Guidebook MONITORING PLACES OF DETENTION 4.1.2. Custody and detention registers349 The ‘meticulous registration’ of all arrested and detained persons is an additional guarantee to protect individuals against arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment. Monitoring bodies should verify that there exists a central and comprehensive custody record to register each person detained and on which to record all aspects of his custody and action taken regarding them, including procedural rights. Any fragmentation and dispersion of the information makes it in fact more difficult or impossible to trace the detention’s pathway and understand the nature of alleged cases. The maintenance of such registry is not only a fundamental safeguard against torture or illtreatment itself but also an essential condition for the effective exercise of due process guarantees, such as the right of the detainee to be brought before a judge promptly and the right to challenge the legality of the detention.350 Hence, monitoring bodies should also check that detention registers include the necessary information on procedural rights, and are compiled accurately and in line with international standards. Austria The Austrian NPM pointed out in its 2017 annual reports that the police did not properly document whether the detained persons had been informed about their rights at the police station.351 In this regard, the NPM recommended that ‘public security officers must “verifiably” instruct detained persons of their rights … Only in this way can the NPM – and the courts if a complaint was filed – review whether and to what extent an instruction was actually given.’352 To overcome this problem, the Austrian Ministry of the Interior undertook a number of measures, such as sensitisation measures at individual police stations and reminded all police departments of the requirement for full documentation of detentions in a decree,353 accepted the recommendation of the NPM to have uniform documentation of detention for the whole country (in 2016). Nevertheless, in 2017354 and 2018,355 the NPM kept finding deficits in the documentation. In July 2017, the Ministry of the Interior adopted a decree stipulating that all police stations with usable cells must keep a compulsory detention book and arranged training and awareness measures.356 86 Proper documentation should include not only whether information about the rights is provided but also if the detainee decides not to make use of the relevant rights waiving them. In such cases, the CPT recommends that the signature of the detainee should be obtained and, if necessary, the absence of a signature explained.357 Slovenia During its visits to police stations, the Slovenian NPM reviewed the documentation of a number of detentions. The NPM reported to have found several deficiencies at the majority of the police stations visited, e.g. incomplete information form/or use of old forms. The NPM also identified a case of an incomplete form, which was lacking specific information on the waiver by the detainees of his right to notify a third person about the deprivation of liberty. In this last case, the NPM also referred to one individual complaint on the issue received by the Slovenian NHRI and a recommendation by the CPT. The complainant claimed that during their deprivation of liberty they were not given the possibility to notify t heir family members of their arrest and detention. Police documents showed that the foreign nationals were informed of the rights of a detained person, including the right to notify family members, however, the form did not request the detainee to confirm whether it had made use or waived this right with a signature. The Ministry of Interior explained that this was not specifically anticipated in the existing forms, and that ‘the form in which police officers record information on the (non) enforcement of rights of detainees will be updated with the possibility of adding the detainee’s signature is encouraging.’358 As mentioned above (see above Chapter 1), EU law provides a detailed framework on the procedural rights and their waiver. Moreover, EU law provides specific obligations for Member States to ensure that the information provided to suspects or accused persons is noted using the recording procedure specified in the national law. Hence, monitors should review the correctness of record keeping also in light of EU standards. 87