We proposed to PS Ptuj that police officers be reminded to observe the legally determined deadline by which the official document on detention must be delivered to the detained person,61 and that they be more thorough and consistent when completing forms necessary for implementing detention, particularly to correct corrections appropriately62. The MNZ responded that a conversation was held with the relevant police officer regarding the legally determined deadline for delivering the detention order to the detained person, while other police officers were reminded to be more thorough when completing official forms, particularly to the correct marking of corrections in documents. The MNZ also added that the irregularities established regarding the detention of persons and other findings from our report were presented to the officers of the relevant police station at a working meeting in September 2016. We proposed to PS Radovljica that police officers be more thorough or consistent when completing forms necessary for implementing detention,63 and to be informed about correctly recording corrections on official forms.64, 65 The MNZ responded that all police officers had been reminded to consistently and accurately complete 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.). The police officers were also informed about the need to thoroughly explain the grounds for the deprivation of liberty and detention in the Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention. Similarly, we also proposed to PS Ravne na Koroškem that police officers be more thorough and consistent when completing the forms necessary for implementing detention and the correct procedure for entering corrections in official documents.66 The MNZ communicated that the management of this station had reminded officers at a working meeting on 12 April 2016 to be more thorough and consistent when completing forms and to correctly record corrections. 61 W  hen reviewing detention (5 June 2016, start of procedure at 12:55 and detention ordered from 13:10 to 22:15 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established that the form, ‘Detention order’, had been handed to the detained person at 16:30, i.e. 35 minutes later than legally prescribed (3-hour deadline). 62 W  hen reviewing detention (5 February 2016, start of procedure at 19:45 and detention ordered from 19:51 to 21:15 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 110 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 by whom the correction had been made. It was not recorded in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, in which room at the PS the detained person was accommodated (e.g. interview room, detention room etc.). 63 When reviewing detention (9 January 2016, start of procedure at 00:02 and detention ordered from 00:10 to 11:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was discovered that the date of the completed detention was incorrect on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, i.e. 9 January 2015, whereas the correct date was 9 January 2016. When examining the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’, it was determined that an incorrect date of seizure had been recorded, i.e. 9 January 2015, whereas the correct date was 9 January 2016. 64 When reviewing detention (29 to 30 June 2015, start of procedure at 19:45 and detention ordered from 22:10 to 7:45 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 correction fluid had been used in lines one and two under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’. 65 When reviewing detention (8 to 9 June 2016, start of procedure at 1:25 and detention ordered from 1:30 to 16:15 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 date of the start of procedure was incorrect, i.e. 8 August 2015, whereas the correct date was 8 June 2016. It was further determined when examining the explanation or reasons for the deprivation of liberty that the reasons were explained superficially. The police officer drafting the ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’ merely provided data on the suspicion of criminal offences which the relevant person supposedly committed in February 2016, but he failed to provide any data regarding the deprivation of liberty as of 8 June 2016 and measures thereof. When examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, it was also discovered that the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, had been completed vaguely during the procedure, i.e.: – it was not clear the police officers of which PS took the detained person after the person was apprehended at Obrežje Border Police Station – the police officers of PS Radovljica or PS Jesenice; – it was not clearly stated at which police station the detained person was interviewed – PS Radovljica or PS Jesenice or both; – the first four lines on the form (apprehension of the person at Obrežje Border Police Station) were written by computer, whereas the date of the deprivation of liberty was corrected by hand, i.e. from 7 June 2016 to 8 June 2016, whereby who made these corrections was not recorded. 66 When reviewing detention (13 to 14 February 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 3:50 to 18:37 on the basis of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined that a correction had been made in the section, ‘Person was detained/in custody until ___ hours on ___’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’; whereby it was not recorded who had made the correction. When reviewing detention (26 September 2015, start of procedure at 00:25 and detention ordered from 00:35 to 8:50 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that two different times of seizure of items from the detained person had been recorded. The time entered under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ was 26 September 2015 at 01:15, while the time recorded on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’ was 26 September 2015 at 01:14. 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 139