34 NPM considers that physician should in detail check for bodily injuries during the medical examination of detained persons, and if there are any, to describe them precisely in accordance with the rules of the medical profession, and subsequently, in the conclusion of the medical report, to establish causality between the statement of a detainee regarding the resulting injuries (and possibly official data on applied measure of coercion) and specific bodily injuries noticed during the examination. In many cases, NPM noticed that the report made by a doctor upon the use of coercive means does not contain information about the allegations of a person who is examined in relation to the possible injuries, nor a medical opinion concerning the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. In addition, this report generally does not contain any information about whether the medical examination was performed in the presence of police officers. This information is important and necessary so that the procedure regarding the control of the justifiability and regularity of the use of coercive means could be carried out in a proper manner and therefore it must be noted down. During the reporting period NPM paid attention to the activities of the police in the field of the fight against impunity, as one of the factors in the prevention of torture. That is to say, the Protector of Citizens within its reactive work on complaints found in several cases that the arrestees were victims of torture during the police custody, as a consequence of which he sent recommendations to the police in order to prevent such conduct in the future. The NPM took upon itself the monitoring of police conduct in this regard. NPM has noticed that the police, despite the fact that the detainees in a timely manner present arguable claims that bodily injuries were inflicted on them during an illegal and improper exercise of police powers, in general does not carry out timely and thorough procedures (in a fast, meticulous, impartial and effective way) in order to investigate such cases; individual responsibility of perpetrators is not being established, nor the responsibility of those who are objectively responsible for omissions in their work and work organization, neither the culprits are being punished. Internal control mechanisms of the police proved ineffective in the area of protection against torture. Therefore, the obligation of the police to fight against impunity of those responsible for acts of torture is not fulfilled, while a special problem represents a conduct of the public prosecutor’s office, which upon receiving the notification from the Protector of Citizens informing about a found case of committed torture, did not find grounds to initiate criminal proceedings against police officers103. 103 Protector of Citizens, cases No. 12-1782/10; 12-1782/10; and 12-1782/10. Protector of Citizens’ Annual Report for 2013, 2.5./5. paragraph 2.