1.2 Obiski policijskih postaj 1.2 Visits to police stations • DPM je v svojem poročilu za PP Nova Gorica izpostavil, da je v naključno izbranih primerih prišlo do sledečih nepravilnosti: v obrazcu »Sklep o pridržanju« je bil napačno naveden datum, poleg tega pa ni bilo jasno, kdaj je bilo posamezniku pridržanje odrejeno in v katerem prostoru se je izvajalo; v drugem primeru ime odvetnika ni bilo zapisano čitljivo, prišlo pa je tudi do notranje kolizije med podatki, saj je iz odločbe o pridržanju izhajalo, da pridržana oseba zaradi odsotnosti prvega zagovornika ni želela drugega odvetnika, a je bila v tej isti odločbi zavedena ura, ko je oseba želela drugega odvetnika. Poleg tega PP ni razpolagala z dokumentacijo za specifičnega posameznika, za katerega je bilo iz FIO-evidence sicer razvidno, da je bil obravnavan na tej PP. MNZ je v odzivnem poročilu odgovorilo, da je PU Nova Gorica vsem enotam naročila, naj policiste opozorijo na dosledno izpolnjevanje vseh rubrik obrazcev za pridržanje, vodstvo PP Nova Gorica pa naj bi policiste še dodatno opozorilo na korektno izpolnjevanje obrazcev in spoštovanje posameznikov pravic v postopku pridržanja. V zvezi z manjkajočo dokumentacijo je MNZ sporočilo, da je postopek prevzela PPIU Nova Gorica, zaradi česar dokumentacije na PP ni bilo. • Na PP Nova Gorica je DPM zahteval tudi obrazložitev, kaj pomeni »neposredni nadzor policistov«, kot je izhajal iz enega od izbranih primerov. MNZ je na zahtevo podal podroben opis postopka z osebo, ki je bila pridržana v konkretnem postopku. • PP Bovec je bila podobno kot PP Nova Gorica opozorjena na zagotavljanje popolnosti vnosa podatkov o posamezniku v FIO-evidenco, na kar je MNZ prek odzivnega poročila ugotovilo, da so bili podatki vneseni pravilno (ime in priimek osebe). Do nekonsistentnosti (izpad drugega imena posameznika ob FIO-izpisu navkljub njegovemu vnosu v evidenco) je prišlo namreč zaradi tehnične opreme, o čemer je bila obveščena strokovna služba na GPU. • DPM je pri preverjanju naključno izbranih primerov na PP Vrhnika ugotovil razlikovanje med dejanskim začetkom postopka in zapisom njegovega začetka v evidenci ter pomanjkanje podatkov o tem, kaj se je v času od 7.40 do 11.10 oziroma od 11.10 do 17.15 dogajalo z osebo oziroma v katerem prostoru je bila ta pridržana, kdo jo je med pridržanjem nadzoroval in ali ji je bila ponujena voda ali hrana. MNZ je v odgovoru sporočilo, da so bili podatki, ki so se razlikovali, popravljeni, vodstvo PP pa je policiste opozorilo na večjo natančnost pri vnosu podatkov o pridržanju v evidenco pridržanih oseb in doslednejše evidentiranje opravil med pridržanjem v za to predpisan obrazec. • Na PP Logatec policisti v evidenco pridržanja niso vnesli dejstva, ali je pridržana oseba prisostvovala hišni preiskavi, iz FIO-izpisa in sklepa o pridržanju so izhajale različne ure, poleg tega pa je za to osebo iz FIO-izpisa izpadel tudi njen drugi priimek. V zvezi s tem je MNZ sporočilo, da odpoved navzočnosti pri hišni preiskavi izhaja iz npr. zapisnika o hišni preiskavi, zato podatka ni bilo treba vpisati, ure so bile usklajene, policisti pa opozorjeni na večjo natančnost pri evidentiranju podatkov. • PP Domžale je DPM pri evidentiranju podatkov opozoril le na pravilno popravljanje napak, saj je bilo dejanje, ki ga je sprva želel zapisati policist, počečkano in ne le pravilno prečrtano, hkrati pa je bila PP opozorjena tudi na nekonsistentnost med urami, navedenimi v sklepu o pridržanju, in urami, ki so bile razvidne iz FIO-izpisa. MNZ je v odzivnem poročilu zagotovilo, da so bili tako policist, ki je popravljal zapis, kot tudi drugi policisti opozorjeni, da se mora po popravku napačnega zapisa prvotni zapis videti in da mora biti vnos podatkov o uri ustrezno popravljen. • Nazadnje pa je DPM na PP Kamnik izpostavil, da mora iz uradnega zaznamka o opravi opravil med pridržanjem jasno izhajati, v katerem prostoru se je pridržana oseba nahajala. MNZ je temu pritrdil, uradni zaznamek je policist, ki je pridržanje izvajal, dopolnil, vsi ostali policisti pa so bili na takšno dosledno postopanje opozorjeni. • In its report, the NPM stated that the following irregularities occurred in randomly selected cases at Nova Gorica PP: an incorrect date in the form “Decision on detention”; furthermore, it was not clear when the individual’s detention had been ordered and in which room it was implemented; in another case, the name of the lawyer was illegible; an internal collision of data also occurred, because the decision on retention stated that the person did not want another lawyer due to the absence of the first counsel, but then the time when the person had requested another lawyer was recorded in the same decision. The PP did also not have at its disposal documentation on a specific individual who, it was evident from the record on the phonetic index of persons, had been processed at this PP. In its response report, the MNZ replied that Nova Gorica Police Directorate had ordered all its units to inform police officers about the consistent completion of sections in detention forms. The management of Nova Gorica PP has also additionally warned about the concrete filling in of forms and the observance of individuals’ rights in the detention procedure. Relating to the missing documentation, the MNZ stated that the procedure was taken over by Nova Gorica PP for Compensatory Measures, which was the reason for its absence. • At Nova Gorica PP, the NPM also requested an explanation of the meaning of “direct supervision of police officers”, as stated in one of the selected cases. The MNZ provided a detailed description of the procedure involving the person detained in the concrete case. • Similarly to Nova Gorica PP, Bovec PP was also warned about the provision of the complete entry of data on individuals in the record on the phonetic index of persons, upon which the MNZ established in its response report that data had been entered correctly (name and surname of the person). The inconsistency (deletion of the middle name of the individual occurred during the extract from the record on phonetic index of persons in spite of its entry in the record) occurred due to technical equipment, about which the expert service at the General Police Administration was informed. • When reviewing randomly selected cases at Vrhnika PP, the NPM established a difference between the actual start of the procedure and the entry of its start in the record and the lack of information about what happened to the person between 7:40 and 11:10 or 11:10 to 17:15, or in which room the person was detained, who supervised the person during the detention and if water or food was offered. The MNZ replied that inconsistent data had been corrected and the management of the police station had warned police officers to be more accurate when entering data on detention in the record of persons detained and more consistently recording tasks during the detention on the suitable form. • The police officers at Logatec PP did not enter in the record on detention whether the detainee had witnessed a house search. Different times were recorded in the record on the phonetic index of persons and the decision on detention, and the person’s second surname was missing from the record on the phonetic index of persons. Relating to the above, the MNZ responded that the waiver of witnessing a house search derived from e.g. the minutes on house search and so the data was not necessary; the times were harmonised and police officers were warned to improve accuracy when recording data. • The NPM warned Domžale PP about suitably correcting errors, because the first entry by police officer was scrawled across and not only correctly crossed out; attention was also drawn to the inconsistency between the times provided in the decision on detention and those displayed in the record on the phonetic index of persons. The MNZ assured in its response report that the relevant police officer and other police officers had been informed that when correcting an incorrect entry the initial entry must be visible and that the entry of times must be corrected accordingly. • The NPM warned Kamnik PP that the official note on the implementation of tasks during detention must clearly state in which room the person was detained. The MNZ agreed to the aforementioned; the relevant police officer supplemented the official note and the other police officers were warned about the consistency of their tasks. 72 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 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 73