Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 Complaint procedures Police stations (PP) have different complaint procedures. All of them keep a comments and complaints book, which except in PP Radlje ob Dravi, is in a visible position next to the police officer on duty. Half of PPs also have special collection boxes, which provide detained persons and foreigners with the opportunity to file a complaint or comment anonymously. For foreigners who do not know Slovenian regulations on the possibility to complain about the behaviour of public officers, it is useful if the box is appropriately labelled in another language. The DPM suggested that PPs where there were no such boxes consider installing them. As a good practice example, we present PP Ljubljana Vič, where they installed such a collection box according to our recommendation after the previous visit. Access to PP for the disabled and parking for clients, including the disabled Except for four PPs (PP Medvode, PP Litija, PP Ljubljana Vič and PP Postojna), all other PPs have suitable and adequate access to PPs for the disabled. In certain cases, a visitor may use a bell to call the police officer on duty (PP Litija and PP Medvode). However, there is no such bell in PP Postojna, not even in front of the steps, and access for a disabled client thus depends on whether the police officer on duty sees the person on the CCTV camera, or if another client incidentally comes to the PP and notifies the police officer that a disabled person is at the PP. In each case, the police officer on duty must leave his or her workplace to deal with the disabled person. Revision of documentation During every visit to a police station, we also reviewed the documentation of several randomly selected detention cases. The most interesting aspects of the established deficiencies and proposals of the National Prevention Mechanism (DPM) related therewith are emphasised below. Police officers from several police stations had used correction fluid to correct the official data on detention or had overwritten the original data with new. We pointed out that these were official documents and proposed they correct the potential errors in such a way that the previous data remain visible and the correction be confirmed by the signature of the police officer who made it. We frequently observed that the field “Other” in official notes was completed with (too) limited data, which should however be written with all due care (e.g. including offered water, bedding, slippers, brochure of the Ministry of the Interior (MNZ) on the rights of a detained person, and acceptance or rejection of them). It may seem at first sight that this is unnecessary burdening of police officers with administrative tasks, but the circumstances noted might turn out to be the most useful for them in particular, especially in cases of complaints from persons upon detention. Documents are not always consistently completed, and particular deficiencies are indicated with a view to preventing them from recurring in any PP. One of the official notes (UZ) on detention in the section “Detention ordered” failed to state according to which act and article the person had been detained, and the section “Information to relatives” was unjustifiably blank (the decision on detention clearly indicated that the mother had been informed); in another case, the section “End of detention” in the official note did not indicate the time when the detention had terminated; in the next UZ on detention, the status of the person informed of the detention was not stated (e.g. brother, sister, common-law partner, etc.); in another UZ, the indicated time did not accord with the time stated in the detention warrant concerning informing the relatives and the request of the person to inform relatives; in another case, the detention National Preventive Mechanism in the Republic of Slovenia under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 33