We also proposed that PS Gorišnica inform police officers to pay more attention to thoroughness or consistency when completing forms needed to carry out detention, particularly to the correct entry of corrections,31, 32 more accuracy and consistency when completing forms required for detention,33 and the use of valid forms (i.e. remove outdated forms from use).34 The MNZ replied that incorrect entries had been corrected, the police officers notified, and the outdated forms replaced with new ones. We also proposed that PS Idrija inform police officers that all activities relating to a detainee must be entered in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ from the start of the procedure until the end of detention,35 and that police officers be informed about correctly entering possible corrections of data in official documents.36 The MNZ replied that police officers had been informed of the correct marking of corrections in detention documents and that all activities from the beginning of the police procedure to the imposition of detention, including activities during detention, were entered in the official notes - on the tasks implemented during detention/custody, but activities conducted after a completed detention were not entered (these were entered in the report on implemented work). We proposed to PS Kranj that police officers (particularly duty officers) be more consistent when completing the forms needed to carry out detention37 and to be more thorough when entering data in the FIO register.38 31 W  hen reviewing detention (12 April 2016, start of procedure at 12:00 and detention ordered from 13:00 to 23:00 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that the time of return of seized items was not recorded in the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’. In the same case, it was also discovered when inspecting the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that corrections had been made on the first page with correction fluid of the times when security searches had been conducted. It was also determined that corrections had been made in the section of the form, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, whereby it was not recorded who had made them. After further examining the case documentation, it was determined that it was evident from the statement of events of the Operation and Communication Centre that the patrol had arrived at the place of the event (offence) at 12:11, when it was assessed that the procedure had commenced, and not at 12:00 as recorded in the FIO register. When examining the minutes on a breathalyser test, it was established that the test had been done at 12:46 (whereby it was not marked that 15 minutes had passed before testing). According to the NPM, this should also have been the time when detention was ordered (the violation of driving under the influence of alcohol was thus determined with the test at the aforementioned time), not at 13:00. 32 W  hen reviewing detention (5 to 6 December 2015, start of procedure at 19:35 and detention ordered from 19:45 to 6:45 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined that the time had been corrected on the forms, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ and ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, i.e. from 7:45 to 6:45 under section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’ on the first form and section, ‘Date and time of return’, on the second form. It was not stated who had made corrections to the times on any of the above forms. 33 W  hen reviewing detention (5 to 6 June 2016, start of procedure at 12:40 and detention ordered from 17:30 to 14:30 on the basis of indent four of paragraph one of Article 64 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Detention order’, that the procedure with the detained person had commenced at 12:36 (which is evident from the official note on detention), not at 12:40 as entered in the FIO register. While examining the documentation, it was further established that the time had been corrected with correction fluid under section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’ in form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’. 34 W  hen reviewing detention (20 to 21 November 2015, start of procedure at 11:38 and detention ordered from 11:40 to 17:40 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was discovered that corrections with correction fluid had been made to the forms, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ and ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’. In this case, the NPM again proposed that police officers be notified of the correct way to enter corrections in official documents necessary to carry out detention. It was also noted that it was not evident from any of the forms in the file of this case that the procedure with the detained person had commenced at 11:38, but it was evident from the statement of events of the Operation and Communication Centre of Maribor Police Directorate that police officers had reported that the person was restrained at 11:37. It was also established that the old form, ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, had been used in the detention procedure, which did not include all the rights of the detained person or the section, ‘Police procedure started on __ at ___ hours’. 35 W  hen reviewing detention (19 April 2016, start of procedure at 11:00 and detention ordered from 12:45 to 17:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was established that it was not mentioned in any of the forms necessary for implementing detention what was happening to the person (where they were) in the time between the commencement of the procedure and imposition of detention. It was evident from the form, ‘Official note on interviewing the suspect’, that the person had been informed of the criminal offence they were suspected of committing at 12:10, and that the person had been interviewed between 12:18 and 12:30, which thus undoubtedly reveals that the person’s movement was restricted. It was also discovered that police officers had also entered in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, activities conducted after the person had been brought before the investigating judge, although the form is actually intended for recording activities that take place during detention/custody, i.e. during the police procedure. 36 W  hen reviewing detention (30 to 31 December 2015, start of procedure at 15:25 and detention ordered from 15:35 to 2:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established when examining the form, ‘Detention order’, that the form had been served to the detained person on 30 December 2015 at 16:15, whereby a correction was made at ‘15’ minutes, but who made the correction was not recorded. 37 W  hen reviewing detention (2 to 3 February 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 12:00 to 17:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was established that no data on the time when the seized items had been returned to the detained person were entered under section, ‘Date and time of return’ in form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’. 38 W  hen reviewing detention (30 October 2015, start of procedure at 8:55 and detention ordered from 9:34 to 15:41 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined when examining the detention documentation that the legal basis for the detention had been entered incorrectly in the FIO register, since the person was actually detained on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act. 134 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