Suitability requirements for criminal liability - construction, content, discretion and consequences Probably at all times and in all places, a person considered to be suffering from a sufficiently profound mental disorder has been considered incompetent, or at least limited in legal capacity. This is true in civil law, where such issues arise in relation to the drafting of wills and the validity of contracts, etc. It is also true in criminal law, where the idea of sanity as a requirement for criminal liability occupies a central position in almost every country in the world. A Norwegian inquiry recently stated, in the aftermath of the Breivik case, that "all civilized countries" impose such a requirement. In Sweden, however, there has been no requirement of sanity for criminal liability for 50 years. Furthermore, comparative studies show that there are very large variations when it comes to how different countries have chosen to formulate what is in fact called a sanity requirement. The purpose of the project is to use comparative studies to map different models for a sobriety regulation, and to discuss how such a regulation should be designed in various respects. Among the key issues addressed are where in the criminal trial the insanity requirement should be located, how the law's insanity requirement should be constructed, what should entail insanity and who - the court or the forensic psychiatrist - should have the power to decide on the issues.