Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 the decision on detention to the court. According to the DPM, there is therefore no excuse for the visited nursing home to have seven persons in the secure ward without notifying the court almost a year after the entry into force of ZDZdr. During the visit to this home, we also found that it had another secure ward in which 27 residents were detained without a court decision on detention. The management of the home explained that they still did not know the status of this ward. However, only persons who agree to such accommodation, or persons for whom the court has already decided on detention and allowed it, may be accommodated in a ward with a regime restricting their freedom of movement. The conduct of the home in setting up an additional secure ward and notifying the court on detentions in this ward only after the DPM visit was contrary to the law. During the visits, we also observed different practices in the delivery of postal items to the occupants of secure wards, especially to those who cannot understand the meaning of the received letter due to their medical condition. In one of the visited institutions, the courier left a notification at the reception because delivery to the resident was not possible; after 15 days, he delivered the consignment. Since after this time limit, delivery is deemed to have been effected and the period which can be essential for a party to proceedings might begin (or even expire), we pointed out that the home must ensure that the consignment is delivered to the addressee (the resident, or his or her custodian, for example). In one of the visited institutions, we established that the court sent decisions on admission to a secure ward or on renewal of detention in a secure ward directly to the institution, with the note that if the resident was not able to understand the meaning or the content of the decision, the decision should be inserted in the file, or its content should be explained to the resident orally. In the practice of this home, the decision on whether the court’s decision would be served on the resident was made by the social service, which typically also explains the meaning of the decision to the occupant. We estimated that the practice of not serving the decision on admission to the secure ward or renewal of detention in the secure ward on the resident was inappropriate. We understand that in some cases the court’s decisions cannot be served correctly (e.g. because the resident is not able to sign the return receipt or is not able to understand the content of the court’s decision), which might raise doubt about the rationality of delivering the court’s consignments. However, ZDZdr, like the previous Non-litigious Civil Procedure Act, makes no exception in serving decisions issued in the procedure for admission to a secure ward without consent. Therefore, it would be right for the law to make a special regulation for cases where the serving of the court’s decision is not necessary due to the psychophysical condition of the individual. Until then, according to the DPM, to act otherwise is unlawful. Special protection measures In the sixth and seventh paragraph of Article 29, the Mental Health Act stipulates that the doctor who orders such a special protection measure (PVU) to be implemented must, no later than 12 hours after the measure has been ordered, notify the director of the social care institution, the next of kin, a lawyer, and a representative in writing thereof. If the person’s contractual capacity has been discontinued, his/her legal representative is also notified. If the doctor is not present (which is frequent in social care institutions), PVZ can be implemented by another health care professional or expert workers in the social care institution; however, they must immediately notify the doctor thereof, who promptly decides if the measure is justified. If the doctor does not order the measure to be implemented, the measure is discontinued immediately. The health care professional or expert worker makes a written note on the notification of the doctor. In the fourth paragraph of Article 28, ZDZdr stipulates that PVU may be used only in extraordinary situations, and may only continue for as long as is urgently necessary with regard to the cause of its implementation; a PVU of physical restraint with belts may be not imposed for more than four hours, while a PVU of confinement to one room may not be imposed for more than 12 hours. After the above-mentioned period, the doctor verifies the justification for a renewal of PVU. 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 61