The MNZ replied that all police units were advised to be more thorough when completing documents. Duty officers and responsible senior officers of the relevant PS were asked to be even more thorough when entering data in the record of persons deprived of their liberty. We proposed that PS Kranjska Gora inform the police officers about consistent completion of forms necessary for implementing detention, and the accurate recording of all activities involving a detained person, or in which room at the station the detained person had been accommodated during the procedure.39 The MNZ responded that police officers had been reminded about consistently and accurately completing forms regarding detention (accurate recording of all activities involving the detained person, provision of data on the room in which the person was detained, thorough recording of times of individual activities, correct marking of corrections etc.). We proposed that PS Krško inform police officers of the importance of being thorough when entering data when completing official forms necessary for implementing detention and of correctly recording possible corrections40 in order to harmonise inconsistencies between times entered in the FIO record and times recorded in the form, ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, and to remind officers about accurately and consistently completing official documents necessary for implementing detention.41 The MNZ responded that the relevant police officers had been informed about the inconsistencies, and the data in the records had been corrected accordingly. We proposed to PS Laško that police officers be more thorough when completing forms necessary for implementing detention,42 and that they pay attention to when forms are replaced and thus the use of valid (new) forms necessary for implementing detention.43 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 39 When reviewing detention (8 to 9 June 2015, start of procedure at 17:40 and detention ordered from 22:35 to 15:00 on the basis of paragraph one of Article 64 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act), it was discovered that the police officer had failed to record on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ under section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody for the time from 18:15 on 8 June 2015 to 1:40 on 9 June 2015’, in which room the detained person had been accommodated at PS Kranjska Gora (PS has not used detention rooms since 2009) or what was happening to the detainee during that time. When reviewing detention (5 to 6 December 2014, start of procedure and detention ordered from 15:40 to 17:45 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was discovered that the police officer had failed to record on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ under section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody between 15:40 and 17:55’, in which room the detained person had been accommodated at PS Kranjska Gora or what was happening to the detained person during that time. When reviewing detention (30 to 31 May 2014, detention ordered from 22:50 to 7:50 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that only a copy of the detention order was kept in the police archives. While examining the copy of the detention order, it was determined that the police officer had failed to complete the section, ‘Police procedure started at ______ hours’. The time when the procedure involving the detainee commenced was thus unknown. In the relevant case, it was also determined that the detained person was held at the station for a lengthy period (between 22:50 on 30 May 2014 and 1:00 on 31 May 2014), whereby it was not recorded in which room the person had been accommodated. 40 When reviewing detention (7 May 2016, start of procedure at 2:00 and detention ordered from 2:18 to 9:23 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that it was stated on the first page of form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that a security search had been conducted at 3:00, although it was written on line ten of the same form under section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, that the security search had been conducted at 3:01, whereby a correction was also made to the last name of the police officer and it was not marked accordingly as to who had made the correction. 41 When reviewing detention (19 to 21 April 2016, start of procedure at 13:10 and detention ordered from 13:15 to 11:00 on the basis of paragraph two 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 procedure with the detained person had commenced at 13:08, not at 13:10 entered in the FIO register. 42 When reviewing detention (10 to 11 June 2016, start of procedure at 22:54 and detention ordered from 23:15 to 8:10 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that a police officer had recorded on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’ that items had been seized on 10 June 2016 at 23:30. Further examination of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, revealed that another time had been recorded in line ten of the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, i.e. 11 June 2016 at 00:22. 43 When reviewing detention (5 June 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 19:10 to 21:45 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined that the old form of the official notice on the deprivation of liberty and detention had been used (which did not contain all rights of detained persons). Furthermore, it was established in the same case that it was not recorded in form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, under section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, in which room the person had been held during the detention or custody, since it was mentioned above that the police station had not used the detention room for some time. It was also revealed from the same form that the detention had concluded at 21:45, and the person had remained on the PS premises until 22:55, when their sister came to collect them, whereby it was not evident why the person had been collected from the station by their sister. It was also determined that the activities that were entered did not follow each other according to the hours, i.e. the last entry stated “5 June 2016 at 20:40, the official note on the detention is served”, although five other entries had been recorded before this one with a later time of implementation. 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 135