Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2013 amendments to the Act on proceedings in juveniles cases or in the Executive Penal Code (with respect to persons subject to a preventive measure), the failure to resolve the problem of placing the persons “to sober up” in the Police detention rooms. The last problem is of particular importance, since deaths of such persons in the Police detention rooms were reported, mainly due to the lack of appropriate health care, similar to care provided in sobering-up stations. In 2013, those issues were the subject of numerous letters of the Defender to the competent ministers2 and the subject of two motions to the Constitutional Tribunal3. Unfortunately, as in the previous years, there are situations in the places of detention that may be considered inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The experience proves that the visits under the National Preventive Mechanism are important for prevention and should be intensified. However, this will only be possible when sufficient financial and human resources appropriate for the tasks are allocated for the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism. With her current personnel (13 persons) and given the number of places of detention (approximately 1800) within the meaning of Article 4 of OPCAT4, the Human Rights Defender is unable, despite the great commitment of her employees, to ensure that the minimum international standards on the frequency of visits are met5. Given the UN standards, the NPM Department should consist of 38 employees, proportionally to the number of places to be visited in Poland. The Report has been divided into two parts. The first one discusses the organisational issues regarding the functioning of the NPM, activities in cooperation with other entities, both at the national and at the international level, identified instances of torture and presents the assessed legal acts. The second part of the Report includes a description of the methodology of work and conclusions from visits carried out in the analysed year, broken down by specific types of places of detention. 2 http://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/raport-rpo-z-dzia%C5%82alno%C5%9Bci-w-polsce-kmp-wroku-2012-0 3 http://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/wnioski-do-trybuna%C5%82u-konstytucyjnego 4 Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the OPCAT, it is any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence. 5 According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, ad hoc preventive visits under the NPM should be carried out once in several months, and comprehensive visits once in five years. According to minimum standards defined by the APT, comprehensive visits to organisational units of the Police, pre-trial detention centres and to places of detention of people particularly vulnerable to threats or aggression, such as women and foreigners, should be carried out at least once a year. 6