1.1 Visits to social care institutions (residential homes for the elderly) several times that immobilising a resident in their bed, especially when there are more than one bed in the room, is inappropriate, even more so when constant staff presence is not provided for the immobilised, who is constantly on display to other residents, which can be uncomfortable and bothersome, and can lead to feelings of degradation and being singled out. A reminder here would not prove unnecessary that this could even result in the harassment of the helpless resident. We should emphasise here that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter: CPT) on a visit to one of the psychiatric hospitals in Slovenia in 2012 criticised the mere possibility that residents could see an immobilised patient through the glass on the door of a special room. The NPM’s principle standpoint is that institutes must provide an appropriate place where SSM can be implemented in isolation from other residents, and where access will only be possible for staff. We also found some deficiencies in connection with documentation on SSM implementation and monitoring. Many recommendations were given to supplement the forms with a section on the measures taken prior to the introduction of a SSM (for instance a conversation, de-escalation techniques, additional drug therapy, assistance in feeding, etc.), and on whether the resident is capable of consenting to the use of SSM or not, or whether the resident has a guardian and whether the guardian consented, whether the representative’s relatives gave consent, (more) consistent indication of the doctor’s full name each time SSM is implemented, the beginning and conclusion of implementation, or in general a more systematic data collection process about preliminary measures taken to prevent the necessity of introducing an SSM (otherwise it is impossible to determine if the use of the SSM was well-founded, given that other, less severe measures were already exhausted). At the same time these deficiencies also prevent effective supervision of the process of immobilisation, the time circumstances of its duration, supervision of the immobilised person and the necessity of the measure. It is also important to emphasise that institutes also use other types of security measures. This often includes immobilisation in a wheelchair (with one of various restraining belts) and erecting protective railings around beds, preventing the resident from slipping or falling on the ground from a distance, and preventing the related injuries (breaks, contusions, etc.) Here we find that this is often implemented with various types of straps, concerning which NPM is of the opinion that standardised tools should be used which are designed for this purpose. Some institutes feel that sufficient security for residents in a wheelchair is provided by installing a serving table, so that they would lean on the table instead of falling out of the wheelchair. In the majority of cases, these measures are recorded in the resident’s file, but some institutes do not record them at all. The decision on such measures is primarily taken by the doctor (also by the specialist), but also by the nurse on duty. Our contracted expert does not consider the use of technical means of preventing falls, such as railings around beds or five-point security belts for wheelchairs, to be controversial, if the person consents to their usage and is capable of giving such consent, being capable of assessing the advantages and disadvantages thereof. If the person gives consent to the use of such means, the NPM is of the opinion that written consent should be recorded in the resident’s file together with brief descriptions of the advantages and disadvantages of their use, and the same form should contain a field for a potential withdrawal of consent with a date. If the person is capable of giving consent to the use of such means, but objects to them, it would be sensible to explain to them both orally and in writing the advantages and disadvantages of their use, and obtain their signature indicating that they do not want these means to be used. If the person is incapable of giving consent, or is, due to psychological conditions, incapable of understanding the advantages and disadvantages of their use, it is necessary to act in accordance with ZDZdr and the Patients’ Rights Act (ZPacP) (a doctor’s decision in life-threatening situations, or consent of the resident’s relatives, and initiation of a procedure for the assessment of the need for partial or total withdrawal of contractual capacity and decision of the guardian). Finally, some cases in which institutes accepted our recommendations are presented below. Trebnje HE followed our recommendation to start keeping separate records on the security measures and on SSM (as the rationale and objective of using both measures, the method of ordering, the implementation, and the supervision of measures are different); Ptuj RH supplemented their Record on the Use of SSM in accordance with ZDZdr, ensuring that they will keep consistent records on informing residents’ guardians over the phone, keep to the legally prescribed time limits for immobilisation, and maintain supervision for the whole duration of the SSM; Bor RH in Črni Vrh nad Idrijo informed us, regarding our recommendation about rooms for implementing SSM which would facilitate constant surveillance of the resident, that they currently do not have the possibility of video surveillance, but when they renovate the building they will explore this possibility; Trnovo CE informed us, regarding our recommendation that the form for immobilising extremities for normal feeding be amended (the expert marked them as lacking, warning that it would be sensible to amend them with a section on the measures implemented 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 53