All of the above visits took one day, with the exception of visits to three prisons (Koper, Dob pri Mirni and Maribor) and one special social care institution (PSVZ Hrastovec) which took two days, i.e. four in total (the second day in the latter prison included only the concluding discussion with the Ombudsman’s representative). In six cases, the visits were thematic (all conducted in social care institutions),5 and in nine cases the visits were for control purposes6 (6 social care institutions, 2 psychiatric hospitals and Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility7). With regard to visits of special types, most visits to social care institutions were either exclusively thematic or for control purposes. The majority of visits were conducted without prior notice (60); only seven were conducted on the basis of a prior announcement8, of which one was a control visit.9 The contractual expert was engaged in eight cases (in four cases for the needs of a visit to a special social care institution, in two cases for the needs of a visit to a prison, and once for the needs of a visit to a psychiatric hospital and a social care institution). The following facts may be established concerning the participation of registered non-governmental organisations or organisations with the status of a humanitarian organisation: -S  KUP – Community of Private Institutes participated in visits to 34 various places of deprivation of liberty (on one visit,10 it participated with two representatives and in three thematic and two control visits); - Humanitarno društvo Pravo za vse participated in the visits to 18 various places of deprivation of liberty (on four visits,11 it participated with two representatives and in three thematic and one control visit); -N  ovi Paradoks participated in visits to 10 various places of deprivation of liberty (two of which were control visits); -A  ssociation for Developing Voluntary Work Novo mesto participated in visits to eight different places of deprivation of liberty (one of which was a control visit); - t he Peace Institute participated in visits to seven different places of deprivation of liberty; -Z  DUS – the Slovenian Federation of Pensioners’ Associations participated in visits to five different places of deprivation of liberty (two of which were control visits); -C  aritas Slovenia participated in visits to four different places of deprivation of liberty; and -P  IC – Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs participated in visits to three different places of deprivation of liberty. It may be further established that the representatives of the participating registered non-governmental organisations or organisations with a status of humanitarian organisations were engaged to prepare reports on the majority (53 per cent) of visits to places of deprivation of liberty, i.e. for 35 (out of a total of 66) visited These included the Dom pod Gorco Retirement Home in Maribor, the Sončni dom Retirement Home in Maribor, Ptuj Retirement Home, the Dom Petra Uzarja Retirement Home in Tržič, the Centre for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Elderly in Škofja Loka and Preddvor Retirement Home. As stated in the relevant report: “The purpose of thematic visits of the NPM to several retirement homes was (merely) to examine changes on dementia wards after the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) removed so-called supervision wards from the Guidelines on working with persons with dementia (Guidelines). /…/ During these visits, the NPM also observed indications suggesting that torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment occur at the places of deprivation of liberty (as defined in Article 4 of the MOPPM). On the basis of findings from their visits, the aim of the NPM was to recommend that the competent authorities, MDDSZ in particular, (legally) determine wards which meet all conditions of secure wards as per the ZDZdr, and thus improve the safety of persons deprived of their liberty.”  5 These included Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility, Begunje Psychiatric Hospital, the OLMO Unit at Ptuj Retirement Home, Lucija Retirement Home, Ilirska Bistrica Retirement Home, Cerknica Retirement Home, Novo mesto Retirement Home and Ormož Psychiatric Hospital. places, and they thus prepared five reports more than were drafted by the Ombudsman’s representatives (31). Namely:12 -S  KUP – Community of Private Institutes prepared reports on visits to 26 different places13 of deprivation of liberty; - the Peace Institute prepared reports on visits to five different places14 of deprivation of liberty; - Humanitarno društvo Pravo za vse prepared reports on visits to three different places;15 -N  ovi Paradoks prepared a report on the visit to one place of deprivation of liberty.16 Furthermore: - relating to 23 places classified as police detention rooms, in all 23 cases (100 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and never by a representative of the Ombudsman); - relating to nine places classified as prisons (including Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility), in five cases (56 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and four times by a representative of the Ombudsman); - relating to three places classified as locations of deprivation of liberty of aliens, in two cases (67 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and once by a representative of the Ombudsman); - relating to four places classified as special social care institutions, in two cases (50 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and twice by a representative of the Ombudsman); - relating to four places classified as educational institutions treating children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural disorders, in one case (25 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and three times by a representative of the Ombudsman); - relating to 21 places classified as social care institutions, in two cases (10 per cent) the report was prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (and 19 times by a representative of the Ombudsman), and - relating to three places classified as psychiatric hospitals, the report was never prepared by a representative of a participating registered non-governmental organisation or an organisation with the status of a humanitarian organisation (in all three cases, the report was prepared by a representative of the Ombudsman). Representatives of the participating registered non-governmental organisations or organisations with the status of a humanitarian organisation thus prepared reports on visits conducted in 2015 according to individual categories of places of deprivation of liberty as follows: - r eports on police stations were prepared exclusively by representatives of organisations; - r epresentatives of organisations prepared more reports on prisons and locations of deprivation of liberty of aliens than the representatives of the Ombudsman; - r epresentatives of organisations prepared the same number of reports on special social care institutions as the representatives of the Ombudsman; - r epresentatives of organisations prepared less reports (one in four) on educational institutions treating children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural disorders or the representatives of organisations prepared significantly fewer reports (only two out of a total of 21) on social care institutions than the representatives of the Ombudsman; and - r epresentatives of organisations prepared none of the reports on psychiatric hospitals; all three reports were prepared by the Ombudsman’s representative.  6 Neither the representatives of ZDUS – the Slovenian Federation of Pensioners’ Association, PIC – Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs, Caritas Slovenia or the Association for Developing Voluntary Work Novo mesto prepared reports on any of the visits in 2015. 12 The latter institution was the only one to which a regular visit was first made in 2015, followed by a control visit.  7  8 Dob pri Mirni Prison, Ig Prison, Piran Police Station, Ljubljana Police Detention Centre, Vrhnika Retirement Home and Planina Residential Treatment Institution. Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility. For 20 police stations, two prisons and one control visit to Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility, two reception centres and one visit to a special social care institution. 13 For three police stations, one prison and one visit to Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility.  9 14 10 Dob pri Mirni Prison. 15 Two social care institutions and one special social care institution. 11 Dom Svetega Lenarta Retirement Home, the Muretinci Unit of Ptuj Retirement Home, Maribor Prison and Ig Prison. 16 One residential treatment institution. 230 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM FOR 2015 231 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM - 9 prisons (including Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility), - 5 special social care institutions, - 4 educational institutions treating children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural disorders, - 3 psychiatric hospitals, and - 2 locations of deprivation of liberty of aliens.