The MNZ replied that all police officers had been informed of the correct method of entering corrections in the forms at a working meeting. We proposed to PS Trebnje that police officers be more thorough when completing forms necessary for implementing detention, i.e. particularly regarding the uniform recording of the times of the same tasks on various forms (e.g. seizure of items from detained persons etc.).85 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 Tržič that police officers be informed of the correct method of entering corrections in official documents,86 and that police officers (particularly duty officers) be more thorough when completing forms necessary for implementing detention.87 The MNZ replied that police officers had been reminded of the correct entering of corrections in forms necessary for implementing detention, and duty police officers were asked to be more thorough when completing the forms. We proposed to PS Vrhnika that police officers be reminded of the correct method of entering corrections in documents necessary for implementing detention,88 and that police officers be informed that tasks involving a detainee after a completed detention (e.g. transport to remand or transport to a border 85 When reviewing detention (22 to 23 April 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 6:30 to 9:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was established that the police officer had failed to complete the section, ‘Completed under sequential number ___’, on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’. It was also determined that the police officer had failed to complete the section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, and no item under the section, ‘Reasons for suspension of detention/custody’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’. On the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, it was determined that the recorded time of seizure of items was 10:00, while it was stated in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that in addition to other tasks the person’s items had been seized at 9:00. When reviewing detention (20 to 21 May 2016, start of procedure at 13:40 and detention ordered from 12:42 to 1:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined while examining the documentation of the case that different times had been recorded in various sections of forms for the same task, i.e.: – in the section on the first page of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, it was recorded that a security search as per Article 66(3) of the Police Tasks And Powers Act had been conducted on 20 May 2016 at 13:50, and in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, it was stated that the security search had been done at 14:00; – it was also discovered on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, that items had been seized from the detained person at 14:10, whereby it was evident from the documentation that the items had been seized at 13:50 (line four of the ‘Tasks during detention/custody’), which was the time when the security search was supposedly being conducted. When reviewing detention (11 to 12 February 2016, start of procedure at 11:26 and detention ordered from 17:45 to 3:10 on the basis of indent four of paragraph one of Article 64 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act), it was established when inspecting the case that five aliens were being processed together with the aforementioned person. In the case of all six detentions, the police officer(s) used the form, ‘Official note on the arrest’, on which data, “arrested on the basis of Article 110/1 of the ZP/1” was provided (encircled) as the legal basis, although the detained persons were not brought before the court, but accommodated at the Aliens Centre in Postojna on the basis of a decision. We believe that in the above detention case, it would have been correct if the police officers had used the standard form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, in the procedure. 86 When reviewing detention (20 August 2016, start of procedure at 7:15 and detention ordered from 7:20 to 14:45 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established that the time when the detention order was served had been corrected (it was not clear from the entry whether it was 7:30 or 7:50), whereby it was not evident who had made the correction. 87 When reviewing detention (24 to 25 August 2014, start of procedure at 19:57 and detention ordered from 20:04 to 4:15 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, it had not been recorded at which PS and in which detention room the detention was actually implemented. 88 When reviewing detention (27 July 2016, start of procedure at 00:40 and detention ordered from 00:40 to 17:20 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 the time had been corrected in the section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, whereby it was not recorded by whom the correction had been made. It was also established that more corrections had been made in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, but who had made them was not recorded. Further inspection of the documentation revealed that in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, it had been recorded that items had been seized from the detained person at 1:48, while the time of seizure of items stated on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, was 1:46. 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 143