Implementation of the Commissioner’s recommendations following visits to places of detention of the MIA of Ukraine Official inquiries into shortcomings and violations by directorates and regional and Kyiv main directorates of the MIA of Ukraine found during the Commissioner’s exercise of NPM functions are in progress. For each inquiry, the Commissioner for Human Rights receives a letter with inquiry files and conclusions. As a rule, according to the MIA, the violations are confirmed in the course of inspection and shortcomings that do not require significant financial expenses are corrected. In most cases, disciplinary action is taken against a number of officials. However, repeat visits to city, district and line departments and special facilities evidence that information about elimination of shortcomings and violations is not always true. In addition, during official inspections on specific facts provided by the Commissioner in relation to criminal offences by certain IAB officials (unlawful apprehension in violation of Article 208 of the CPC of Ukraine following long period after commission of crime, violation of the right to defense etc.), the IAB leadership only imposes disciplinary liability of perpetrators. Meanwhile, prosecution authorities ignore information pointing to actual crimes of specific officials during review of the Commissioners acts of response following inspection of places of detention of the MIA. Even more so, the Commissioner sends the act of response in accordance with Article 60 of the CPC of Ukraine, i.e. as report on crime. Actions of the Prosecutor’s Office in the city of Kyiv and the Prosecutor’s Office in Svyatoshyn district of Kyiv serve as vivid illustration of such neglect of CPC requirements. In particular, following a visit to Svyatoshyn district directorate of the Main MIA Directorate in Kyiv on 30 May 2014, a letter from the Representative of the Commissioner Yurii Belousov was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office in the city of Kyiv. The letter mentioned specific offences committed by officials of Svyatoshyn district directorate of the Main MIA Directorate in Kyiv. Moreover, the letter included a statement specifying that it is sent in accordance with Article 60 of the CPC of Ukraine, i.e. as an application or report on criminal offence to a state agency authorized to initiate pre-trial investigation from an entity that is not a victim. 101