Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 In one of the nursing homes, we encountered a case when chamber maids in the secure ward chose the laundry to be washed by accessing the residents’ wardrobe. We believe that residents should always be present when such laundry selection is being carried out. If the resident had remarks or wishes, the personnel should explain in an appropriate manner why the selected clothes are to be washed. In the majority of the institutions, we were informed that religious care for persons of Roman Catholic religion was provided, a priest attended them regularly, and masses were held in the building for at least major holidays. In general, it was said that there was no need for the religious care of residents of other religions. We proposed that the brochure received by residents upon admission should also include the name of the employee to contact in respect of religious care, or at least such a notice should be printed and posted on the bulletin board. Detention procedures In 2010, we again faced the problem of what a secure ward is. A secure ward is defined by the Mental Health Act (ZDZdr) as a ward in a social care institution where persons receive constant special protection and care, and where such persons may not leave the institution of their own free will because of their needs. In practice, elderly homes often try to provide protection for residents in a slightly more open manner. Therefore, the wards are not locked, but residents are constrained by the personnel (or by the receptionist as the last resort) and returned to the ward. The Ombudsman cannot provide the authentic interpretation of law. A mMore exact interpretation of a secure ward as defined by Article 2 of ZDZdr is the task of the competent ministry, considering possible amendments to ZDZdr and case-law. According to the National Preventive Mechanisem (DPM), it is therefore even more important that the assessment of all borderline (doubtful) cases remain a matter for the courts. The institutions which we visited did not have a (formally) established secure ward and usually did not notify the courts of a detention without the consent of the persons on this ward. We suggested that the institutions act in accordance with ZDZdr and notify the court of persons who had or were to be accommodated in this ward. A final judgement as to whether a ward for demented residents is a secure ward because it meets the conditions under Article 2 of ZDZdr will therefore be a matter for the courts. We also suggested that we be informed if the court fails to decide on the notifications or to institute a procedure, and of other activities supported by other authorities which should assist in resolving the dilemma of wards for demented residents (the competent ministry, the Social Affairs Inspection Servce, the courts). Nursing homes typically notify the court on accommodation in a secure ward only after the resident has been accommodated. This is because it is difficult for such a person to wait for admission (unsettled situation at home, health condition, transfer from a hospital), and the institution cannot wait with an empty bed for a long period (after the judicial procedure has ended). Although these reasons are understandable and often justified, such conduct is contrary to the applicable legislation. The second paragraph of Article 75, ZDZdr lays down that provisions on admission to treatment without consent on the basis of a court order (Articles 40 to 52 of ZDZdr) should be used for the admission of a person to a secure ward of a social care institution. The judicial procedure for the admission to a secure ward should thus be carried out before the person is admitted as, according to ZDZdr, a person who does not consent to accommodation in a secure ward can only be accommodated on the basis of a judicial decision. During one of the visits, we observed that even after the entry into force of ZDZdr, the nursing home had failed to notify the court of residents accommodated in the secure ward without consent. Before the entry into force of ZDZdr, the competent local court evidently had not decided on the substance of the detention of persons in secure wards of this nursing home and rejected such applications. As the Ombudsman and DPM have expressed several times in the past, such conduct of the court is disputable. Nevertheless, this in no way releases the institution from its obligation under the clear new legal regulation in Articles 75 to 79 of ZDZdr to promptly notify the court on persons admitted to secure ward without consent and leave 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 59