One of the more frequent reasons for lodging complaints relates to the conduct of judicial police officers. Although our investigative procedures are most often concluded by finding that complaints were unfounded, taking into account the description of tasks of the security ward officers, during inspections and visits to penal institutions, the heads of prisons are regularly warned about the necessity of legal and professional conduct of the security department officers and other employees of the penal institution towards persons deprived of their liberty. In this respect, during inspections special attention is paid to the performance of specific measures of maintaining order and security and the use of means of coercion as well as to complaints about the conduct of judicial police officers. For example, during the inspection of Bjelovar County Prison we were approached by a prisoner who complained that he was subjected to a specific measure of maintaining order and security – restraint, due to the risk of self-injury. This measure was applied during the night by restraining the prisoner's hands and legs with handcuffs to the bed, with two interruptions for toilet visits. In the investigative procedure it was concluded that the prisoner's threats of self-injurious behaviour were regarded as serious, so the head of the security department ordered the specific measure of maintaining order and security - restraint of hands and legs. Since after being restrained the complainant continued with his self-injurious behaviour, he was "fixated" (immobilised) to the bed, which lasted until it was determined that the complainant's behaviour no longer represents a threat to his own health. Even though the information received from the Central Office indicated that the measure in this specific case was aimed exclusively at preventing a potential suicide attempt or serious bodily harm, a violation of the right of this prisoner was established. Namely, the EPSA prescribes restraining of hands and, if necessary, legs with handcuffs or belts, but there is no provision prescribing restraining to the bed or some other object, i.e. "fixation". Additionally, considering that the seriousness of threats of self-injurious behaviour was assessed by a judicial police officer, in the warning submitted to the Central Office we pointed out that in this specific case it was required to urgently call a physician, while the measure of restraint was to be applied only for preventive purposes until his/her arrival. Under the EPSA, other persons i.e. persons who are not family members may, subject to approval of the head of the prison, visit prisoners. During investigative procedures it was established that prisons and penitentiaries deliver the list of prisoners and other persons as well as basic information on other persons (name and surname, year and place of birth, residence, OIB or MBG), with whom the prisoner is requesting contact by phone or visit, to the County Police Administration according to the address of the prison or penitentiary, and the police provides information whether those contacts are preferable. It is indisputable that the head of the prison may deny a visit for security reasons, but there are doubts as to the legal basis for asking the police to check other persons. At the same time, information on whether the other persons were informed and whether they signed a prior consent was requested. Although prisoners do not have the right to appeal the performance evaluation of their individual programmes for the execution of prison sentence, after receiving complaints from a number of prisoners at Turopolje State Prison concerning the procedure of their performance evaluation, which is also the basis for receiving potential benefits, we have initiated an