Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 warrant failed to indicate the time when the detained person had been informed of the right to a lawyer; the section “Surveillance of the detained person” and findings in the UZ on detention did not record surveillance, video or personal; the UZ on detention did not include the date and time of the termination of detention; the detention warrant did not include the time of service of this document to the detained person. The established deficiencies show that police officers have to be more careful and more consistent when completing documents. In two cases (PP Velenje and PP Medvode), we found a UZ on detention stating that detention took place in detention room “0”. The DPM believes that such a designation is not reasonable. Even when a PP does not have a detention room, it must be indicated where the person was located during detention (e.g. hall, office). It is a rather common practice (PP Šmarje pri Jelšah, PP Rogaška Slatina etc.) to state in the UZ on detention that the detained person has been informed of their rights in their mother tongue, but DPM considers this inadequate. It is not necessary to inform the detained person on the rights in his or her mother tongue; it can be a language he or she understands, and can be different to his or her mother tongue. We therefore proposed that the UZ on detention should indicate which language was used to inform the person on their rights. In PP Trebnje, two UZ were completed in one of the files on detention: one for the time when the person was deprived of liberty in this PP and another when the person was taken to the detention room in PP Novo mesto. The DPM believes that two UZs (one for the procedure at PP Trebnje and another for the accommodation in PP Novo mesto) should not be completed for a single person deprived of liberty, or for whom detention has been ordered. In the case of PLP Brnik, none of the documents (UZ or decision on detention) stated that an interpreter had participated in the procedure, although we learned that an interpreter was present. The same occurred at PP Šiška, where we observed that the UZ on detention stated only that the person had been informed of the rights of a detained person in Romanian (an interpreter was present during the procedure). It would be correct to state the name of the interpreter in UZ on detention (e.g. in the comment section) and in the decision on detention, and the duration of their presence during the procedure should be specified. MNZ agrees with the DPM’s opinion and has assured they would consider the need for more adequate recording of the interpreter’s presence when preparing a new UZ for detention. In the same case, we observed that some detention forms (UZ and decision on detention) are available only in Slovenian. Since police officers from PLP Brnik perform the majority of procedures with foreign citizens, the DPM believes it would be reasonable, in order to inform a foreigner with the procedure and rights, to prepare translations of the forms into at least the languages of countries with which the citizens of which PLP Brnik usually originate (judging from the interviewees during our visit, these are mostly citizens of Turkey, Kosovo and Greece). Translations of the forms would ensure that the person would be informed of his or her rights when the procedure commence, before the arrival of the interpreter. Unfortunately, MNZ disagrees and does not see the need to translate the official note or the decision on detention into particular foreign languages. Police officers must inform the person on the reasons for denial of entry, the reasons for detention and the planned measures (e.g. deportation from the country); if this is not possible due to language barriers, the person is informed by means of an interpreter. In the Letter of Rights of a Person Deprived of Liberty, the person’s rights are also translated into Turkish and Albanian (due to rights related to freedom of movement within the European Union countries or the Schengen area, police officers allegedly only rarely deal with citizens of Greece). MNZ added that on the basis of the Schengen Borders Code officers also use the uniform standard form for rejection at the border crossing, which is used in all Member States of the Schengen Area and is printed in Slovenian and English. 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 35