VISITS TO POLICE STATIONS Interior. The police procedure enables the identification of asylum seekers, while in further proceedings the Migration Office decides on the right to international protection. Contrary to legislation, the lack of suitable identification of asylum seekers or restriction of the access to asylum procedure due to overburdening of the asylum system or other reasons would enable the abuse of this system. The NPM found that when dealing with foreigners, the police had no established mechanisms, instructions or guidelines, which would enable a (uniform) identification of refugees or asylum seekers within mixed migrant flows. We failed to ascertain the above from the replies or the conduct of the police, and from the documentation kept by the Police when discussing individual cases. The lack of mechanisms or instructions for suitable identification may significantly limit the monitoring of procedures and their suitability from the aspect of protecting human rights of foreigners undergoing procedures (Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights14: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.), and may also lead to discriminatory discussion of foreigners which also denotes a violation of rights. For this reason, the NPM (in addition to other recommendations submitted) recommended that the police implement appropriate training regarding identification of asylum seekers within mixed migrant flows and adopt guidelines, instructions and recommendations about how such identification is executed in procedures and also suitably documented. 2. Informing of foreigners about the possibility to seek asylum As per Article 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection15 (hereinafter: Asylum Procedures Directive), the EU Member States must inform foreigners about the possibility to apply for asylum. This must be done when persons are detained at border crossings or in detention centres, and when it is possible to conclude that they would apply for asylum. As per paragraph two of the same article of the Directive, Member States must also ensure that organisations and persons providing legal advice and counselling to applicants have effective access to applicants present at border crossing points, including transit zones at external borders.16 Since Slovenian authorities do not provide such access (to potential asylum seekers at borders) explicitly, NGOs provide legal advice if and when persons contact them when they are already in Slovenia. During the visits, the NPM members monitored two procedures with foreigners, conducted interviews with certain foreigners and examined documentation of several persons who were undergoing a procedure at the time or were discussed again at the same police station. The NPM believed that the police failed to fully meet their obligation arising from the Asylum Procedures Directive at least in one case; irrespective of the foreigner’s claim that he would be endangered if returned to the country of origin, the police failed to inform him of the possibility to apply for international protection or additionally clarify his claims. Considering all circumstances which as per the provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive demand suitable informing from the authority, the foreigner was not provided with this information and was returned to Croatia. According to the NPM, this may show that the police are not sufficiently aware of the obligations arising from the Directive, and may as a result, limit effective access to the asylum procedure contrary to the Directive’s provisions. In order to observe international, European and national law, the NPM expressed the expectation that the police will at least inform all foreigners stating that they flee persecution in their home country (and further clarify these statements if necessary) about the possibility of applying for international protection in Slovenia, the consequences of filing an application for international protection or the consequences of the omission of such conduct (e.g. return to Croatia). The NPM expressed the expectation that police officers would record the aforementioned in police documentation, as well as the foreigner’s reply to the possibility of applying for international protection. 14 http://www.varuh-rs.si/pravni-okvir-in-pristojnosti/mednarodni-pravni-akti-s-podrocja-clovekovih-pravic/organizacija-zdruzenih-narodov/ splosna-deklaracija-clovekovih-pravic/ 15 Paragraph one of Article 8 stipulates: “Where there are indications that third-country nationals or stateless persons held in detention facilities or present at border crossing points, including transit zones at external borders, may wish to make an application for international protection, Member States shall provide them with information on the possibility to do so.” 16 Paragraph two of Article 8 stipulates: “Member States shall ensure that organisations and persons providing advice and counselling to applicants have effective access to applicants present at border crossing points, including transit zones at external borders. Member States may provide for rules covering the presence of such organisations and persons in those crossing points and in particular that access is subject to an agreement with the competent authorities of the Member States. Limits on such access may be imposed only where, by virtue of national law, they are objectively necessary for the security, public order or administrative management of the crossing points concerned, provided that access is not thereby severely restricted or rendered impossible.” 42 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