We proposed to PS Slovenske Konjice that police officers be informed about correctly entering corrections in documents necessary for implementing detention;72 that police officers regularly observe changes to the forms necessary for implementing detention, particularly in the case of amendments to legal bases, and that the police station management ensure that all police officers destroy old and invalid forms,73 and that police officers consistently record all tasks involving a detained person during detention (e.g. interviewing, forensic research, etc.).74 The MNZ replied that all police officers had been reminded about correctly entering corrections in detention documents, the use of valid forms and destruction of old forms, and the consistent recording of all tasks involving detainees. We proposed to PS Šentjernej that the management of the police station inform its police officers that the time of the start of procedure and of ordering detention must be harmonised in the FIO register and on official forms necessary for implementing detention (in this case in the form, ‘Detention order’), and that police officers be thorough when completing the forms necessary for implementing detention, particularly the need to record all tasks involving the detainee (e.g. use of coercive measures, transport to the central PS or PS where detention would be implemented, seizure of items from the detainee etc.).75 The MNZ stated that, in spite of the proposal, the management of the relevant PS thought that additional entry of data on the use of coercive measures in the ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ would unduly increase the administrative burden of police officers, since they already enter this information in a special official note on the basis of Article 131 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act. The police officers were reminded to be more thorough when completing forms regarding detention (consistent recording of activities involving a detained person and accurate time of implementation, correct entry of corrections, thorough completion of documents and entry of data in the record of persons deprived of liberty, the use of valid forms, recording of the location of detention, consistent seizure of items suitable for assault or self-harm). We proposed to PS Šentjur pri Celju that duty officers be more thorough when recording tasks involving a detained person during the detention procedure;76 that police officers correctly enter corrections in official forms necessary for implementing detention,77 and that police officers pay attention to the replacement of forms and thus related use of valid (new) forms necessary for implementing detention.78 72 When reviewing detention (4 November 2016, start of procedure at 14:35 and detention ordered from 14:48 to 23:45 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined that corrections to times had been made under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, in form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’; however, it was not recorded who had done the corrections. It was also established that a correction to the date had been made, but who had made the correction was not recorded. 73 When reviewing detention (4 to 5 August 2016, start of procedure and detention ordered from 11:40 to 12:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined when inspecting the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that the police officer had used an old (invalid) form where “Articles 38 and 41 of the ZPol”, i.e. the Police Act, were given as legal basis for implementing a security search of the detainee. 74 There were no entries in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’ between 13:50 and 20.30 on 4 November 2016 about what was happening to the detained person or where they were during the relevant time. 75 When reviewing detention (12 to 13 September 2016, start of procedure at 22:44 and detention ordered from 22:45 to 9:05 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined that the time of the start of the procedure and that of ordering detention was the same in the Detention order, i.e. 22:45, not 22:44 as recorded in the FIO register. Regarding these findings, the deputy commander explained that he had corrected the time when the procedure started to 22:44 in the FIO register at a later time because the system was reporting an error when he was entering data. In the same case, it was also determined that the police officer had used coercive measures on the detainee (instruments of constraint and mechanical restraint); however, this task had not been recorded in the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’. When reviewing detention (27 March 2016, start of procedure at 14:28 and detention ordered from 14:40 to 22:35 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was established that the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, of the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’ had not been completed properly, since it was not clear at which PS the detention actually took place, and it was also not recorded that coercive measures had been used against the person or that items had been seized from the detainee etc. 76 When examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, it was established in section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, that tasks involving the detained person had been recorded superficially, or it was only stated that “they drank water” between 22:10 of 12 March 2016 and 4:20 of 13 March 2016, whereby it was not stated where the person was during that time (e.g. at the scene of the event, at a PS, at which PS etc.). 77 When reviewing detention (5 to 6 May 2016, start of procedure at 22:43 and detention ordered from 23:00 to 8:40 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined that a correction of time had been made in line one under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/ custody’, in the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’; however, it was not recorded who had made the correction. 78 When reviewing detention (14 March 2016, start of procedure at 4:50 and detention ordered from 5:10 to 13:10 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established that an old form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, had been used in the detention procedure, which did not include a section on security searches as per paragraph three of Article 66 of the Police Tasks And Powers Act. 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 141