A/HRC/40/54 based on disability was permitted but required safeguards. Hence, the preparatory work of the Convention confirms the intention of setting an absolute ban. 48. Placing a person with disabilities into an institution, either without their consent or with the consent of a substitute decision maker, contradicts the right to personal liberty and the right to live independently in the community (art. 19). The failure of the State to provide persons with disabilities with the appropriate support to live independently in the community cannot constitute a legitimate ground for deprivation of liberty. Likewise, placing a child outside the family in an institution or residential home on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment of the child and/or of his or her parents or legal guardian is discriminatory and, therefore, arbitrary and unlawful. 49. Involuntarily admitting a person to a mental health facility on the basis of an alleged mental illness or mental disorder contradicts the right to liberty and security of person and the principle of free and informed consent (art. 25 (d)). Everyone has the right to be provided with desired mental health services and/or other supports based on their free and informed consent, and to refuse any unwanted services without being deprived of their liberty, including those experiencing severe distress or extreme mental states. When admission leads to involuntary treatment and forced medication, involuntary commitment also violates the rights to security of person, personal integrity (art. 17) and freedom from torture and ill-treatment (art. 15). 50. Deprivation of liberty resulting from declarations of unfitness to stand trial or noncriminal responsibility due to “insanity” or “unsound mind” are contrary to the right to personal liberty and access to justice (art. 13). In such cases, the person is usually diverted from the proceedings and subjected to security measures entailing deprivation of liberty and involuntary treatment, often indefinitely or for significantly longer periods of time than if they had been convicted of a crime in accordance with usual procedures, thereby denying them the same due process guarantees as others (A/HRC/37/25, para. 36). States have an obligation to ensure that judicial guarantees and safeguards protecting the rights of those accused of a crime apply to all persons with disabilities, highlighting the presumption of innocence, the right to stand trial and the right to a fair trial, including the provision of procedural and age- and gender-appropriate accommodations. 51. Placement of children with disabilities outside a family into institutions or residential homes for the purpose of care constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty that also contravenes the right to home and family (art. 23). Accordingly, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, States must provide alternative care within the wider family and, failing that, within the community in a family setting. The notion of “suitable institutions” under article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children should be reviewed under the higher standards upheld by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As article 41 of the Convention recognizes, its implementation should not affect any provisions of international law that are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child. 52. States have an obligation to take appropriate measures to protect the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities against deprivation by third parties.41 States must protect persons with disabilities against detention in institutions or community-based settings run by non-governmental or private entities. They should also protect them against wrongful deprivation of liberty by employers, schools and hospitals. Additionally, States must protect persons with disabilities against home-based deprivation of liberty, including home confinement, shackling and pasung.42 53. The denial of legal capacity is often both a cause and an effect of deprivation of liberty; it can be used as a trigger for institutionalization or involuntary hospitalization, and 41 42 12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 7. Pasung involves confinement and neglect in addition to shackling. See N.H. Laila and others, “Perceptions about pasung (physical restraint and confinement) of schizophrenia patients: a qualitative study among family members and other key stakeholders in Bogor Regency, West Java Province, Indonesia 2017”, International Journal of Mental Health Systems, vol. 12, No. 35 (2018).