1.1 Visits to social care institutions (residential homes for the elderly) The NPM has proposed that the nursing homes which had not been notifying the court of the persons detained in secure wards act in accordance with ZDZdr and notify the court both of the persons to be accommodated in such wards and persons which they intended to accommodate in secure wards in the future, where the situation defined by Article 2 (17) is in question. Notification is required in respect of persons who do not provide or cannot provide their consent (on their own or by a statutory representative in cases of a person declared contractually incapable). In such manner, the final assessment as to whether the secure ward fulfils the conditions under Article 2 of ZDZdr would be left to the court. Moreover, nursing homes were invited to inform the NPM of whether the court does not intend to adjudicate on notifications and/or to initiate the proceedings. In Danijel Halas Home Velika Polana, the NPM established that both upon the admission and, subsequently, upon the submission of a proposal for the extension of detention, the notifications to the court had not been sent in due time, a fact to which the NPM drew special attention. In its response report, the nursing home assured that since 2012, it provides for a timely lodging of proposals for the admission and proposals for the extension of detention in the secure ward, and that the irregularities established had taken place in 2011 when they had first acquainted themselves with ZDZdr. In Bor HE Črni Vrh nad Idrijo, the NPM also established that in some cases, the nursing home communicated proposals for the extension of detention to the court too late. In its response report, the nursing home assured the NPM that in the future, they would comply with the time limits for notifying the court. Ptuj RH indeed observed the practice of notifying the court prior to the enforcement of ZDZdr. However, following the court’s rejection of the notification of the detention of residents with the explanation that under the Non-litigious Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter: ZNP) it did not adjudicate on the detention in social care institution, the nursing home stopped communicating notifications altogether. Such conduct of the nursing home came as a surprise to the NPM, as following the disputable practice of some courts which considered that ZNP only regulates the admission to treatment, while failing to do so in respect of care in the social care institutions, ZDZdr also clearly regulated the procedures of the admission to secure wards of the social care institutions. Therefore, one would expect that after the enforcement of this act, the nursing home would resume communicating notifications of potential detained residents accommodated in the secure ward without their consent to the court. Obviously, it failed to do so. Following the notification of the court, nursing homes are under obligation to actively participate in court proceedings. Thus, the court dismissed the notification submitted by France Bergelj Jesenice RH. After inspecting the court’s decision, the NPM established that pursuant to the proposal for the admission of a resident, the court had initiated proceedings and invited the nursing home to supplement the application. Because the latter had failed to supplement the application with the required documents and clarifications, the court dismissed the proposal. The NPM called on the nursing home to ensure that its applications communicated to the court are complete and include the necessary enclosures. Moreover, during the continuation of proceedings, the nursing home should be fully cooperative and supplement the proposal in due time where so requested by the court. In fact, if during the proceedings it remains passive and fails to supplement its application as required by the court, the nursing home makes it impossible for the court to adjudicate on the detention of a resident. Consequently, such conduct of the nursing home results in an illegal situation where freedom of movement of individual residents (for the purpose of their safety) is being restricted without any legal basis. On its visits, the NPM still established that the regulations of ZDZdr which in respect of social care institutions did not provide for the possibility of an emergency admission were inadequate. In fact, in certain cases (direct admissions from hospitals), the court’s decisions on the admission of a person to the SW were already issued before the admission, while other cases involved an intermediate period, i.e. from the admission to the adoption of the court’s decision, when a resident was accommodated in the secure ward on various bases, for example, on the basis of the signature of the statement on the restriction of rights in this ward. This practice is irregular when a person is unable to understand the meaning of such consent. Due to inadequate provisions of ZDZdr, nursing homes obviously seek various methods of acting in such situations. As, for example, established in Trnovo CE, nursing homes usually notify the court only upon the admission or even later, i.e. after the acquisition of the opinion from a psychiatrist. The NPM agrees with the observations of nursing homes that ZDZdr is unrealistic to the extent that it does not regulate emergency admission in case of detention of a person in the secure ward of a social care institution, and therefore drew attention of the responsible ministry to this issue. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2013 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 31