[The influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the German jurisdiction and legalisation regarding compulsory measures].

The UN Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) has influenced the jurisdiction and legislation on psychiatry in Germany. It played a role in several landmark decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court and of the Federal Supreme Court, which again initiated changes of the guardianship law and of different federal mental health laws. Furthermore, the CRPD has triggered an intensive discussion within psychiatry, which has led to a more critical and cautious use of coercive measures.However, the interpretation of the CRPD is controversial. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has published in 2014 a "General Comment on Article 12 of the UN Convention". Therein, the Committee interprets the CRPD in a way that differs questionably from former international statements about human rights and from former WHO recommendations. Particularly, the Committee demands the complete abolition of substitute decisions by legal guardians and the complete elimination of confinement and of coercive measures.The German government does not accept the Committee's interpretation of the CRPD. The Federal Constitutional Court has declared that the Committee's statements are not legally binding under public international law, neither for national nor for international courts. Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court has criticized the Committee's position. Particularly, it has declared that the CRPD does not imply a total ban of substitute decisions and coercive measures. The Federal Constitutional Court rather acknowledges the state's duty to protect especially those people who cannot decide freely and who are in a helpless situation because of illness or disability. The Court has declared that the state must not abandon these people to their fate.The Federal Constitutional Court has interpreted the CRPD by balancing different fundamental rights and by differentiating between the free and the natural will. In contrast, the Committee has absolutized a naïvely understood right for self-determination.