Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 During our visits of penal institutions, prisoners complained of unclear or trivial reasons for use of means of coercion. For instance, one of them stated that a mace spray with allowed harmless substances was used against him because he opposed the judicial policeman when asked to put the cigarettes in the glove compartment before being brought to the courtroom. He also added that some judicial policemen had previously allowed him to take cigarettes with him to the court and that, as a rule, he had done that. Although the fact that prisoners are requested to obey legitimate order by an authorized official should not be brought into question, it is not clear to what degree inconsistent treatment on the part of judicial policemen affects prisoners’ behaviour. As a rule, assessment of lawfulness of use of means of coercion is still based on allegations given by judicial policemen, raising issues regarding their impartiality. For that reason, for example, the Zadar County Prison could be a role model to other prisons in that respect: in this prison, the use of means of coercion was considered unjustified due to the error on the part of a judicial policeman who had not been in the ward where two prisoners got into fight. Disciplinary proceedings against prisoners on remand Due to shortcomings of the Criminal Procedure Act, prisoners on remand are put in a more difficult position compared to prisoners serving a prison sentence. Restrictions in terms of visits and correspondence are the only type of disciplinary proceedings that may be brought before prisoners on remand, without reference to punishment or the relevant persons covered by restrictions. On the other hand, the EPSA does not lay down provisions allowing for restrictions of contact with family members. Prisoners covered by the severest form of disciplinary proceedings – solitary confinement – may thus maintain contact with family members and receive visits. Furthermore, in some cases, prisoners on remand were subject to disciplinary proceedings in terms of restrictions of correspondence, for instance in Zadar, although this type of punishment was not in line with the Croatian Criminal Procedure Act. Numerous international standards have emphasised the importance of prisoners��� contact with the outside world. For instance, the European Prison Rules state that prisoners shall be allowed such contact by way of letters, telephone or other forms of communication with their families, other persons and representatives of outside organisations and to The Criminal Procedure Act enshrines restriction of visits and correspondence as the only type of disciplinary proceedings. This puts prisoners on remand in a more unfavourable position compared to persons serving a prison sentence, who are not deprived of contact with family members, even if they are subject to solitary confinement. receive visits from these persons. Such restrictions shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact. Inconsistencies in implementation of disciplinary measures due to shortcomings of the Criminal Procedure Act put prisoners on remand in an unequal position between themselves. For example, during a visit to the Karlovac County Court, we noticed that some judges implement disciplinary proceedings and hear prisoners on remand and witnesses, whereas others make decisions on the basis of written statements submitted to them with the report of a disciplinary breach. Some judges disregard suggestions of the heads of prison altogether. In order to prevent these inconsistencies, the Article 140 15