A/HRC/36/37 54. Equally, the Working Group is mindful that some countries have introduced and continue to introduce stringent counter-terrorism measures, of which so-called antiradicalization measures form an important part. Such measures may include establishing dedicated units within prisons or even separate establishments, such as anti-radicalization centres, to hold not only those suspected or convicted of terrorist offences, but also those considered to be “radicalized” or “at risk of radicalization”. It is sometimes presumed that people would commit themselves voluntarily to such centres, which would seemingly exclude such places from the scope of the places of deprivation of liberty. However, in most cases, there may be adverse consequences for individuals who do not commit themselves voluntarily and therefore questions surrounding what constitutes “voluntary commitment”, the consequences for those who do not volunteer to be committed or the options to leave, become paramount. 55. The Working Group is aware that there are a variety of health-care and social care settings that are increasingly used for different health-related conditions. They include but are not limited to social care homes for older persons, care facilities for those with dementia and private institutions for people with psychosocial disabilities. It is increasingly aware of persons with disabilities being detained in psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes and other institutional settings, or forced treatment in prayer camps to “cure” disability, and of persons subject to physical and chemical restraint in the community. The Working Group reiterates that it is contrary to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to deprive a person of his or her liberty on the basis of disability (art. 14). It also reiterates that every State retains a positive duty of care in relation to those on its territory and under its jurisdiction and that a State cannot absolve itself of this responsibility in relation to those in privately run institutions. 56. The Working Group wishes to emphasize that the deprivation of liberty is not only a question of legal definition, but also of fact. If the person concerned is not at liberty to leave, then all the appropriate safeguards that are in place to guard against arbitrary detention must be respected and the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court afforded to the individual.6 IV. Amendments to the methods of work 57. At its seventy-seventh session, the Working Group decided to present a new version of its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38). The members agreed to update the list of relevant international instruments and other applicable standards and to introduce a page limit of 20 pages for communications from sources and Government responses. V. Conclusions 58. In the reporting period, the Working Group continued to assess its procedures, which translated into some changes to its methods of work. Some changes did not warrant any amendment to the methods of work, representing instead improvements to internal procedures. Through better use of its digital tools, the Working Group is working more efficiently between its three annual sessions. The Working Group is also working continuously to streamline the process for receiving and responding to requests for its action, always keeping in mind the need to work as effectively and promptly as possible and to keep all parties informed. 6 20 See A/HRC/30/37, para. 2. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 59 and 61.