At Law: International Human Rights Law and Mental Disability

ditions of confinement, civil rights, an d access to mental health services . 5 Two landmark cases by the Europea n Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hav e addressed the liberty interests of person s with mental disabilities. Winterwerp v . the Netherland sestablished that civi l commitment must follow a “procedur e prescribed by law” and cannot be arb i trary; the person must have a recognize d mental illness and require confinemen t for the purposes of treatment . 6 X v. th e United Kingdom mandated speedy per i odic legal review with the essential el e ments of due process . 7 Mental health advocates in Europ e are now urging the ECHR to rule o n two other issues: detention of “non protesting” patients and communit y treatment orders. The problem of “non protesting” patients arises when person s are confined in fact but not under th e force of law. A person may succumb to a show of authority, or may be unable t o provide informed consent. In such cases , advocates argue, they should be treate d as if they were under detention and a f forded all appropriate procedural saf e guards . Pressure for community treatmen t orders arises from the enduring albei t mistaken belief that mental disorde r predisposes people to behave violently . Community supervision orders, d e signed to compel psychiatric treatment , are increasingly common in the Unite d States and are hotly debated in Europe . Thus far, the European Commission ha s not viewed compelled outpatient trea t ment as a deprivation of liberty, but a d