Tokens: 112
.
The
applicant
argues
that
he
did
not
suffer
from
a
mental
disorder.[290
]
The
majority
state
that
the
domestic
courts
have
“
certain
discretion
in
particular
on
the
merits
of
clinical
diagnosis”.[291
]
But
there
are
limits
to
this
hands
-
off
approach.[292
]
In
the
present
case
,
more
than
half
of
the
experts
are
of
the
view
that
it
was
not
established
that
the
defendant
suffers
from
a
mental
illness
:
experts
S
(
20
April
1999
)
,
Z
(
6
October
1999
)
,
R
(
8
October
2003
)
,
F
(
24
November
2011)[293
]
and
MK
(
27
September
2016
)
concluded
this
way
,
while
experts
O
(
16
January
2006
)
,
M
(
6
January
2006
)
,
B
(
15
January
2009
)
and
K
(
12
December
2011)[294
]
concluded
the
opposite
.
Furthermore
,
the
fact
that
contacts
with
psychologist
MK
were
discontinued
by
the
centre
in
May
2017
,
because
MK
saw
no
sign
of
any
“
hidden
sadistic
undercurrent
”
(
larvierte
sadistische
Grundströmung
)
[
295
]
in
the
applicant
,
raises
serious
doubts
as
to
how
independent
the
domestic
authorities
’
diagnosis
is
.
These
doubts
are
compounded
by
the
fact
that
none
of
the
experts
heard
was
properly
qualified
for
the
specific
case
of
a
young
adult
offender
.
Neither
expert
K
nor
expert
F
nor
any
other
expert
was
qualified
to
examine
young
people
,
as
required
by
domestic
law[296
]
and
constitutional
case
-
law.[297
]
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O