Report of the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights on the Activities of the National Mechanism for the Prevention ... admittance to police facilities. However, the accepted practice of conducting examinations by general practitioners seems an optimum solution. A general practitioner has general medical knowledge based on which he/she may refer the patient to an additional specialist consultation, e.g. a psychiatric one141. In addition, in the opinion of the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Police, the introduction of a  solution whereby the examination is conducted directly by a specialist doctor may raise doubts as to the competences of the entity which refers the person to the examination. In view of the above, the Commissioner highlighted the problem on 30 June 2016 in his intervention to the Minister of the Interior and Administration142 in which he referred, inter alia to Article 2(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. He also referred to the position of the ECHR which, in its judgments, reminds that according to the first sentence of Article 2(1), the states should not only refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdictions143. A positive obligation will arise, the Court has held, where it has been established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual by a third party or himself and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk144 (Keller v. Russia, application no. 26824/04; judgment of 17 October 2013). The doctrine points out that even when it is not possible to determine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known of such a risk, certain safeguards should be taken, inter alia, by the police to protect persons deprived of their liberty145. In his reply of 5 August 2016 regarding the issue, the Secretary of State in the MIA admitted that the legislator did not determine the specific specialization of doctors to examine persons prior to their admittance to PDRs. However, the accepted practice of conducting the examinations by general practitioners seems an optimum solution. Given the identified case of failure to conduct, prior to admittance to a PDR, a medical examination of a person who, in the past, had undergone 143 144 145 141 142 52 Reply by Commander-in-Chief of the Police of 9.02.2016, ref. no. EK-795/15. CHR’s general intervention of 30.06.2016 to the MIA, ref. no. KMP.400.9.2015. Judgment of 3 November 2015 in the case Olszewscy v. Poland, application no. 99/12. Judgment of 17 October 2013 in the case Keller v. Russia, application no. 26824/04. William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights, a Commentary, Oxford, 2015, p. 133.