1.1 Visits to social care institutions (residential homes for the elderly) before introducing the SSM, with a check-list before implementing SSM, with a more detailed information on the doctor ordering SSM, and a statement about whether the resident is capable of giving consent to the use of SSM or not, and whether they have a guardian and whether that guardian gave consent, or whether the resident’s relatives gave consent), that it had supplemented its forms for immobilising extremities. Koper unit of Ptuj RH was a special case, as we found that the form for using SSM (there was only one case, and it was implemented outside of the increased security ward) did not contain data on the time of the beginning and end of the measure, nor was it evident where other data were kept which must be recorded according to paragraph 5 of Article 29 of ZDZdr in the resident’s medical file. In their response, they indicated that they had informed employees that they had not acted according to regulations, and that they had organized training again – nonetheless, we were unpleasantly surprised during our control visit when we inspected the form for immobilising a patient from November 2013. Although this case involved the use of a segufix belt, which happened twice given the submitted records (once for two and once for one hour), the name of the doctor who approved the measure was only given in one case, and only for one of the usages – a doctor was listed who gave the ex ante order for implementation of the measure (“every night)” – her signature and/or stamp were missing. Even more concerning was the fact that it was explained that they do not inform the doctor of individual uses of the segufix belt, given the already given a priori order. On top of it all it was evident that while this resident’s relative was informed about the possibilities of use (he signed the form Order for the Implementation of Medical and Technical Measures and Interventions), he was not informed about individual uses of the belts. This type of behaviour was designated as illegal and worrying, as ZDZdr makes perfectly clear the conditions in which a resident may be immobilised, who can order this measure, what records need to be kept, and who must be informed about the implemented SSM. Since we found that the institute in this specific case did not respect this in a specific usage, we recommended that in the future they provide careful supervision over immobilisation and consistently respect legal requirements. Interviews with residents At each visit, a few randomly selected residents in the secure ward and in the high level supervision wards were interviewed. It was impossible to conduct an orderly interview with most of them. In general, they made no special comments, they usually told us that they were feeling comfortable. It should be pointed out that an interview took place with two residents in Danijel Halas Retirement Home that were admitted into the secure ward with consent. They both said that they no longer agreed with staying in the secure ward and that they wished to be discharged. They said that they had informed persons responsible for care in the nursing home several times of their wishes, but to no avail. One of the residents in Olmo Retirement Home said that she was bothered that tasks relating to care were sometimes performed by male caregivers and not by female caregivers. She also told that to persons responsible for care but they only replied that there was no other staff at their disposal. It was proposed by the NPM that the home for the elderly should carefully weight up the complaint of the resident that finds it disturbing, if tasks relating to care are in her case performed by carers of the opposite sex. In a response report, the home for the elderly assured that it carefully weights up every complaint and replies to it. The home for the elderly took this complaint in consideration as well and solved it favourably, so that the resident was provided a female caregiver. Other issues The field “Other issues” comprises subjects from the reports by the NPM on the visit that, according to their contents, did not correspond to any other section. These are especially rules or methods of consignment, meetings of relatives and residents, the option to use a telephone and the option to visit relatives. In some retirement homes, if a resident of the secure ward has been appointed a special case guardian by the Centre for Social Work, consignment has to be served to the guardian. In such cases, an employee of the home for the elderly (mostly a social worker) calls the guardian and informs him about the delivered consignment. The employees make an official note upon the reception of the consignment by the guardian (Trnovo Centre for the Elderly). In some homes for the elderly all consignments, including registered consignments, are served by the home staff itself. Postman delivers such consignments only to the staff of the home for the elderly, which then distributes consignments itself (Jesenice Retirement Home). In Jesenice Retirement Home it was explained furthermore that, if the resident does not understand the meaning of the consignment which was served to him, the staff shall notify a guardian or an authorized person to receive the consignment. 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 55