1.3 Obiski psihiatričnih bolnišnic 1.3 Visits to psychiatric hospitals Predlagamo, da bolnišnice tam, kjer se izvaja stalni nadzor nad telesno oviranim pacientom, najdejo ustrezen način, ki bi preostalim pacientom v popolnosti onemogočal pogled skozi okno na vratih, morebiti z zamenjavo stekla ali vsaj z namestitvijo ustreznih žaluzij, ki bi jih moralo osebje ob izvajanju PVU v sobi obvezno zagrniti in s tem zagotoviti ustrezno zasebnost pacientov, nad katerimi se ukrep izvaja. Predvsem pa predlagamo, da se prepreči izvajanje PVU v sobah, kjer so nastanjeni drugi pacienti. PB Begunje je pojasnila, da bo sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe, ki bodo pacientom med izvajanjem PVU zagotovili ustrezno zasebnost. Steklo, ki gleda na hodnik, bodo zatemnili. V primerih, kjer so v sobi, kjer se izvaja PVU še drugi pacienti, bodo zasebnost zagotovili z ustrezno špansko steno. Sogovorniki na Oddelku za psihiatrijo so že ob samem obisku pojasnili, da glede na dane prostorske pogoje edino rešitev vidijo v ustreznih paravanih, s katerimi bi lahko pacienta, pri katerem se ukrep izvaja, ločili od drugih pacientov. Poudarili pa so, da vsak paravan ni dober, morali bi biti namreč takšni, da se pacienti z njimi ne bi mogli poškodovati. S prošnjo po nabavi so se že obrnili na vodstvo UKC, vendar so prejeli pojasnilo, da ni možno zagotoviti finančnih sredstev za nakup paravanov. DPM meni, da bi UKC Maribor moral storiti vse, da bi se paravani čim prej kupili. Dokler paravanov Oddelek za psihiatrijo ne bo prejel, pa smo predlagali, da se ena od sob v enotah nameni zgolj izvajanju ukrepa in se torej vanjo ne namešča pacientov. Predlagamo, da se bolnišnice s pristojnim sodiščem dogovorijo o načinu takojšnjega obveščanja o zadržanju osebe na oddelku pod posebnim nadzorom brez soglasja, potem pa se naknadno lahko obvestilo pošlje (še) po pošti. Torej, da se dogovorijo za takšen način obveščanja sodišča o zadržanju, da ne bo prihajalo do prekoračitev rokov, ki jih določa ZDZdr. Glede težav pri obveščanju sodišča s strani PB Begunje smo se obrnili na Okrajno sodišče v Radovljici. Sodišče nam je pojasnilo, da je bolnišnica sodišču obvestila v preteklosti pošiljala (tudi) s pomočjo telefaksa, vendar pa je informacijska pooblaščenka sodišče opozorila, da tak način obveščanja ni primeren z vidika varovanja osebnih podatkov, saj imajo dostop do telefaksa vsi uslužbenci sodišča. Navedeni način obveščanja je bil po mnenju sodišča neprimeren tudi zaradi spoštovanja zakonskih rokov. Sodišče namreč v postopkih pridržanja nima uvedenih dežurstev, zato predvsem v primeru, ko je sodišče obvestilo prejelo pred koncem tedna, še posebej, če je temu sledil dan ali dva praznika, ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti, da bi bili potrebni sklepi (o začetku postopka, postavitvi odvetnika zadržani osebi in izvedenca) izdani v roku enega dneva in da bi bil pacient obiskan v nadaljnjem dnevu s strani sodišča. Po drugi strani pa je sodišče pojasnilo (kar je nasprotno prvemu delu pojasnila, op. a.), da se pri upoštevanju zakonskih rokov, skladno s sodno prakso upoštevajo le delovni dnevi, ne pa tudi nedelje in prazniki. Sodišče ob tem dodaja, da nikoli ni nasprotovalo možnosti pošiljanja obvestil s pomočjo kurirske službe ali po elektronski pošti, vendar pa s strani psihiatrične bolnišnice nikoli niso prejeli takšnih predlogov niti predloga, da se o drugih možnostih vročanja, poleg vročanja po pošti, dogovorijo naknadno. Sodišče sicer meni, da je možno, da se bo v primeru obveščanja s pomočjo elektronske pošte zgodilo enako kot pri pošiljanju po telefaksu, ko bo sodišče obvestilo prejelo v petek v večernih urah ali soboto, nedeljo, na praznik, ko sodišče ne dela in se bo z obvestilom seznanilo šele prvi delovni dan. Zato meni, da bi bilo vročanje s pomočjo kurirske službe primernejše. Razumemo zadržke sodišča, vendar smo opozorili, da tudi bolnišnico vežejo roki, kot jih določa ZDZdr. Tako mora direktor bolnišnice sodišče o zadržanju proti volji obvestiti v roku štirih ur po zadržanju pacienta ali preklicu že danega soglasja. Po drugi strani pa, kot lahko razumemo pojasnilo sodišča, roki, kot jih določa ZDZdr, začnejo upoštevajoč sodno prakso teči šele prvi delovni dan – ne glede na to, kdaj sodišče prejme obvestilo s strani PBB. 90 poročilo o izvajanju nalog DPM v letu 2014 DržavnI preventivnI mehanizEm po Opcijskem protokolu h Konvenciji OZN proti mučenju in drugim krutim, nečloveškim ali poniževalnim kaznim ali ravnanju We propose that hospitals find a suitable method of implementing continuous supervision of a restrained person and fully prevent other patients from looking through the window on the door by replacing glass or installing blinds which the staff would have to close when implementing special protection measures and thus ensure suitable privacy for patients subjected to the measure. Above all, we propose that special protection measures should not be implemented in rooms where other patients are accommodated. Begunje Psychiatric Hospital replied that it would take all necessary measures to ensure suitable privacy during the implementation of special protection measures. The window overlooking the corridor would be darkened. In cases when other patients are in the room where special protection measures are being implemented, privacy will be ensured with a suitable screen. Our discussion partners at the Department of Psychiatry explained during our visit that the only solution relating to the given spatial conditions was a screen to separate the patient undergoing a measure from other patients in the room. They stressed that not all screens were suitable; only screen with which patients could not be harmed would be suitable. They had already submitted a request to the management of the University Medical Centre and received the explanation that insufficient funds were available for the purchase of screens. The NPM believes that Maribor University Medical Centre should do everything to provide the screens as soon as possible. Until the Department of Psychiatry receives the screens, we proposed that one room in each ward is used only for implementing measures and that other patients should not be accommodated in them. We propose that hospitals agree with the courts on the manner of promptly informing the court on the placement of patients in secure wards without their consent; the notification may then additionally also be submitted by mail. That is, to agree on the manner of informing the court about the detention so that the time limits are not exceeded, as stipulated by the ZDZdr. We contacted Radovljica Local Court about the difficulties experienced by Begunje Psychiatric Hospital when submitting information. The court explained that the hospital had submitted its notifications in the past (also) by telefax, but the Information Commissioner warned the court that this method was not suitable from the viewpoint of personal data protection, since all the staff of the court have access to the telefax. The court believed that this manner of informing was also unsuitable due to the compliance of legally determined deadlines. The court did not have an on-call duty for detention cases, which is why it was difficult to ensure that suitable decisions (on the initiation of the procedure, appointment of an expert or a lawyer to the person detained) are issued within a day in cases when the court received the notification before the weekend, especially if this was followed by a holiday, or if the patient was to be visited the next day by the court. On the other hand, the court explained (which contradicts the first part of the clarification; author’s note) that in compliance with case law, only business days are taken into consideration relating to the legally determined time limits and not Sundays and holidays. The court further added that it never objected to the possibility of receiving notifications through a courier service or e-mail, but they never received such suggestions from the psychiatric hospital or a proposal to additionally determine other possibilities of delivery besides delivery by post. The court believed that in the case of informing by e-mail, the same might happen as when informing by telefax if the court received the notification on Friday evening, Saturday, Sunday or a holiday when the court is not working and the notification would be processed only on the next business day. The court thus believed that delivery by courier would be the most suitable. We understand the concerns of the court, but we pointed out that the hospital is obliged to comply with the deadlines stipulated by the ZDZdr. The director of the hospital is thus obliged to inform the court about detention without consent within four hours after the detention of the patient or the revocation of an already given consent. On the other hand, as we understand the explanation of the court, the deadlines determined by the ZDZdr commence only on the first business day as per the case law, irrespective of when the court received the notification from Begunje Psychiatric Hospital. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2014 National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 91