It was quite difficult to follow the Ministry of the Interior’s claim that no one had prevented or restricted the freedom of movement of the complainant or his wife from when they were stopped in Maribor at 12:24 to 15:45, when their detention was ordered. They were not at the police station for no reason or voluntarily, but for the needs of the police procedure. Therefore, the Ombudsman agreed with the finding of the Ministry of the Interior that there were reasons for depriving the complainant and his wife of liberty when they were stopped when driving though Maribor at 12:24 and that police officers could have arrested them at that point and detained them, as per paragraph two of Article 157 of the ZKP. The police officers did not act accordingly, and the Ministry of the Interior assessed that the entire matter was a professional error. They stated that the police officers would be appropriately warned about the error. The Ombudsman believes that if the police procedure had been clearly and unequivocally presented to the complainant and his wife (including the order of detention or deprivation of liberty and the provision of information about the rights to which the suspects were entitled from the moment when they were deprived of liberty) they would not have been uncertain about their situation. We have established that inconsistencies also emerged at the police station, where there were different interpretations concerning the deprivation of liberty. The official record of the police station on the notification of the state attorney showed that the couple were deprived of liberty at 13:40, while according to the electronic register of detentions at the police station their detention started at 15:45, whereas, in fact, they were deprived of their freedom at 12:24 when the police procedure was initiated against them. The Ombudsman drew special attention to this deficiency at the Ministry of the Interior and proposed that the record of the time when the couple were deprived of liberty should be appropriately corrected, and that all necessary measures must be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar errors in police proceedings. 2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS The Ministry of the Interior considered this proposal, and entered a new time for the start of detention in its records which actually corresponds to the deprivation of freedom of movement, i.e. at 12:24. All police officers at the police station concerned were informed of the errors in this case, and the Ministry of the Interior ordered the management of the station to ensure appropriate supervision and professional assistance for police officers so that similar errors do not occur again. 2.5.4 Police Tasks and Powers Act The tasks and powers of the police are regulated by the Police Tasks and Powers Act (ZNPPol). In addition to the amendment to the ZNPPol (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia [Uradni list RS], No. 23/15) the Ministry of the Interior prepared a Draft of amendments to the ZNPPol (draft amendments) in 2015. In connection with this matter, on 19 August 2015, we attended the presentation of the draft amendments, and we also offered some written opinions and standpoints on the envisaged amendments (e.g. with regard to the introduction of the use of electric paralysers). Our comments on the documentation and other opinions were entirely general, since no special problems during the period of application of the ZNPPol were determined in this field of legislation. Therefore, we also allow the possibility that we will make certain points with regard to this legal regulation if complaints should so require. We were surprised by the scope of the proposed amendments of the ZNPPol, since this Act has been in force for a short period. We also noted the fact that the documentation on the draft amendments contained no information on whether the assessment of the effects on privacy and the justification of urgency, suitability and efficacy as well as the proportionality of new powers or the use of technical means were considered in the preparation of the amendments to the current legal regulation, which would enable a public discussion and timely anticipation of risks and safeguards for potential unjustified encroachments on human rights in the sense of the guidelines provided by the Information Commissioner under the title “Assessment of Effects on Privacy of the Introduction of New Police Powers” from 2014 (https://www. ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/smernice/Presoje_ vplivov_na_zasebnost_pri_uvajanju_novih_policijskih_ pooblastil_Smernice_IP.pdf). We proposed to the Ministry of the Interior that our comments and proposals to the draft amending the ZNPPol be considered, or to provide its comments on our proposals, respectively. 2.5.5 Changes of forms of deprivation of liberty and detention Due to the amended Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP-M), which also determines some rights on which a person must be informed when deprived of liberty, the Ministry of the Interior prepared amendments to individual forms of the deprivation of liberty and detention also by considering our comments and proposals. These included the finding that the Official Note on Transfer (form JRM-4, MNZ RS (PC2)) was deficient in determining the field for entering the date and time of security search. We found that it is possible to enter data (date and time) only on the performed (first) security search in the target field on sheet 1 of the form; however, in addition to a security search prior to transfer under paragraph five of Article 57, the ZNPPol also envisages (repeated, additional) detailed security search according to Article 66 and in connection with paragraph six of Article 51 of the ZNPPol prior to the immediate placement of persons in the detention area. Therefore, we believed that the aforementioned field on the form is not entirely suitable, since it does not enable the recording of data on potential security searches. If the transfer continues to detention, data on potential second (detailed) security search must be indicated on the third sheet, under special remarks, where all tasks involving the transferred person are registered. We suggested that the Ministry of the Interior study the content of the Official Note on Transfer in the light of our findings. The ministry envisaged the possibility of both security examinations when amending the form ‘Implementation of tasks during detention – official note (JRM-1 MNZ RS (PC2))’, i.e. in the field with data on detention. The complaint in this case was justified and the Ombudsman’s actions were successful. The case described above shows that the Ministry of the Interior is ready to take firm action to eliminate the errors in police proceedings, and the Ombudsman assesses this decision as positive. 6.3-60/2014 2.5.6 Resolving complaints about the work of police officers 84 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 If an individual who believes that the conduct or lack thereof of a police officer has violated their rights and fundamental freedoms, they can make a complaint about the officer’s work or use other possible legal remedies (e.g. criminal procedure, civil procedure etc.) (Article 137 and further articles of the ZNPPol). Last year, we received several allegations from complainants that during visits to individual police stations, police officers did not want to accept their complaints, which is quite worrying. In our opinion, this constitutes inappropriate conduct by an officer (on duty at the police station, including a senior at the police station) if they do not inform the person who wishes to make a complaint about the work of an individual police officer about how to make a complaint, the possibility and method of making the complaint, or if they do not accept a complaint based on the complainant’s request, i.e. that in the event of a verbal complaint, minutes are prepared and the complainant is informed of the type and further progress of the complaint procedure. 85 2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS by criminal means. Due to the suspicion of a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio, the police officer invited the complainant to drive (himself) to the police station. The complainant parked the vehicle there, and he and his wife entered the premises of the police station. The security officer also went to the police station, where he filed a criminal complaint regarding the criminal offence of theft, as per paragraph one of Article 207 of the KZ-1, and the criminal offence of minor physical injury as per paragraph one of Article 122 of the KZ-1. At this time, the complainant and his wife were held separately in interview rooms, which were not locked, and a police officer on duty could watch over them. According to the information of the Ministry of the Interior, no one prevented or restricted their freedom of movement. When, based on information, the police had established that there were grounds for suspecting the aforementioned offences had been committed and that there were reasons for detention under points 2 and 3 of paragraph one of Article 201 of the ZKP, the detention of the complainant and his wife was ordered at 15:45. At 19:15, the couple were officially notified of the deprivation of liberty and detention, which was terminated at 20:15, when the police had conducted an investigation of the alleged offences. At that time, the complainant and his wife left the premises of the police station.