in the forms needed to implement detention.24 They must also pay attention to changes to official forms and thus related use of applicable (new) forms needed to implement detention, and the entry of accurate data (times and dates) of procedures involving detainees.25 Police officers (particularly duty officers) must be aware that information on which room of the PS the detained person is actually being detained in must also be entered in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’.26 The MNZ replied that police officers had been informed of their duty to be consistent and thorough when completing official documents, particularly regarding the correct marking of corrections, consistent recording of all tasks involving detainees, the use of valid forms, recording of the number of the room in which a person is detained, and consistent provision of data on all detention forms. We proposed that PS Domžale inform the police officers of Ljubljana Police Detention Centre about correctly entering corrections in official forms needed to implement detention27 and to inform all officers of the need to correctly enter corrections in official forms needed to implement detention.28 The MNZ replied that police officers of PS Domžale and Ljubljana Police Detention Centre would be reminded of their duty to correctly enter corrections in the forms for implementation of detentions. We proposed that PS Dravograd correctly enter the time of the start of the procedure in the FIO register and inform police officers and senior officers conducting supervision regarding detentions at police stations to be more thorough when entering detention information in the FIO. We also proposed that police officers be more thorough when filling in the forms needed to implement detention and the correct procedure for entering corrections in official forms.29, 30 The MNZ replied that the entry in the record had been corrected, and police officers informed about suitably marking corrections and improved accuracy when entering data. 24 In the same case, it was further determined that the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, stated that items had been seized on 9 July 2016 at 00:40, while it was recorded in line four of section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that the items had been seized from the detainee on 10 July 2016 at 00:50. 25 When reviewing detention (7 April 2016, start of procedure at 7:30 and detention ordered from 10:00 to 16:51 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined that the detainee had first been served the manually completed form, ‘Official notice on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, on 7 April 2016 at 11:00, which it was established as outdated (contained only six rights). It was also determined that the form, ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, had been delivered to the detainee on 7 April 2016 at 12:20, which had been completed (at the time of the detention) on a valid form (contained all rights of the deprived person). It was determined on the relevant form that an incorrect date, i.e. 25 January 2016, had been entered on the right side under the heading of the form under the section, ‘Date’, although 7 April 2016 should have been stated. 26 In the same case, it was also established when examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that where or in which room of PS the detainee had been kept during detention was not recorded in the section ‘Tasks during detention/custody’. 27 When reviewing detention (7 to 8 March 2016, start of procedure at 20:30 and detention ordered from 21:25 to 7:20 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that a correction had been made on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the detained person’ under the section, ‘Completed under sequential number ___’, at Ljubljana Police Detention Centre, whereby it was not recorded who had made the correction. 28 When reviewing detention (17 to 19 September 2016, start of procedure at 16:45 and detention ordered from 16:50 to 10:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that several corrections (also with correction fluid) had been made under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, whereby it was not recorded who had made the corrections. 29 When reviewing detention (25 to 26 March 2015, start of procedure at 20:40 and detention ordered from 21:00 to 1:55 on the basis of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined that the police officer had failed to mark the indent stating that the detained person had been informed that “anything they say may be used against them in court” on the form, ‘Official notice on the deprivation of liberty and detention’. It was also established that it was not evident from any of the documents needed to carry out detention that the procedure with the detained person commenced at 20:40, as recorded in the FIO register, but merely the item stating 21:00, when the actual detention was ordered. When examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, it was also discovered that information, “taken to PS at 21:35”, was stated in the first line under section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, whereby it was not evident to which police station the person was taken. Furthermore, an incorrect date, i.e. 25 March 2015 at 00:25, was entered; the correct date was 26 March 2015 when “the detained person complains about pain in the left part of the chest”, whereby a correction was also made to “left”, which was also not marked accordingly (who made the correction and when). This entry also lacks information about what happened to the person up until the detention ended. 30 When reviewing detention (8 to 10 June 2015, start of procedure and detention ordered from 23:13 to 19:00 on the basis of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, that the police officer had failed to mark with a cross on the first page whether the detained person had been informed of their rights or which ones. When inspecting the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, it was also established that the person was taken to PS, whereby it was not evident whether that was PS Dravograd, which ordered the detention, or PS Velenje, where the detention actually took place. When reviewing the section, ‘Informing the state prosecutor and investigating judge’, it was determined that an incorrect date of informing was recorded, i.e. 8 June 2015, although the correct date was 9 June 2015, and that corrections had been made at the time of informing, whereby it was not recorded who had made the corrections and when. It was also discovered that the corrections had not been recorded accordingly about who had made them in the section of the form, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2016 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 133