33 to the ex-officio engagement of defence counsel. Only in the PA Pirot and PA Prokuplje, the Ministry of Justice bears all costs related to the ex officio engagement of defence counsel. In certain number of cases, the NPM found that reports doctors composed after the use of means of coercion did not contain any information about the allegations of persons subject to check-up in relation with the origin of possible injuries, nor they contained doctors’ opinion about the way these injuries might have been inflicted. That report, as a rule, does neither contain any information about the fact weather a check-up was conducted in the presence of a police officer. In order to be able to conduct a procedure for control and justification of the use of means of coercion in as objective and valid fashion as possible, the NPM issued a recommendation that it was necessary to annotate all relevant and necessary information regarding the circumstances of the use of means of coercion. After the recommendations sent by the NPM, police officers of certain police stations90 no longer hold the medical documentation within their police files, but give it to the detainee, taking into account that such a medical documentation constitutes particularly sensitive personal data. Despite the fact that in the past three years the NPM kept on indicating the necessity to change the Instructions on Treatment of Brought-in and Detained Persons91, Ministry of the Interior failed to undertake any activity in order to harmonize it with the applicable legislation and standards. After the recommendations issued to the police officers not to have handcuffed all persons brought in the police station, but to do that in line with their assessment, certain police stations92 did change their practice and use handcuffs only after having cautious consideration of all specific circumstances indicating the necessity to handcuff that person, particularly in all those cases stipulated by the law. The current Instruction stipulates the mandatory presence of a police officers in the course of a medical check-up of detainees.93 After the sent NPM recommendations, in certain police administrations94 police officers are present in the course of medical check-up of detained persons only upon the request of a doctor. The standpoint of the NPM is that there is a need to amend with no delay certain provisions95 of the Instruction on treatment of brought in and detained persons which stipulate obligatory use of handcuffs when transporting persons to be brought in to the police and obligation of police officer to be present in the course of a medical check-up of a detainee.96 Police officers in certain police stations97, in line with the NPM recommendations, get written statement from the persons who had been subjected to means of coercion about the circumstances related to the use of means of coercion and possible infliction of injuries, in order to have a more complete insight into all circumstances related to the case, so as to assess the justification and regularity of the use of means of coercion in the most objective way. Report on the visit to PA Kikinda no. of the case 71-8/15, Report on the visit to PA Kragujevac no. of the case 71– 34/15, Report on the visit to PA Leskovac, no. of the case71–32/15, Report on the visit to PA Poirot no. of the case 71– 50/15, Report on the visit to PA Požarevac no. of the case71–5/15, Report on the visit to PA Prokuplje, no. of the case71–51/15 91 Instruction on treatment of detained and brought in persons, 01 no. 7989/12-10 from 12/10/2012 92 PA Kikinda, PA Kragujevac 93 Instructions оn treatment of detained and brought in persons, 01 no. 7989/12-10 from 12/10/2012, item 26 paragraph 3. 94 Report on the visit to PA Čačak, no. of the case71–13/15, Report on the visit to PA Kragujevac, no. of the case71– 34/15, Report on the visit to Kraljevo, no. of the case71–12/15, Report on the visit to PA Leskovac no. of the case 71–32/15, Report on the visit to PA Niš, no. of the case71–40/15, Report on the visit to PA Pirot, no. of the case71–50/15 95 Item 13, paragraph 2 and item 26, paragraph 3. 96 Please see, for instance, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Berlinski vs. Poland (applications number 27715/95 and 30209/96), paragraph 59. 97 PA Čačak, PA Kikinda, PA Kragujevac, PA Kraljevo, PA Pirot, PA Prokuplje, PA Zaječar and PA Bor 90