Report of the CHR on the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland implementation of the standard indicated by the CPT that each detainee can select a doctor, who will examine him/her, would entail far-reaching organisational complications. In his next general letter, the Commissioner for Human Rights requested the Minister of the Interior to provide additional information on the Strategy… At the same time, he stressed that the already presented information did not fully meet a ECHR standard. The proposals for cooperation with the Public Prosecutor General or video and audio recording as part of administrative and law enforcement activities, as mechanisms for preventing torture or ill-treatment or punishment, should be, in the opinion of the Commissioner, reinforced with properly kept medical records of each detainee’s medical examinations. Otherwise, the problem of the clear explanation of the mechanism and causes of suffering bodily injuries by persons being under the supervision of Police officers will remain unresolved. If any bodily injuries are found when releasing such a person from a PDR, they will still be presumed to be suffered at the time of his/her detention or confinement. A new problem, which was detected in 2015, involves examining persons with mental disorders (e.g. after a suicide attempt) by doctors other than psychiatrists. In the opinion of the employees of the NPM, this practice may endanger detainees’ health and even life if they are misdiagnosed. Furthermore, if a person with mental disorders, who may pose a threat to oneself or others, is placed in a Police unit, officers are vested with a particularly difficult task whose fulfilment requires specialist medical knowledge. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner for Human Rights requested the Police Commander-in-Chief in his general letter of 7 January 2016 to take appropriate actions to eliminate this practice80. In his reply of 9 February 2016, the Deputy Police Commander-in-Chief pointed out that “the legislator admittedly did not specify the specialisation of a doctor who is to examine persons prior to their admission, however, the accepted practice, according to which examination is usually performed by the so-called general practitioners, seems to be the most optimal solution. These are general practitioners who have general medical knowledge based on which they may order additional specialist consultation e.g. psychiatric consultation”. The Deputy Police Commander-in-Chief also takes the view that introducing solutions, according to which examinations will be performed directly by a specialist doctor, may raise doubts as to an entity that will decide on their legitimacy. It seems that the issue needs to be further monitored by the National Preventive Mechanism. Nevertheless, the Police should be more involved in signalling to a general practitioner that additional examination needs to be performed by a specialist doctor prior to admission to a PDR, especially when a detainee shows signs of irrational behaviour or behaviour that significantly deviates from the canon of socially acceptable behaviour. To a further extent, provisions governing medical examinations of persons detained within Police units are contained in the Regulation. In the opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights, provisions limiting the constitutional right to privacy of an individual and KMP.570.25.2015.WS. 80 38