The NPM additionally explained that it offers its opinion on whether the DU is a secure department on the basis of Item 17 of Article 2 of the ZDZdr, which provides the definition of a secure department, and on the basis of the findings that were made during its visit as evident from the report. The NPM understands the concern of the retirement home that, if it met the conditions for a secure department and its verification, it could accommodate the elderly (also) by decision of the court even if the retirement home disagreed. However, this cannot be a reason not to ensure the required safety of elderly residents who can be disoriented in time and space due to advanced dementia. The NPM encourages methods of caring for and providing safety to the elderly which restrict them as little as possible. Nevertheless, it is also aware that sometimes certain restrictions to personal freedom might be necessary in order to ensure appropriate safety. It is irrelevant whether this limitation is enforced with technical measures or staff, while it also needs to be emphasised that the ZDZdr stipulates the restriction should apply to the whole area of the institution and not necessarily only to the unit for people with dementia. The NPM believes that the concept of personal monitoring is an appropriate form of protection for people with dementia who are confused due to their medical condition. It nevertheless points out that personal monitoring means that a person is followed, and that the follower can intervene only to prevent an action which would be dangerous (e.g. if the person would want to step in front of a car, wade into a river, etc.). Such a concept does not allow deterring the elderly from their path, and we cannot speak of this concept if an employee takes the elderly person or several of them for a walk on a planned route. It needs to be pointed out that in the light of previous experience of the NPM, this concept is undoubtedly exceptionally difficult, if not even impossible, to implement with the given staffing standards. The NPM (again) warned the retirement home that it was the institution’s duty to (also) see to the safety of its residents, and if no other way is possible then also by restricting their freedom of movement as a means of last resort, which must be done in consideration of the conditions and the legal basis stipulated by the ZDZdr. Acting in contravention of this obligation can result in an unsafe situation for the resident due to their mental illness. There have been search parties for people with dementia (organised elsewhere in Slovenia) that have ended tragically. The question of responsibility of the person who should have been taking care of the elderly and ensuring their safety and who has failed to so is therefore not insignificant. In its response to the final report on the visit, the Ministry stated that it had paid special attention to the findings of the NPM regarding restriction of movement. The Ministry warned the management of the retirement home that if they were unable to ensure the concept of personal monitoring without restriction of movement, they would have to consider the ZDZdr. The Ministry also advised them to visit a retirement home which was organised so as to ensure personal monitoring as stipulated by the Guidelines on working with people with dementia. It further stated that individual findings of the NPM, which the latter had established in its visits to other retirement homes, would be discussed at training programmes for retirement homes, e.g. the procedure of admitting residents to a dementia unit, either with or without consent; consent which must also include the possibility of cancelling such consent; the importance of a personal plan including a risk assessment; prescribing drugs, etc. • We pointed out to Horjul Retirement Home that sometimes a resident will show their desire to leave with obvious (conclusive) actions, e.g. banging on the door, trying to open the door and similar actions, and we again recommended at this visit that the retirement home correspondingly supplement the form and the possibility of cancelling their consent. In its response to the preliminary report, the retirement home stated that the Statement on Consent for Admittance to a Secure Department had been prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, issued on 27 March 2014 as a supplement to the Guidelines on working with people with dementia in institutional care at the consultation on dementia, which had also been harmonised with representatives of the Inspection for Social Affairs and the Human Rights Ombudsman, who had actively participated in this consultation. The retirement home had discussed our recommendations with its legal department and expert staff and decided that the Statement on Consent for Admittance to a Secure Department should remain unchanged. In the light of the statements made by the retirement home, we additionally explained that when preparing the Statement, the provisions of the ZDZdr must be considered. The third paragraph of Article 74 stipulates that a person who consented to admittance to a secure department may cancel this consent at any time, either explicitly or by actions which lead to such a conclusion, and request to be released from the secure department. We have therefore again recommended that the 50 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2017 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT