tumefaction at the level of the left arcade and a tumefaction at the level of the right paravertebrae. The management of the Bucharest Jilava Hospital Penitentiary took the following actions: • the petitioner was referred to the Legal Medicine Service; • the National Administration of Penitentiaries was informed; • the supervisory judge for the deprivation of freedom was informed; • the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Judge’s Office of Cornetu was notified of the behaviour shown in the fulfilment of professional attributions by the penitentiary agent; • the Discipline Committee of the Bucharest Jilava Hospital Penitentiary was informed against the supervising agent; • an incident report was drawn up regarding the person deprived from freedom; • the operative staff was trained on the observance of legal provisions regarding the management of operational incidents and the provisions of OMJ 27494/2004 on the Deontologicla Code. Based on the Observation Report of the Bucharest Jilava Hospital Penitentiary, the person deprived from freedom claimed he had been hit on the head and the back thorax. The medical examination showed that he had a tumefaction in the left arcade and a tumefaction in the right paravertebrae. Based on the medico-legal certificates, the person deprived from freedom showed traumatic injuries that could have been caused by hitting with a hard item, for which 1-2 days of medical care were needed, as traumatic injuries were not life-threatening. Regarding the incident, the person deprived from freedom filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office against the supervising agent; the prosecutor adopted an Ordinance to dismiss the case, stating that, based on ECHR practice, a person could not be sanctioned for the same deed twice. Therefore, as soon as the Disciplinary Investigation performed by the Bucharest Jilava Hospital Penitentiary showed that the agent infringed the legal provisions, which resulted in a disciplinary sanction, his criminal liability cannot be claimed. A check of the court portal showed that the court found that the Ordinance of the First Prosecutor was legal and founded, confirming the reopening of the criminal prosecution for the crime of abusive behaviour, stipulated by art. 296 59