2.1.3.2 Control visit to St Martin Institute in Srednja vas v Bohinju (12 April 2019) During our previous visit in 2017, the NPM made 21 recommendations. On the occasion of this visit, it was found that the institute accepted and realised nine recommendations, which is certainly commendable. These included recommendations on regular checking of suitability of residents’ individual plans, upgrade of the system for recording emergency calls, the observance of residents’ wishes regarding food, more frequent checking of satisfaction of residents, their relatives and the staff, and the harmonisation of the legal notice in the statement on the consent to be detained with the ZDZdr. We also determined that the recommendation for the MDDSZ (relating to the presentation of representatives) was realised. The institute accepted eleven recommendations, but has not fully realised them yet, which is why we expressed our expectation that special attention would be paid in the future to these recommendations and their realisation. We advised the institute to particularly focus on the participation of volunteers in the ward’s work, provide more general newspapers, provide suitable legal grounds for detention in the secure ward, and submit proposals for the extension of detention in a timely manner. Eight new recommendations were given during the current visit. Based on the institute’s response, seven have already been realised. The recommendation stating that a resident is to be accommodated in the secure ward only after the court’s decision and not before is yet to be realised. During the visit, we noted that the provision of the ZDZdr is inappropriate and we hoped that when amending the relevant act the legislator would find a more suitable solution. We also commended the institute’s prompt elimination of defects and damage to the emergency call system. 2.1.3.3 Control visit to Lendava Retirement Home (24. april 2019) During our previous visit in 2018, the NPM made ten recommendations. During this visit, it was evident that the home accepted and realised three recommendations, which is commendable; we especially highlight the realisation of the recommendation on the prevention of ward overcrowding. But it must be pointed out that the home accepted four recommendations, but has as yet failed to realise them. So, we expressed our expectation that it would particularly focus on these recommendations and their realisation in the future. Two recommendations for the MDDSZ (to reduce the number of beds in four-bed rooms and inform 33 2.1 VISITS TO RETIREMENT HOMES cient system to prevent the exceeding of deadlines determined by the ZDZdr if a person must be detained in a secure ward for a longer period of time is yet to be realised. And above all, the centre should ensure, through suitable supervision, that no resident is again accommodated at the unit without suitable legal grounds. We also recommended that the centre immediately submit a proposal for a resident for whom the proposal to extend detention in the unit has not been submitted (yet) (if there are grounds for further detention) to the court if this has not yet been done following the NPM visit. During the visit, we commended suitable storage of cleaning preparations in the secure ward and the establishment of the record on complaints received.