not ask D. any questions. According to E.B., the applicant stated that he had nothing more to say. D. requested that in the event of an oral hearing the audio-video recording of her cross-examination be played or that the transcript thereof be read out; in the event of additional questions, she was, however, prepared to testify again. 19.     The applicant’s wife, E., and his eldest daughter, A., were also summoned to a cross-examination. However, both exercised their right as close relatives to refuse to give testimony.    Psychiatric expert report (September 2021) 20 .     The Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered an expert report from Dr K., a specialist in psychiatry and neurology, and the head of the Forensic Department of the Neuromed Campus of the Kepler University Hospital in Linz, in respect of whether the applicant had been criminally responsible under Article 11 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 52 below) for the alleged offences, and in respect of whether the criteria justifying the confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article   21 §   1 or Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 55 below) had been met. 21 .     On 29 September 2021 Dr K. submitted her 22-page long expert report, which was based on the investigation file of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and on her own examination of the applicant (with the assistance of an Albanian-language interpreter). She diagnosed, according to ICD-10 (Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases by the World Health Organisation, hereinafter “the ICD”), the applicant with (i) accentuated personality structure or suspected personality disorder ( akzentuierte Persönlichkeitsstruktur beziehungsweise Verdacht auf Persönlichkeitsstörung ), and (ii) alcohol abuse ( Alkoholmissbrauch ). 22 .     Dr   K. noted that an examination of the applicant had been practically impossible (praktisch nicht möglich) because he either had not answered the questions posed to him (talking instead about something else) or had responded with vague and redundant statements. The applicant had denied committing the alleged offences, had ascribed responsibility for the situation in question exclusively to his family members, and had generally blamed their “false statements” on their supposed mendacity. Dr K. noted that the applicant’s statements had completely contradicted the allegations made by his children. However, the assessment of evidence – in particular an assessment of the respective credibility of the contradictory statements – was the responsibility of the court. 23 .     Assuming that the children’s statements – who described regular assaults on practically all family members – were considered credible, then Dr   K. asserted that the applicant was the classic type of family tyrant, who saw family members as his property, lived according to a rigid patriarchal attitude, derived his self-worth mainly from exercising power over all other family members, and displayed a huge lack of empathy and a complete inability to control his impulses within the family nucleus. Those were not personality disorders in the narrower sense of the term , but rather completely dysfunctional deep ‑ rooted convictions ( keine Persönlichkeitsstörungen im engeren Sinne , sondern um gänzlich dysfunktionale Grundüberzeugungen ) according to which the family patriarch was entitled to unrestricted power over all other family members – to be exercised in a sadistic manner. It was unlikely that the danger emanating from the applicant’s dysfunctional convictions could be reduced by issuing restraining orders (as his previous behaviour had demonstrated) or by mandatory therapeutical measures, because he did not recognise the need for treatment. 24.     Regarding the applicant’s criminal responsibility under Article 11 of the Criminal Code, Dr K. noted that he did not suffer from any mental illness or from any known brain diseases that would lead to a reduction or even the loss of his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions ( Diskretionsfähigkeit ) and to act accordingly ( Dispositionsfähigkeit ). Furthermore, the applicant had denied that he had been under the influence of alcohol at the times of the alleged offences. In the light of those considerations, it could be assumed that the applicant was criminally liable for his actions under Article 11 of the Criminal Code. 25 .     With regard to the criteria justifying confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code – in particular, the commission of offences under the influence of a severe mental or emotional disorder that did not exclude criminal responsibility – Dr   K. emphasised that owing to the applicant’s lack of openness, such a disorder could not be attributed to him without first assessing the credibility of the witness statements made by the applicant’s children. However, in the event that the children’s statements were considered to be accurate, it had to be assumed that the applicant exhibited a personality structure which was highly narcissistic and exclusively dominance-oriented within the family nucleus, and which left him incapable of empathy. There was a high probability of further assaults (which could be interpreted both as a continuation of the applicant’s previous behaviour and as constituting a subjectively justified sanction for his “betrayal” by the witnesses). Severe consequences – such as grievous bodily harm and acts with a fatal outcome – were to be expected for those family members who had testified against the applicant.    The applicant’s conviction 26.     On 28 October 2021 the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant on charges of continuously exercising violence against his wife, his three daughters and his son over a long period of time (namely, from 2005 to 30   May 2021) by means of ongoing physical abuse, inflicting bodily harm and committing crimes of unlawful deprivation of their liberty. During that period the applicant had regularly beaten his wife and children, had threatened them, had locked them up, and had repeatedly inflicted on them bodily harm – using tools such as screwdrivers, carpet knives and iron bars. He had therefore committed the offence of continual use of force ( fortgesetzte Gewaltausübung ) under Article 107b §§ 1, 2, 3, 3a and 4 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 63 below). On the basis of Dr K.’s psychiatric expert report, the Public Prosecutor’s Office also requested that the applicant be confined in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code.      Proceedings before the Regional Court (October – December 2021) 27.     The trial hearing took place before the Regional Court on 10 and 17   December 2021. During the hearing, the applicant was present (together with a new State-appointed defence lawyer) and was again assisted by E.B., the Albanian-language interpreter. The applicant’s three children (B., C. and D.) who had been cross-examined on 30 June 2021 (see paragraphs   16-18 above) did not attend. 28 .     On 10 December 2021 (the first day of the trial) the applicant admitted in his interrogation that he had occasionally shouted at his children, had pushed them and had slapped them in the face, but otherwise denied the allegations. Subsequently, Dr K. explained her written expert report in detail and answered questions from the court, the prosecution and the defence. 29 .     Dr K. concluded that from a psychiatric point of view the criteria justifying the confinement of the applicant in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code were met, assuming the statements given by B., C. and D. were considered credible. The applicant exhibited an egomaniacal, narcissistic personality structure, and his alcohol abuse rendered the effects of that disorder more serious as it increased the likelihood of acts of domestic violence. Within the family nucleus, the applicant was a violent offender with sadistic tendencies. If the applicant were to be released, the children who had testified against him would be at serious risk. There was a high probability that the applicant would seriously injure or kill his children. 30 .     According to Dr K., the applicant’s disorder was difficult to treat owing to his lack of insight about his disorder and the language barrier. Nevertheless, it was necessary to attempt therapeutic measures and – contrary to the applicant’s assertions – it was not the case that he did not understand any German. This was evident, for example, from the fact that he answered questions before they were translated, which showed that he had understood them. 31 .     Prior to the second day of the trial, B., C. and D. submitted a statement that they did not wish to give additional testimony before the trial court itself because any further statement would be emotionally too distressing ( zu belastend ) for them. Instead, they preferred that the audio-video recordings of their cross-examinations be played or the transcripts thereof be read out. 32 .     On 17 December 2021, during the continued trial hearing, the audio ‑ video recordings of the cross-examinations of 30 June 2021 were played and the transcripts thereof were read out, in accordance with Article   252 §   1   (2a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph   67 below). The interpreter E.B., who was also present during these cross ‑ examinations, described to the court in detail how she had provided summary translations of the children’s statements to the applicant. 33 .     The applicant’s defence lawyer objected to the admission in evidence of the recordings of the cross-examinations because the applicant had not had sufficient opportunity to question B., C. and D., who had testified against him. Furthermore, the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to summon the applicant’s children for additional questioning during the trial hearing. The court refused the request and decided to admit the recordings in evidence, as B., C. and D. had explicitly refused to testify again in the trial hearing. 34 .     After the audio-video recording of B.’s cross-examination was played to the court, the presiding judge asked the applicant if he had understood his daughter’s statements; he answered in the affirmative. The presiding judge further asked whether the applicant would like his daughter’s statement to be translated again. The applicant indicated certain passages of the transcript of the cross-examination, which were again translated to him. Thereafter, the applicant stated that it was not necessary to translate any further passages. Subsequently, the audio-video recording of C.’s cross ‑ examination was played. At the applicant’s request, the entire statement of his son was translated to him. Lastly, the audio-video recording of D.’s cross-examination was played, and the applicant requested again that the statement be translated in full. Thereupon, D.’s statement was summarised by the presiding judge and then translated to the applicant. 35 .     The Regional Court delivered its judgment on the same day (after the closure of the hearing) and convicted the applicant of the crimes of (i) the continual use of force against his wife and four children (Article   107b §§   1, 2, 3, 3a and 4 of the Criminal Code) – specifically, during the period from 1   June 2009 (the date of the entry into force of the offence of continual use of force) until 30 May 2021, (ii) deprivation of liberty (Article 99 § 1 of the Criminal Code), (iii) inflicting bodily harm (Article 83 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and (iv) issuing dangerous threats (Article 107 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code; see paragraphs 60-63 below); the court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the court ordered that the applicant be confined in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 36 .     The court dismissed as not plausible the applicant’s allegations that his children had wrongly accused him. In its reasoning, the court held that the statements of B., C. and D. during their cross-examinations had been credible and had essentially accorded with each other. They had described the applicant’s violent behaviour within the family nucleus in a comprehensible and detailed manner. As the children’s statements were deemed credible, the court based its findings regarding the applicant’s mental state, his criminal responsibility and the danger posed by him on the expert report provided by Dr   K. (see paragraphs 21-25 and 29-30). In that regard, it held that the evasive nature of the applicant’s statements – which according to Dr K. had rendered his examination practically impossible – had also been apparent during the trial hearing. In the light of the above-noted considerations, it concluded that the applicant had committed all the offences with which he had been charged; the court found him guilty of those offences, deeming that he had committed them under the influence of a severe mental disorder that did not exclude his criminal responsibility.      Appeal proceedings (2022) 37 .     The applicant lodged a plea of nullity ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde ) against the judgment and an appeal against the sentence ( Berufung ). He argued, inter alia , that the Regional Court had refused the request made by his lawyer during the trial hearing that B., C. and D. be summoned to face additional questioning. He also argued that as he did not understand any German and E.B. had only provided a summary translation to him during the cross-examinations, he therefore had not had sufficient opportunity to pose questions to the prosecution witnesses and to challenge their statements; the failure to afford him that opportunity had violated his rights under Article   6 of the Convention. Furthermore, he claimed that his confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders had not been justified, as Dr K. had stated in her expert report that she had been unable on the basis of the applicant’s examination to make a diagnosis and to assess whether the criteria that would justify his confinement under Article 21 of the Criminal Code were met. The applicant concluded accordingly that the Regional Court ought to have ordered a further expert report in respect of that issue. 38 .     On 27 April 2022 the Supreme Court ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant’s plea of nullity and referred the case to the Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ) for a decision on the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the applicant (together with the State-appointed defence lawyer who had been representing him at the time) had been present during the cross ‑ examinations of B., C. and D., that they had been able to follow the questioning and to pose questions to the witnesses, and that they had been assisted by an Albanian-language interpreter. There was no indication that the fact that the interpreter had only provided summary translations had interfered with the applicant’s right (under Article 165 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to pose questions to the prosecution witnesses. 39 .     On 21 June 2022 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the sentence and held that the applicant had simply failed to call into question Dr K.’s finding (in her expert report) that the criteria justifying confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders under Article   21 §   2 of the Criminal Code were met. On the basis of Dr K.’s expert report, it had to be assumed that the applicant suffered from a personality structure which was highly narcissistic and exclusively dominance-oriented within the family nucleus, and which was marked by an inability to feel empathy and by sadistic tendencies. This was a severe mental disorder, even though it could not be classified in accordance with the categorisation system of the ICD. Since there was a high probability that the applicant – owing to his mental disorder – would seriously injure or kill B., C. and D if he were to be released, there was currently no viable alternative to the applicant’s confinement. 40 .     On 5 October 2022 the applicant was transferred from the local prison to the Garsten institution for mentally ill offenders.    Review proceedings for release from confinement (2023-24)    Proceedings before the Regional Court 41 .     On 19 January 2023 another (following a change in court competences, the then competent) Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s confinement after he had applied for conditional release. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 42 .     On 1 March 2023 the relevant provisions concerning the confinement of mentally ill offenders – in particular, Article 21 of the Criminal Code – were amended (see paragraphs 54-56 below). The amendments introduced, inter alia , more neutral terminology and replaced the legal term “high degree of mental or emotional abnormality” ( geistige oder seelische Abartigkeit von höherem Grad ) with “severe and persistent mental disorder” ( schwerwiegende und nachhaltige psychische Störung ). The institution for mentally ill offenders ( Anstalt für geistig abnorme Rechtsbrecher ) was renamed into forensic-therapeutic centre ( forensisch-therapeutisches Zentrum ). 43.     Following the entry into force of those amendments, the applicant again lodged an application for release from the forensic-therapeutic centre with the Regional Court on 11 March 2023. He argued that he should not have been confined at all as he did not suffer from any mental disorder. Dr   K. had described his personality structure as that of a “family tyrant”, which was not a mental illness and, in any event, did not meet the criteria justifying his confinement under the amended version of Article 21 of the Criminal Code that came into effect on 1 March 2023. 44 .     Together with his application, the applicant submitted a privately ‑ commissioned expert report prepared by Dr F. (a specialist in psychiatry) and P.F. (a specialist in psychology), which was based on an examination of the applicant with the assistance of an interpreter conducted on 9 December 2022. According to the privately-commissioned expert report, the applicant had (i) adjustment disorder with prolonged depressive reaction due to his confinement, and (ii) suspected mild mental retardation according to the ICD. During his examination, the applicant had been open, friendly and cooperative. He obviously understood German to a large extent but did not speak it fluently ( er versteht offensichtlich die Sprache über weite Strecken, spricht Deutsch aber nur sehr brüchig ). Dr K.’s conclusion in the expert report of 29 September 2021 that the applicant had the sadistic and dominance-oriented personality structure of a “family tyrant” did not correspond to any system of categorising psychiatric disorders such as the ICD. According to the expert report by Dr F. and P.F., the amendment to Article   21 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 42 above) had clarified that only a diagnosis of a mental disorder that accorded with the ICD categorisation system could justify confinement. Furthermore, the expert report claimed that the level of potential danger posed by the applicant was restricted to the family nucleus. In the event of the applicant’s release, the children would be able to decide for themselves whether they wanted to remain in contact with him. Thus, the expert report concluded that only the applicant’s wife, E., could be a potential victim (provided that she still wanted to live with him). In sum, the privately-commissioned expert report recommended that the applicant be released from the forensic-therapeutic centre. 45 .     On 22 March 2023 the Regional Court received a written statement from the Garsten forensic-therapeutic centre which stated that it did not recommend that the applicant be released. The applicant continued to deny having committed any offences, blamed his family for what had happened, and refused to take responsibility for his actions – which is why his therapeutic treatment was still in its early stages. Accordingly, it could not be assumed that the level of danger posed by the applicant had decreased to an extent that would justify his conditional release from the forensic-therapeutic centre. 46.     The Regional Court commissioned Dr K. (the very same expert who had already examined the applicant in the course of the criminal proceedings, see paragraphs 20-25 above) in order to be able to submit her findings regarding whether the applicant was still suffering from a “severe and persistent mental disorder” (see paragraph 42 above) and whether it was still highly probable that he would commit (under the influence of that disorder) a criminal offence with serious consequences. 47 .     On 24 September 2023 Dr K. submitted her second expert report, which was based on the case file held by the court, her previous expert report of 29   September 2021 and on her own examination of the applicant (she had examined him in the Garsten forensic-therapeutic centre on 15   September 2023 – this time without the assistance of an Albanian-language interpreter). According to Dr K., the applicant had brought the transcripts of the witness statements given during the criminal proceedings with him and had requested that she review those documents as they would show that he had done nothing wrong. He had not answered the questions she had posed to him (but had instead talked about something else) and had repeated that he was innocent and that his children were lying. In sum, the applicant had depicted himself in the same manner as he had during his examination two years earlier. From a psychiatric point of view, the applicant’s release could not be recommended as the previous diagnosis had not changed. The applicant suffered from a severe and persistent mental disorder, and it was highly probable that he would seriously injure his family members under the influence of that disorder. Contrary to the privately-commissioned expert report, the danger posed by the applicant was not determined by his children’s willingness to maintain contact with him, but rather by the applicant’s ability to locate them. In addition, Dr K. pointed out that the privately-commissioned expert report had ignored many facts documented in the case file (such as the applicant’s refusal to adhere to restraining orders), and that it did not comply with professional standards. 48 .     Subsequently, the above-mentioned experts on psychiatry and psychology, Dr F. and P.F., were given the opportunity to comment on Dr   K.’s expert report. In their written statement of 8 December 2023, they reiterated their legal understanding of Article 21 of the Criminal Code (as amended in 2022). According to them, only a diagnosis of a mental disorder that accorded with the categorisation system set out in the ICD or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter “the DSM”) of the American Psychiatric Association could justify confinement. They noted further that the legally relevant scope of the danger posed by the applicant was restricted to his family; however, given that the children had already grown up, the only family member who remained at risk was his wife (who, however, had also increasingly distanced herself from him). The privately-commissioned expert report also claimed that it was very likely that the applicant would be deported to his country of origin after his release, whereas his wife would remain in Austria. 49 .     On 13 February 2024 the Regional Court – having held an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant, his lawyer and the head of the Garsten forensic-therapeutic centre – ordered the continuation of the applicant’s confinement. The court held that a diagnosis of a mental disorder did not necessarily have to accord with any of categories set out in the ICD or the DSM in order to justify confinement under Article 21 of the Criminal Code. On the basis of the information on file and the most recent expert report submitted by Dr K., the court concluded that the danger posed by the applicant still persisted and that his application for release had therefore to be dismissed.    Appeal Proceedings 50 .     On 3 April 2024 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 9   April 2024. The court clarified that the appeal concerned a question of law – namely, whether the legal requirement of a “severe and persistent mental disorder” within the meaning of Article 21 of the Criminal Code, as amended, had been met. It was not relevant in that regard whether or not the psychiatric diagnosis obtained by a court had been in line with the ICD or the DSM categorisation systems. Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, the law did not stipulate that only a diagnosis of a mental disorder that accorded with the ICD or the DSM categorisation systems could justify confinement. Referring to the explanatory notes on the amendment of Article 21 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below), the Court of Appeal also noted that the introduction of more neutral terminology had not changed the range of offenders to whom the provisions on confinement applied. Thus, the privately-commissioned expert report could not cast any doubt on Dr K.’s statements, which were found to be conclusive and comprehensible. Moreover, the fact that Dr K. had examined the applicant without the assistance of an interpreter did not constitute a procedural error, as the applicant had depicted himself in the same manner as he had during Dr K’s examination of him two years earlier. 51 .     On the basis of Dr K.’s expert report, the court held that the applicant still suffered from a personality structure that was highly narcissistic and exclusively dominance-oriented within the family nucleus, left him incapable of empathy, and was marked by sadistic tendencies. Given those factors, it had to be assumed that the applicant had a severe and persistent mental disorder within the meaning of Article 21 of the Criminal Code, as amended. Should the applicant ever be released, his family would be at risk, as there was still a high probability that he would seriously injure or kill them. Accordingly, the continued confinement of the applicant was necessary, given that there was no viable alternative. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         Criminal responsibility and confinement of mentally ill offenders    Provisions on criminal responsibility 52 .     Article   11 of the Criminal Code ( Strafgesetzbuch ) concerns the capacity for criminal responsibility and reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “A person who, at the time of the offence, is incapable of recognising the wrongfulness of his or her act or of acting on the basis of such recognition because of a mental illness, a mental disability, a profound disturbance of consciousness or another severe mental disorder equivalent to one of those conditions, does not act culpably.”    Provisions governing the confinement of mentally ill offenders 53 .     Under section 164 of the Execution of Sentences Act ( Strafvollzugsgesetz ), the purpose of confining mentally ill offenders is (i) to deter them from committing further offences under the decisive influence of their severe and persistent mental disorder, and (ii) to improve their mental state, so that they will be unlikely to commit further criminal offences. 54 .     Article   21 of the Criminal Code on the confinement of mentally ill offenders as a preventive measure in an institution for mentally ill offenders ( Unterbringung in einer Anstalt für geistig abnorme Rechtsbrecher ), in its version as in force until 1 March 2023, reads as follows: “(1) If a person commits an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, and if the person cannot be punished for the sole reason that he or she committed the offence under the influence of a state of mind excluding responsibility (Article   11) resulting from a high degree of mental or emotional abnormality, the court shall order his or her confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders, if in view of his or her person, his or her condition and the nature of the offence it is to be feared that he or she will otherwise, under the influence of the mental or emotional abnormality, commit a criminal offence with serious consequences. (2) If such a fear exists, an order for confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders shall also be made in respect of a person who, while not lacking responsibility, commits an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year under the influence of a high degree of mental or emotional abnormality. In such a case the confinement is to be ordered at the same time as the sentence is passed. (3) Offences against property shall not be considered to constitute “relevant offences” within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2, unless they were committed with the use of violence against another person or with the threat of imminent danger to life or limb (Article 89).” 55 .     Article   21 of the Criminal Code on confinement in a forensic ‑ therapeutic centre ( Strafrechtliche Unterbringung in einem forensisch-therapeutischen Zentrum ), as amended and in force since 1   March 2023, reads as follows: “(1)     If a person has committed an offence under paragraph 3 under the significant influence of a severe and persistent mental disorder and cannot be punished for the sole reason that he or she was not criminally responsible at the time of the offence owing