Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 whereas, in another case, the municipal state attorney’s office took official action only after criminal charges for police violence have been brought. Conducting efficient investigation ex officio in case of clear indication of possible abuse is referred to in ECHR decisions J. L. v. Latvia (2012) and Hassan v. UK (2014). Citizens’ complaints also dealt with the methods of using means of coercion during arrest. When assessing the need for their use, it is necessary to determine whether these methods were crucial and Even though use of means of coercion represents police authority that may be applied provided that the appropriate legal conditions have been met, it is necessary to respect the dignity, honour, reputation and honour of every individual, by taking into account the ECHR decision M. and M. v. Croatia (2015) that establishes that treatment is found to be degrading if it causes fear, suffering and sense of subordination on the part of the victim, i.e. if it degrades or belittles the individual. proportional, because, in accordance with the ECHR case law, if it is deemed unjustified and excessive, they may represent inhuman and degrading treatment. For instance, arrest of a citizen on account of the alleged breach of public order by using means of coercion was carried out in a degrading manner because he had to walk down the street handcuffed. Even though use of means of coercion represents police authority that may be applied, provided that the appropriate legal conditions have been met, it is necessary to respect the dignity, reputation and honour of every individual, by taking into account the ECHR decision M. and M. v. Croatia (2015) that establishes that treatment is found to be degrading if it causes fear, suffering and sense of subordination on the part of the victim, i.e. if it degrades or belittles the individual. Use of means of coercion has to be lawful and well-founded. Also, a police officer has to report the application thereof to his superior in written, in order to make decision about its justifiability and lawfulness. Yet, in one case, use of means of coercion applied against a citizen in order to bring him in to be questioned about a criminal act was not reported at all. In addition, after gaining knowledge about the use of means of coercion, the evaluation of its justifiability and lawfulness was not carried out. Police use of means of coercion applied against persons with mental disorders in psychiatric institutions is regulated by the Act on Persons with Mental Disorders (APMA) that prescribes obligation on the part of police to treat these persons with special attention, protect their dignity and follow instructions of the healthcare staff. The complexity and the need to pay more attention to police treatment in such cases is seen in that of a person with mental disorder, against whom means of coercion had been applied and who had inflicted injuries upon herself, only to die when paramedics provided her with medical aid and transport services later on. She was handled by law enforcement officers because the law does not prescribe formation of specialized police units trained to deal with persons with mental disorders (as is the case with juvenile offenders, for instance). The need to train police officers in that area is in line with the ECHR decision Shchiborshch and Kuzmina v. Russia (2014) which states that officers need to undergo training that would make them fit to deal with persons with mental disorders. In that sense, it is necessary to take into account the order issued by the head of the General Police Directorate of 2017 calling for consistent compliance with and respect for provisions of the Act on Police Duties and 22