We proposed to PS Sevnica that the police officer who conducted the relevant procedure be reminded to be thorough (accurately record times of individual activities – serving and other tasks involving the detained person), consistent and particularly legible when completing forms necessary for implementing detention;67 that the station make sure that police officers always use only updated forms necessary for implementing detention; that officers be reminded of the correct method of entering possible corrections in official forms,68 and to inform officers of the need to be thorough when entering all tasks involving the detained person.69 The MNZ replied that 1) the relevant police officer had not had the correct form with him when attending the scene (Detention order and Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note) so he used the available form, ‘Official note on arrest – JRM-3’, i.e. sheet-3, which contains a similar table for entering tasks, whereby he did not complete the Official note on the arrest, but immediately copied the data from the sheet-3 to the correct form at the police station; he did not destroy the sheet-3, but inserted it in the file, about which he was warned accordingly; 2) certain police stations of Novo mesto Police Directorate were informed in writing on 7 April 2016 about the use of unsuitable old forms KRIM10, since these deficiencies were also noticed by Novo mesto Police Directorate, and 3) all police officers were informed of the established deficiencies and errors at a working meeting of PS Sevnica on 7 June 2016 and during the theoretical part of training for exercising powers with practical procedures and selfdefence. Furthermore, the management of the unit examined and handed over all invalid forms. We proposed to PS Slovenska Bistrica that police officers be more thorough or consistent when completing the forms necessary for implementing detention and pay attention to the correct procedure for entering corrections in official forms. Duty police officers at PS Ptuj must be informed to also provide data in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, about the detention room in which detention is implemented regarding a certain detained person in the future,70 and duty police officers at PS Maribor I must be informed of the need to provide information about the detention room in which a person is held (PS Maribor has several detention rooms).71 The MNZ stated that all police officers had been reminded to be thorough and consistent when completing forms, to correctly mark corrections and to make a note of room a person is detained. 67 W  hen reviewing detention (31 March to 1 April 2016, start of procedure at 20:07 and detention ordered from 20:10 to 6:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act; location of detention: PS Krško), it was determined that the first part of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, had been completed illegibly (data on times and tasks during detention were not fully readable). When inspecting the file, it was also established that the form, ‘Official note on the arrest’, was completed first, and the correct form only later, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, whereby the entries in the first five lines of the forms where tasks were recorded were not identical. When examining the detention order, it was also discovered that it was illegible, but we nevertheless managed to discern that it was supposedly served to the detained person at 22:05. When comparing this data with the review of the tasks, it was established that when the detention order was supposedly served to the detained person various procedures had taken place simultaneously involving the person, i.e. removal of instruments of constraint and mechanical restraint, a security search and the serving of the Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody, as recorded in the section of the form, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’. 68 W  hen reviewing detention (31 March to 2 April 2016, start of procedure at 17:40 and detention ordered from 17:45 to 10:31 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined that the old form of the ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’ had been used in the detention procedure, which did not contain the rights of which police officers must inform the detained person. Furthermore, it was stated in the decision that the person was detained at PS Sevnica, which was not correct, since PS Sevnica does not have detention rooms, as noted above. It was also established that corrections had been made to the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, whereby it was not recorded who made the corrections. 69 W  hen reviewing the detention (5 June 2015, start of procedure at 1:30 and detention ordered from 1:35 to 9:25 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that it was not evident from, or recorded in, the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/ custody – official note’, what was happening to the detained person between 1:35 and 3:05, when they were transferred to PS Krško, where the detention took place. When inspecting the detention order, it was determined that it had been served to the detained person at 2:30. As stated above, it was not evident from the tasks during detention/custody where the detainee was or what was happening to them at the time of the service (was the person at the scene of the event, at PS Sevnica, or being transported to PS Krško). 70 W  hen reviewing detention (19 to 20 March 2016, start of procedure at 20:40 and detention ordered from 20:45 to 9:25 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined that the date had been corrected from 21 March 2016 to 20 March 2016 on the form ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ in the section of the form referring to a security search, ‘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 ___’, whereby it was not recorded who had made the correction. It was also determined from the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, that detention had been implemented for the relevant person at PS Ptuj, whereby it was not recorded in which detention room the person had been accommodated, since PS Ptuj has several detention rooms. 71 In the same case, it was also determined when examining the forms, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ and ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’ (the form bore the stamp of PS Maribor I, where the detention actually took place): – line five of the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’ of the first form stated that the detained person had been “put in the detention space in the police vehicle” on 21 July 2015 at 00:50. It was evident from the second form that items had been seized from the detained person (21 July 2015 at 00:50); – it was also not evident from the second form in which detention room the detention had actually taken place at PS Maribor I. 140 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