Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 There was an interesting case of a procedure performed by police officers from PP Bovec involving a person under consideration due to suspicion of a criminal act of family violence. Upon the detection of the crime and deprivation of liberty, the police officers completed a UZ on arrest and recorded the arrest on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP). We learned that the person was subject to the same procedure as in the case of arrest under the second paragraph of Article 157 of ZKP, as the person was in the detention room throughout the time the police officers were preparing the charges; they then brought the person for interrogation to the investigating judge. Moreover, the police officers recorded the completion of arrest or delivery to the investigating judge in the last paragraph of the criminal complaint, which means before the actual delivery of the person to the investigating judge. As explained by the commander at the time, police officers from PP Bovec conduct all similar procedures in such a way. The DPM believes that advance recording of the time of delivery of a person to the investigating judge in the charges at the PP is not appropriate, or that this information cannot be accurate (especially in this case, when the person was taken to the investigating judge for interrogation from Bovec to Nova Gorica); it would be reasonable to enter the time of delivery to the investigating judge subsequently, or to receive confirmation for the archive copy of the charges stating the time of its receipt and the delivery of the person to the investigation judge signed by the investigation judge and stamped by the court. Only such recording of the delivery of the person to the investigating judge would ascertain the time when the person was no longer subject to the arrest and charging procedure and the arrest completed. According to MNZ, the police officers in this procedure acted correctly, since the condition for deprivation of liberty under the first paragraph of Article 157 of ZKP were fulfilled; on the basis of this paragraph, the police should provide persons deprived of liberty with the same rights as detained persons. Nevertheless, they assured us they would examine the possibility of changing the recording of provision of rights in such cases (the same applies to the arrest of a person on the basis of a European arrest and surrender warrant according to the Act on International Co-operation in Criminal Matters between Member States of the European Union (ZSKZDČEU)), since the UZ on arrest completed by the police officer in such cases actually does not have all the sections in which the exercise of rights could be adequately recorded. PP Bovec was also warned of the fact that they entered the agreed and not the actual time of delivery of the person to the investigation judge. Similar observations were made at PP Nova Gorica, where the UZ on arrest in the “End of apprehension” section stated the time as 18.50, while the criminal complaint stated the time 20.00 as the time when the person was allegedly delivered to the investigating judge. The DPM believes that the information on the completion of the arrest procedure is not adequate, and particularly that the status of the person in the period between when this procedure has been completed (the time stated in the official note) and the actual delivery to the investigating judge for procedure is not clear. We believe that the information on the completion of arrest and delivery to the investigation judge should be in agreement, since the police complete the procedure with the detained person only by delivery to the investigating judge (which did not happen until 20.00). MNZ only underlined that the fifth paragraph of Article 157 of ZKP specifies that arrest on the basis of the second paragraph of the same article is permitted for longer than 48 hours and that police officers must release the detained person at the end of this period or act according to the first paragraph of the same article (delivery to the competent investigating judge). Instructions on procedures carried out by police officers would establish uniform practice in this field. During the visit to PP Medvode, we selected a case of detention on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 110 of the Minor Offences Act (ZP-1) for 27 April 2010 from the FIO print-out. We established that several detention procedures on the basis of ZP-1 (three) and final detention procedure on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP) were conducted for the stated person. While reviewing the detention documents for this person, we observed that PP Medvode did not have documentation (UZ on detention and detention warrant) for detention, which had taken place on 27 April 2010 between 21.05 and 23.30. The document showed that the detained person was taken to the National Preventive Mechanism in the Republic of Slovenia under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 37