recording of all tasks involving the detained person, the use of valid forms, recording of the number of the room in which the person is detained, and consistent provision of data on all detention forms. We submitted the same proposals to PS Litija, where we proposed that the room where the person was accommodated during the procedure be recorded correctly in official forms necessary for implementing detention as the room for clients, or to correct the marking of the room into Room no. 144, and to inform police officers to be more thorough when entering data in all forms needed for implementing detention and the FIO register.45, 46 The MNZ replied that immediately after our visit the room had been marked with the number 1, and that police officers would enter it in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, as Room no. 1. The police officers (particularly duty and senior officers) were instructed to be more consistent when entering data in the forms needed for implementing detention. We proposed that PS Ljubljana Bežigrad tell police officers to pay more attention when completing forms necessary for implementing detention, and that the management of the station eliminate or destroy all old and legally invalid forms. Duty officers and senior officers responsible for supervising detention procedures must be more thorough when entering data in the FIO computer register47 and when entering possible corrections of data in official documents.48 The MNZ replied that in the relevant case, the police officers were told to pay more attention to accuracy when completing documentation, entering data in the record of persons deprived of their liberty, the correct use of applicable forms, and correct entry of possible corrections on forms; incorrect entries had been corrected. We also proposed to PS Ljubljana Šiška that police officers be informed of how to correctly enter corrections in documents necessary for implementing detention, and to provide more concrete explanations of the alleged violation and thus related detention in the form, ‘Detention order’ under the section, ‘Explanation of grounds – description of violation’.49 The MNZ replied that police officers would be informed about correctly entering corrections and asked to be more thorough when completing forms for implementing detention and when entering data in the 44 W  hen examining all randomly selected detention cases, it was revealed that police officers mark Room no. 1 on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, although the room was actually marked as the room for clients during our visit. 45 W  hen reviewing detention (16 to 17 March 2016, start of procedure at 18:45 and detention ordered from 19:15 to 5:20 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established that the police officer who conducted the detention procedure for the relevant person had also filed an official note entitled, ‘Number correction of the Detention order and implementation of tasks during detention/ custody’. When reviewing the official note, the second paragraph stated that police officers had arrived at the scene of the event at 18:47, i.e. two minutes later (18:45) than the start of the procedure recorded in the Detention order and the FIO register. 46 W  hen reviewing detention (16 to 17 February 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 6:30 to 14:00 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 of the end of detention was 16:00 under section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, which was two hours later than the time recorded in the FIO register. After inspecting the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, it was discovered that police officers had handed over the detained person to the investigating judge at 14:00, which was actually the time when the detention had ended. After the completed procedure by the investigating judge, the person was handed over to judicial police officers of Ljubljana Prison at 16:00 for detention. 47 W  hen reviewing detention (7 May 2016, start of procedure at 19:19 and detention ordered from 19:20 to 22:19 on the basis of paragraph one of Article 64 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act), it was determined that the time when the procedure started was 19:15 in the Detention order, not 19:19 as recorded in the FIO computer register. It was also established that an old form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, was used in the detention procedure, the legal basis for a security search arising from the Police Act. Furthermore, the section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, had not been completed on the above form. During detention, items were seized from the detained person with the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, but it was not evident from the form at what time the items had been returned, and the section, ‘Completed under sequential number ___’, was also not completed. 48 W  hen reviewing detention (28 to 29 February 2016, start of procedure at 9:55 and detention ordered from 10:20 to 18:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was established that data on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ under section, ‘’According to the provisions of Article 66/3 of the ZNPPol, a security search was implemented on _____ at ______ hours conducted by police officer ________ from police unit ___’, had been corrected with correction fluid. Although, a police officer had marked the correction with his signature, we believe that such implementation of corrections is incorrect. 49 W  hen reviewing detention (6 February 2016, start of procedure at 01:30 and detention ordered from 2:00 to 10:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that the police officer completing the form, ‘Detention order’, corrected the time when the detention order was served to the detained person from 2:35 into 2:25, whereby the name of the person who had made the correction had been omitted. When examining the detention order, it was discovered that the section, ‘Explanation of grounds – description of violation’, had been completed very superficially. The police officer merely recorded “driving under the influence of alcohol, with the value of measured alcohol level in brackets”. In the same case, it was also determined that several corrections had been made to the data recorded on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, whereby it was not recorded who had made the corrections. 136 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