official procedure if the relevant SWC assesses that this is in their best interest. The MNZ also informed us that the tasks of the Police in 2020 include the update and reform of the protocol on cooperation between SWC and the police due to the amendments to the Foreigners Act. 2.4 VISITS TO POLICE STATIONS We approve of the adopted guideline and the proposed reform of the protocol, although minors are not explicitly exempt from the discussion as per the Agreement. We believe that their readmission according to this Agreement excludes the Foreigners Act, which stipulates that return decisions must be issued to the minors. We cannot agree with the MNZ’s explanation that police officers were unable to observe the Agreement and conduct the official procedure without interviews implemented by, and decisions issued by, Postojna SWC or the guardian for a special case. Official readmission of unaccompanied foreign minors is enabled by the Foreigners Act, whereby the police is responsible for conducting the procedure. In this regard, we observe that police officers could accommodate unaccompanied foreign minors at the Aliens Centre in Postojna even without SWC cooperation. There, they would be assigned a special case guardian to interview them to clarify their circumstances and determine whether they are eligible to apply for international protection. At most police stations visited, other deficiencies or errors with filling in forms necessary for detention were established, although these were not as numerous as in the past. The most frequent deficiency or error was the inconsistent management of data on the time period of the detention order. The same task of a police officer (e.g. imposition of detention, conducting a security check) was thus recorded in different forms or under different sections of the same form (e.g. Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note) as though it took place at different times. Relating to all deficiencies or errors established when completing forms necessary for detention implementation, the MNZ reported that police station management and police officers with whom deficiencies or errors when completing forms were discovered were warned about the importance of consistent and correct documenting of the procedures they conduct. In three cases, it was determined that police officers (particularly duty officers) failed to observe paragraph seven of Article 51 of the Police Tasks and Powers Act (ZNPPol), which stipulates that a security search of a person deprived of their liberty be carried out by a person of the same gender, unless the security search cannot be postponed. However, in neither of the relevant cases of the violation of the provisions of paragraph seven of Article 51 of the ZNPPol, did police officers state that the security search of a person deprived of their liberty could not be postponed until the arrival of a person of the same gender. Regarding these findings, the MNZ replied that the management of the police station and police officers were called upon to consistently observe paragraph seven of Article 51 of the ZNPPol or consistently provide reasons preventing temporary postponement of security checks. 54 THE REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA ON IMPLEMENTING THE TASKS OF THE NPM