compared to 2019, in 2020 the share of those who received injuries after arrest decreased slightly and did not change the share of those who received injuries during arrest.287 As in previous years, the trend is maintained that in about one third of the cases studied and processed by the special preventive group (2020 - 26.3%, 2019 - 30.7%, 2018 - 27.6%, 2017 - 30.1%, 2016 - 31.3 %), the detention record does not indicate the injury described in the medical records in the isolators. Out of the 463 cases processed in 2020, in 122 arrest protocols there were not described injuries detected in the isolator. Clearly, there is a strong presumption in these cases that the detainee may have been subjected to physical violence under the police control.288 In addition, in 360 (77%) of the cases studied during the monitoring visits, the detention reports indicate that there had been disobedience/resistance to the police officer and that in such cases the police would likely have used force/coercion, however only in 120 (25.9%) cases do the protocols mention the use of force/coercion by the police.289 Accordingly, in these cases the police officers allegedly used force, although this was not indicated in the arrest protocol. However, out of the cases (120 cases in total) where it was indicated that the force was used, the method of the used force was indicated in 12 cases, of which only in 1 case was it fully described and in 11 cases - partially. It should be noted that in 2019, out of 64 cases, 12 cases described the method of using force, in 1 case - in full and in 11 cases - partially. These circumstances further confirm that the protocols are not being filled in properly. It is fair to note that the discrepancy between the records may be caused in part to the existing general practice of checking injuries. In particular, checking for injuries by police officers is superficial and does not involve a full examination of the body as is done in isolators. Further, in the case of administrative detention, the discrepancy between the records may be due in part to shortcomings in the description of bodily injuries by police officers, in particular, the administrative detention report does not contain a column at all where the police officer should indicate the injuries of the detainee's body, which contributes to the inconsistent practice - some police officers describe the injuries in the administrative detention protocol in the note column, and some do not. It is noteworthy that out of the 122 cases mentioned above (when the injuries described in the isolator were not indicated in the detention protocol), 101 persons (82.8%) were detained administratively, while the remaining 21 (17.2%) were detained on a criminal basis.290 It is noteworthy that there is a special box in the form of the arrest protocol of the accused, which should indicate the physical condition of the detainee (bodily injuries) at the time of arrest. Although in the above 21 cases the injuries of the person In 2019, 6.5% of persons taken in with injuries received injuries at the time of arrest, and 8.3% after arrest. In the case of Salman v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that when disputed cases, in whole or in part, are the exclusive informative prerogative of the relevant authorities, as is the case with persons deprived of their liberty, strong suspicions arise and the burden of proof falls on the relevant authorities to provide a convincing explanation for this. Decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 June 2000 in Salman v. Turkey (Salman v. Turkey, N21986/93), para. 100. 289 It should be noted that compared to 2019, in 2020 the number of records on the use of force in the detention protocol has increased. In 2019, only 14% of cases reported the use of force in the detention protocol. 290 In 2019, out of 138 such cases, 125 (90.5%) persons were arrested under administrative and 13 (9.5%) under criminal law. 287 288 94