Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 entered into records, especially when applying means of coercion, as indicated in our previous reports. We have warned the COPSPD against irregularities and inconsistencies in terms of collecting information about implementation of special measures because they were extremely important for evaluation of treatment of persons deprived of liberty and respect of their rights. Despite the decrease in the total number of implemented measures, the severest special measure isolation - was implemented in 19 cases, which represents a 73% increase compared to 2016. In the majority of cases (15 out of 19) it was implemented in the Lepoglava State Prison that, in accordance with the Framework Measures for Referral and Categorization of Prisoners for Execution of Prison Sentence, accommodates high risk prisoners and recidivists. Although the EPSA lays down a provision according to which implementation of a measure shall be suspended if reasons for which it was adopted no longer apply, isolation is mostly implemented for the maximum period of three months. This shows that the need for its implementation is not considered frequently enough or in detail. Furthermore, medical supervision of the isolation measure is still not being carried out in line with the EPSA that stipulates medical checks of prisoners in isolation twice a week. For instance, during the visit to the Lepoglava State Prison, we found out that the isolated prisoner had not undergone a medical check for two months – such a practice is unacceptable bearing in mind potentially detrimental effects on his mental health. In addition, it is not clear how a head of prison can fulfil his obligation to propose suspension of the isolation measure to the executing judge on the basis of a medical opinion if prisoners covered by the measure are not subject to a medical check for two months. Also, the time span between the incident that brought to implementation of the measure and the beginning of the implementation is rather problematic. For example, the prisoner in isolation during the visit to the Lepoglava State Prison said that he had gone into a fight with another prisoner and due to that incident, isolation measure had been proposed, the implementation of which lasted for a month. After the implementation had ended, he was referred to the ward under increased security supervision. One month after the incident had broken out, the State Prison was issued with a decision by the executing judge requiring isolation, but since no free rooms were available in the relevant ward at the time, the implementation began two months later. In the meanwhile, a statute of limitation was enacted for the disciplinary proceedings brought before the prisoner. This brings into question the necessity and, consequently, lawfulness of this measure. One can get the impression that this was not the case of a special measure for maintenance of order and security but rather a punishment for disciplinary breach. The fact that less severe special measures had successfully been implemented between the incident and the implementation of the measure since he had not posed a threat to order and security, illustrates this fact. Inconsistencies in terms of giving orders and implementation of special measures, as indicated in our previous reports, still represent a problem. For example, unlike the Lepoglava and Glina State Prisons, the Zadar County Prison does not submit written decisions on isolation of prisoners. In other penal institutions, e.g. the Požega State and County Prison, decisions are Inconsistencies not prevail even formally when it adopted. comes to 13 The most severe special measure isolation - was implemented in 19 cases, which represents a 73% increase compared to 2016.