Visits to places of deprivation of liberty collection boxes, publishing of house rules and the list of representatives of persons with mental health disorders on a notice board. Unfortunately, some recommendations had not been implemented, including those about the activities in the afternoon and on weekends, the psychiatrist monitoring the residents more frequently, levelling uneven surfaces between the terrace and outdoor surfaces, and prescribing occasional medications. We were surprised that as many as three recommendations were not accepted. These dealt with the examination of the need to establish a secure ward in Ljutomer Home, restricting of a resident which could be understood as the use of a special protection measure, and introduction of a complaints record. The latter particularly astonished us because it was even contrary to the assurances of the Home given in the reply to the preliminary report of the 2017 visit. On the occasion of this visit, we submitted eight new recommendations, and we were still waiting on the Home’s reply when drafting the NPM Annual Report. For the most part, these were repeated recommendations which the Home had failed to accept before and there were a few new recommendations (conduct when installing special bed sheets restricting residents’ movement, due consideration by the staff when approaching a resident, drafting of a form to facilitate the writing of a complaint). On 12 November 2018, we visited Taber Retirement Home in Cerklje na Gorenjskem. When visiting this social care institution for the first time, we gave 15 recommendations, and we were still waiting for their response during the preparation of the NPM Annual Report. The recommendations focused on the question of verification of the secure ward (the recommendation was given by the MDDSZ), the living conditions of residents and the activities, particularly residents’ staying outdoors in the fresh air. Targeted recommendations also referred to suitable amending of the form by means of which residents give their consent to be accommodated on the secure ward, and forms kept on implemented special protection measures. We also highlighted that attention must be paid when the latter is implemented since these may denote the restriction of movement. We also commended several things; we believe that there are many areas on the secure ward where the residents may retreat with their relatives to chat. According to the explanation, the Home has some 10 m² more space in rooms if compared with other institutions, which is an above-standard service provided for free. We also commended the record kept by housekeepers on a secure ward in a special notebook about activities and daily chores from meals, visits, activities, walks and rests. We were positively surprised by the clarification during the visit that only persons whose detention had been decided on by the court were accommodated on the secure ward. Whereby the staff explained that they had never had a case where a person would first be accommodated and then proceedings before the court would be instigated. If it is detected that a person would have to be moved to the secure ward, the staff first monitor and pay special attention to that person, and only after they have obtained the court decision, is the person relocated to the ward. Such conduct is undoubtedly commendable. On 28 November 2018, we visited the Podsabotin Unit of Nova Gorica Retirement Home. When drafting the 2018 NPM Annual Report, the report on this visit was still being prepared. On 12 December 2018, we paid a control visit to Fužine Retirement Home. We determined that the Home accepted all 18 recommendations submitted during our visit on 24 October 2017, and realised eleven of them. Seven recommendations had been accepted, but not yet fully implemented. Three recommendations were thus repeated whereby we also submitted a new systemic recommendation to the MDDSZ relating to the (repeated) recommendation about executing the Mental Health Act when a resident fails to give their consent to be accommodated on the secure ward and the social care institution must inform the court thereof before the resident is detained on the secure ward. In many retirement homes, we found that elderly residents who do not give their consent are usually first relocated to the secure ward and only later the proceedings before the court are instigated as per the Mental Health Act. When recommending to retirement homes to operate in compliance with the Mental Health Act, we always stressed the NPM opinion that such legal arrangements were deficient or non-realistic. Numerous retirement homes have also pointed that out. Since the NPM believes that the Mental Health Act should be amended or supplemented with a procedure for admitting persons to secure wards of social care institutions without their consent in urgent cases, we proposed to the MDDSZ to comprehensively monitor and analyse the implementation of the Mental Health Act and draft proposals for systemic changes which would eliminate the established deficiencies, simplify current legally determined procedures and ensure a high level of respect for the human rights of persons when admitted to (and treated on) secure wards of social care institutions. Furthermore, we also forwarded two new general recommendations during the control visit to Fužine Retirement Home, i.e. we proposed to shorten the time of staff responding to the signal triggered by a resident when touching a walking mat to the minimum, and to introduce regular supervision of the response time, including the analysis of IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2018 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 35