Internal security In the field of internal security, the police force’s action or omission also triggered the intervention of this State body. The most frequent situations are related to the public attendance services or attention given to citizens’ requests.(37) Whenever a conduct that is likely to integrate the practice of a disciplinary infraction and its procedure is under investigation by the General Inspection for Internal Administration, this State body monitors the situation. For instance, there was a case where reservations had been made to the action of police officers in an intervention on noise produced by dogs. Once the investigations have been carried out, and since no further inquiries have been justified, this State body still has indicated that «members of the security forces should behave in order to preserve the confidence, consideration and prestige inherent to the police function, treating all citizens, nationals, foreigners or stateless persons with courtesy and respect, promoting coexistence and providing all the help, information or requested clarification, in the field of their competences»(38). In a complaints procedure concluded in the year to which this report refers, the SEF’s action was contested for having carried out two control operations on the same day and to the same citizen upon her exit and re-entry in national territory. Notwithstanding such control has a valid legal basis - since the procedure in which those operations took place was not extinguished - and, likewise, the informality of SEF’s action ensured that travels were carried out normally, Ombudsman has signaled to SEF that the inconvenience caused by that duplication could have been avoided by the rapid and proper insertion of the data in the database, since the return date would have already been mentioned in the travel documents. Still in this area of internal security, the requests made for intervention by this State body continue to raise as the result of expressed reservations regarding the application of the legal regime of arms and ammunition (11), especially as regards the payment of fees, especially when at stake is the substitution of administrative documents, being, however, certain that we are facing an activity which requires prior authorization. In this context, in a specific case there was an opportunity to emphasize that the CRP does not state the right to use and carrying of a weapon. Following the case-law of the Constitutional Court, it was stated that «there is no constitutional right to use and carrying arms, without excepting the hunting guns, regardless of constraints, including those dictated by the public interest to avoid inherent dangers, which can be safeguarded by granting licenses and withdrawing them», and «it is justified to say that the license is (37)  See, for example, Positions adopted 2016, pp. 175-178. (38)  See article 7 (2) of the Code of Ethics for Police Service, published by the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 37/2002, of February 7, published in Diário da República No. 50, 1st Series-B, of February 28. 58 |