Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2016 recommendation was accepted, the room was adjusted and conditions therein aligned with international and legal standards. Not all penal institutions dispose of premises for unsupervised conjugal visits (or visits of common-law partners), which is also a reason for which they file complaints, emphasizing that this additionally threatens relationships with their partners. Even though pursuant to EPSA visits of that nature constitute a benefit rather than a right, those detained in prisons in Karlovac, Dubrovnik, Sisak, Split, Varaždin and Zadar, which are not equipped with such premises, are in a less advantageous position than those detained in prisons that do have such premises. The position of prisoners on remand, who have been completely deprived of the possibility to receive such visits, is even more difficult. Hence, persons who have not yet been finally convicted and who are detained under presumption of innocence, are in a less favourable position than those who have already been convicted and whose guilt has been proven. At the same time, one should bear in mind ECHR’s position in the case Varnas v. Lithuania (2013), according to which general differences in the treatment of prisoners on remand and other prisoners, when it comes to the possibility of receiving unsupervised conjugal visits, are not justified. As a result, the Court established that Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated. Consequently, prisoners on remand should also be provided with the possibility of receiving unsupervised conjugal visits or visits of their common-law partners. In addition, prisoners complain about very few opportunities in the domain of their employment engagement, which renders those who are poorer and who cannot find employment, more dependent on financial assistance by family members or one-off benefits received from the Social Welfare Centre. Insulting, belittling and misuse of powers when applying means of coercion, are still among the most common reasons for filing complaints against treatment by security officers; in addition, in 2016, we acted on complaints in which prisoners point to possible inhuman or degrading treatment. Conversely, according to data provided by the Central Office of the Prison System Directorate (COPSD), throughout the year, prison system did not receive a single complaint that would pertain to torture, inhuman or degrading Complaints about treatment by judicial treatment, which points either to inability to police officers, submitted by prisoners to detect or tendency to trivialize modes of heads of penal institutions, especially behaviour that may represent violation of ECHR those pertaining to verbal abuse, are Article 3. still being insufficiently investigated, Complaints about treatment by judicial police which is unacceptable and contrary to officers, submitted by prisoners to heads of penal CAT recommendation. institutions, especially those pertaining to verbal abuse, are still being insufficiently investigated, which is unacceptable and contrary to the recommendation that the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) addressed to the Republic of Croatia in 2014. For example, according to information available, as for the prisoner who had his ribs broken and whose lung was punctured, COPSD carried out inspection supervision two 9