Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2016 monetary instruments, are delivered a decision on return with the time limit until the expiry of which they must leave EEA. However, the questions that remain unanswered are the following: how they are able to comply with the deadline, how they can obtain necessary documentation and where they may be accommodated during the said period, since they have no money and since their situation is yet more difficult if diplomatic or consular authorities of their countries of origin do not exist in the Republic of Croatia. Irregular migrant whose freedom of movement has been restricted following his or her placement in FRCJ, is obligated to cover accommodation expenses as well as other expenses that occurred during forcible removal; and, for the purpose of payment, his financial means are seized. The same course of action is undertaken in case of irregular migrants who have been discharged from FRCJ, but have not been subject to forcible removal and who are waiting for their status to be resolved with no or considerably reduced means of livelihood, deprived of possibility to find accommodation and accompanied by great difficulties in realizing their social care rights (very restricted right to one-off compensation and approval of temporary accommodation), which is something Croatia has been warned about by CoE Commissioner for Human Rights. Consequently, it is necessary to act promptly and amend the existing legislation regarding irregular migrants and applicants for international protection, in order for the scope of their rights to be broadened and improved and in order for obstacles in their exercising to be removed. However, procedure for adopting proposal for Amendments to the Foreigners Act, initiated in April 2016, has not yet been completed, and in December it was once again forwarded to the Parliament and subject to parliamentary procedure; however, due to a series of amendments, it has not yet been adopted. Even though when reaching a decision on freedom of movement restriction, method of individual evaluation should be used in order to consider whether the same goal can be reached by use of milder measures, this decision is reached without any such consideration. Thus, during our visit to FRCJ in April 2016, out of 91 persons whose freedom of movement had been restricted, 46 were applicants for international protection and based on decisions, it was not clear which criteria had been taken into account for individual estimation, except for a simple statement that imposing milder measures would be inefficient. During its visit to RFAS in Zagreb and Kutina, NPM established that no decision imposing a measure milder than detention had been reached within that same year. However, judging by the number of cases of freedom of movement restriction registered in the second part of the year and seven decisions obliging applicants to report to the Registration Centre at a specified time, it may be concluded that things have started to change. 42