The MNZ replied that police officers had been informed of their duty to be consistent and thorough when completing official documents, particularly regarding the correct marking of corrections, consistent recording of all tasks involving detainees, the use of valid forms, recording of the number of the room in which a person is detained, and consistent provision of data on all detention forms. We proposed to PS Škofja Loka that police officers be more thorough when completing forms necessary for implementing detention;79 that police officers be informed of the correct methods of implementing corrections in official documents or not to implement these with correction fluid;80 to ask police officers (particularly duty officers and senior officers who supervise detention procedures) to be more thorough when entering data in the FIO computer register, and to correctly amend data on ordering detention for the relevant person in the computer record or to harmonise this data accordingly in the detention order and the FIO computer register of detentions.81 The MNZ replied that all police units had been advised to be more thorough when completing documents and to correctly mark corrections. Duty officers and responsible senior officers were asked to be more thorough when entering data in the record of persons deprived of liberty. We proposed to PS Tolmin that police officers be more thorough when providing data about what is happening to detainees during the detention procedure (e.g. in which detention room the person is held), and that police officers always observe the legally prescribed time (three hours) intended for serving the detention order.82 Duty officers and senior officers responsible for supervising detention procedures must be more thorough when entering data in the FIO register, and the data on the forms and the FIO register must be harmonised.83 The MNZ responded that the police officers involved in the relevant detention case had been told to be more thorough when recording or writing down data (what is happening to the detained person during detention, and particularly the observance of the legally stipulated time (three hours) for serving a detention order). The police officers had harmonised the data in the records and were asked to be more thorough when entering data on the detention decision and in the record of persons deprived of liberty. We proposed to PS Trbovlje that police officers be informed of how to correctly enter corrections in official forms.84 79 When reviewing detention (11 October 2015, start of procedure at 1:50 and detention ordered from 1:55 to 12:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act (ZP-1)), it was determined when examining the ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/ custody’ that the temporarily seized items had been returned to the detained person at 11:30, although the detention ended later, i.e. at 12:00. It was also discovered that the police officer had written “does not sign anything, does not provide grounds” under section, ‘Comments’, while it was evident that the detained person had actually signed their name under both sections, ‘Items submitted by’ and ‘Items received by’, which is why the aforementioned entry by the police officer seems unclear or at least insufficient, since he would have recorded this accordingly under ‘Comments’ if the detained person had decided to provide their signature at a later time. 80 When reviewing detention (15 to 16 May 2015, start of procedure at 17:30 and detention ordered from 17:45 to 4:30 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’, that correction fluid had been used to correct the time when the detention ended. 81 When reviewing detention (ordered by police officers of PS Tržič; 11 to 12 January 2016, start of procedure at 21:02 and detention ordered from 21:05 to 8:35 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 110 of the Minor Offences Act (ZP-1)), it was established when examining the detention order that the time when detention was ordered on this form was recorded as 11 January 2016 at 23:00, not 11 January 2016 at 21:05, as recorded in the FIO computer register. 82 When reviewing detention (22 July 2015, start of procedure at 1:20 and detention ordered from 1:30 to 10:20 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was determined that it was not evident from the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/ custody – official note’, how the person had been brought to the PS or in which detention room they had been held. When examining the detention order, it was also established that the order had been served to the detained person as late as at 7:15, which was substantially later than the legally prescribed period (which is three hours). However, an official note had been attached to the file from which it was evident that the detained person had no documents at the start of the procedure from which their identity could have been established, and they also refused to provide their personal data until 7:40. 83 When reviewing detention (23 to 24 July 2015, start of procedure at 23:07 and detention ordered from 23:55 to 14:35 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it was determined when examining the form, ‘Decision on the deprivation of liberty and detention’, that the time of the start of procedure and of ordering the detention was the same, i.e. 23:55, not 23:07, as clearly recorded incorrectly in the FIO register. 84 When reviewing detention (30 to 31 March 2016, start of procedure at 22:00 and detention ordered from 22:25 to 7:00 on the basis of paragraph two of Article 109 of the Minor Offences Act), it was established that correction fluid had been used in four lines of the section, ‘Upon arrest’, on the form, ‘Certificate of seized items from the person in detention/custody’. When reviewing detention (29 August 2016, start of procedure at 11:45 and detention ordered from 11:55 to 20:26 on the basis of Article 24 of the Road Traffic Rules Act), it was determined that a correction had been made under the section, ‘Tasks during detention/custody’, on the form, ‘Implementation of tasks during detention/custody – official note’; however, who had made the correction was not recorded. 142 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