We proposed to PS Maribor II that officers (particularly duty officers) be more thorough when entering data and corrections in forms and the FIO register.54, 55, 56 The MNZ replied that officers had been reminded that all data must be entered in forms thoroughly. They were also reminded of the correct procedure for entering corrections in official forms and the FIO register. We proposed to PS Novo mesto that police officers be informed of the correct entering of corrections in official forms, and that the station conducting the procedure provide for all documents regarding detention to be in the archives,57 and that police officers correctly enter corrections in official forms.58 The MNZ replied that police officers had been reminded to be more thorough when completing forms regarding detention (consistent recording of activities involving a detained person and accurate time of implementation, correct entry of corrections, thorough completion of documents and entry of data in the record of persons deprived of liberty, the use of valid forms, recording of the location of detention, consistent seizure of items suitable for assault or self-harm). We proposed to PS Ormož that police officers be more thorough when completing the forms necessary for implementing detention, and that all sections of a form must be complete.59, 60 The MNZ responded that police officers had been told to be more thorough when completing forms and consistent when completing all sections. Also, in November 2016, the PS would implement additional training on police detention where police officers would be thoroughly familiarised with our findings. 54 At the time of our visit, a person brought to the relevant PS on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by Maribor Local Court (the warrant was valid between 29 March and 13 May 2016 between 9:00 and 12:00), and of whom the duty police officer said they had been brought to the PS some 25 to 30 minutes before our arrival at the station, which was 10:55, was detained in a room marked as an interview room which is used at the station to temporarily accommodate detained persons. We interviewed the person, who had not mentioned any inappropriate conduct by police officers. It was also established that police officers had completed the form, ‘Official note on the arrest’, regarding the above arrest. When examining the above form, it was determined that police officers had entered the time of arrest, but not the time when the person had been brought to the PS. 55 When reviewing detention (5 February 2016, start of procedure at 20:45 and detention ordered from 20:46 to 22:15 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that corrections of times had been made in lines two and four in section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody’, whereby it was not recorded who had made the corrections. 56 W  hen reviewing detention (3 March 2016, start of procedure at 12:40 and detention ordered from 12:45 to 17:15 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 where the person was detained at the PS (e.g. interview room, office etc.) had not been recorded in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’. Whether a security search of the detained person had been conducted when they were brought to the PS had also not been recorded, although it was later stated that they were enabled to smoke. When inspecting the relevant detention case, it was also determined that the time when the procedure had started, “12:40”, had not been recorded in any of the official documents necessary for implementing detention, as was recorded or entered in the FIO register. The correct time of the start of procedure and the ordered detention was clearly “12:45”. 57 W  hen reviewing detention (15 to 16 September 2016, start of procedure at 17:35 and detention ordered from 17:35 to 19:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was established that the procedure involving the detained person had already started at PS Metlika (detention ordered). It was also determined that the date had been corrected on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, under the section, ‘Medical assistance and care’, whereby it was not recorded by whom the correction had been made. At the time of our visit, the station also did not have the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/ custody’, and it was not recorded on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that items had been seized from the detained person during the detention, and it is difficult to believe that no items actually had been seized. 58 W  hen reviewing detention (29 August 2016, start of procedure at 11:45 and detention ordered from 11:55 to 20:26 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined that a correction had been made under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’; however, the person making the correction was not recorded. 59 W  hen reviewing detention (14 February 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 8:00 to 15:45 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was discovered that no sections had been completed under, ‘Reasons for suspension of detention/ custody’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’. It was determined that the reason for suspending the detention had also not been recorded in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, or the last entry in that section had been made on 14 February 2016 at 14:20, i.e. “walk outside”. 60 W  hen reviewing detention (8 April 2016, start of procedure at 12:30 and detention ordered from 12:40 to 19:43 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that the time of completed detention had been corrected in the section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, whereby it was not recorded who had made the correction. Furthermore, it was determined in the same case that it was stated in the ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’ that the items had been seized at 12:40, while it was recorded in line three of the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’ of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ that the items had been seized from the detained person at 12:42. 138 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