Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2013 Pursuant to a public call for tender published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 103/07 of 16 December 2011, the following organisations were selected for cooperation in 2012 and 2013 (with the option of a renewal of cooperation for another year): the Legal Information Centre of NGOs – PIC (hereinafter: PIC), the Slovenian Red Cross (RKS) and the Primus Institute (Primus) – all three were chosen again, while the Slovenian Federation of Pensioners’ Organisations (ZDUS) and Novi paradoks (NP) were newly chosen. Pursuant to a contract regulating mutual cooperation in detail, the NPM cooperated with these selected NGOs in 2013. In 2013, 48 visits were undertaken (most of them were unannounced, as only 8 visits were announced in advance). Thus, the NPM fully realised (or even exceeded) the number of the visits planned in the programme which had been drafted in advance (in 2012, 46 visits were undertaken). In planning the number of visits, staff capacities and, in particular, financial resources available for the performance of these activities had to be, of course, taken into account. The visits undertaken also included four control visits. A control visit is carried out when prior to a regular visit, it is reasonable to check the implementation of the NPM’s recommendations aimed at eliminating irregularities and improving the conditions and treatment of persons. The implementation of the recommendations made in respect of previous visits is usually regularly checked by the NPM on follow-up visits to a particular institution. Except for one, all visits undertaken by the NPM in 2013 were one-day visits. The NPM thus visited 10 institutions where people serving prison sentences and detainees are accommodated (8 prisons and 1 correctional facility), as well as 20 police stations, the Aliens Centre in Postojna, 1 psychiatric institution, 11 residential homes for the elderly and 5 juvenile institutions. The Ombudsman appointed nine officials for the purpose of carrying out the functions of the NPM (including the Ombudsman’s deputy who usually performs these functions). All these officials still continue to carry out other Ombudsman’s functions (such as addressing initiatives). Although having some advantages (e.g. acquaintance with the issues related to dealing with specific complaints by the people affected), this circumstance has nevertheless also certain disadvantages, a fact which, in particular, has a direct bearing on individual officials who are overburdened with preventive visits while fulfilling the mandate and exercising powers of the NPM on one hand and dealing with several initiatives assigned to them for consideration on the other hand. Therefore, the NPM is deliberating on fully dividing the two Ombudsman’s functions, i.e. the preventive function involving the NPM’s mandate and the reactive function relating to addressing the initiatives received. Moreover, the necessity for such division is explicitly underlined in Paragraph 32 of the Guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted at the Twelfth session in Geneva, 15-19 November 2010. This paragraph specifies that where the body designated as the NPM performs other functions in additions to those under the Optional Protocol, its NPM functions should be located within a separate unit or department, with its own staff and budget. It has been established that this will require a certain increase in the number of staff and additional financial resources, as already now, a certain proportion of financial burden related to the fulfilment of the mandate and the exercise of powers of the NPM is covered by the Ombudsman’s resources. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2013 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 11