Report of the CHR on the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland covered by the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism, however, detained and, at the same time, intoxicated persons did not have to be compulsorily examined. This means that persons, who are in the same situation (one person needs to sober up to allow for performing procedural actions with respect to him/her, another needs to sober up to be released), are treated differently under law, although the purpose of examination in both cases should be to determine whether a person can stay in a PDR, not e.g. in a hospital where he/she would have specialist care ensured. The situation in the field postulated by the NPM, i.e. to subject all persons detained by the Police and placed in PDRs to medical examination, remains the same. Based on CPT recommendations, General Assembly Resolutions and conclusions made by the representatives of the National Preventive Mechanism as a result of visits, examining all detainees would play a very important function. On the one hand, it would make it possible to early detect medical contraindications to being placed in PDRs, while on the other hand, a detailed description of detainees’ health condition would effectively protect Police officers on duty in PDRs from any charges. If a person detained in connection with a case bears marks of beating and documentation kept by a PDR (a duty log book, a protocol of detention) lacks any annotations on causes of these injuries, there is a serious doubt as to the treatment of the detainee in the PDR. In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms78 (“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”) requires a State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful deprivation of life, but also to take appropriate steps to protect the life of those within its jurisdiction (Olszewscy v. Poland No 99/12, Judgment of 3 November 2015). The Court also held that, for a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from a third party or himself and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (Keller v. Russia No 26824/04, Judgment of 17 October 2013). Furthermore, sudden deterioration of health of a detainee results in specific obligations on the side of public authorities: Consequently, if an individual is arrested and his/ her health condition at the time of the arrest is good and if such an individual is released in a worse condition, a State is responsible for identifying causes of such health problems (Dzieciak v. Poland No 77766/01, Judgment of 9 December 2008). Therefore, the Commissioner for Human Rights requested the Minister of the Interior in his general letter79 of 28 October 2015 to provide explanations on a document developed by the Ministry of the Interior in cooperation with the Chief Police Headquarters, entitled Dz.U. of 1993, No 61, item 284, as amended. ht t p s : / / w w w. r p o. g o v. p l / p l / c o nt e nt / w y s t % C 4 % 8 5 p i e n i e - g e n e r a l n e - z - d n i a - 2 8 1 02 0 1 5 - r- d o - m i n i s t r a spraw-wewn%C4%99trznych-w-sprawie-realizacji-programu 78 79 36