Report on the Performance of the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019 separated from other inmates is positive, the method of execution is worrying: the person is handcuffed to their bed, which is absolutely unacceptable, and may constitute inhuman treatment. In interviews unsupervised by prison staff, inmates on whom such measures were thus applied stated that they talked to the head of the Security Department both before and after the measures were applied, that he explained the reasons for such treatment, that they did not last long (a couple of hours), and that they could eat and go to the toilet. We have therefore concluded that such treatment was not meant to cause suffering or make it difficult to carry out the measures, but is merely the case of mistaken practice, which has resulted from, among other things, insufficient communication among prison officers, and insufficient education. The adverse effect of poor interdepartmental cooperation on inmates' rights was also observed during the visit to the Šibenik County Prison. In the evening hours, emergency services were called due to an inmate's poor psychological condition, and he was given a sedative injection. In spite of this, several hours later he tied a bedsheet to the window grilles and attempted suicide, but was stopped by the judicial policemen who were monitoring him. He was then taken to the emergency unit of the Šibenik General Hospital, from where In order to prevent self-harming, separation and restraint measures are determined cumulatively, and carried out by handcuffing the person to their bed, 10 which is absolutely unacceptable and may constitute inhuman treatment. he was released after examination, with a psychiatrist's recommendation that he be placed in the Prison hospital. Until then he should be, if necessary, under increased monitoring and "mildly restrained". When he returned to the Prison, an increased monitoring measure was issued, with a judicial policeman outside his cell at all times. As he soon started to threaten suicide again, a special measure to maintain order and security was applied – he was restrained. Thus, instead of the prisoner being kept in hospital overnight, under a doctor's supervision, and restrained if need be in line with the rules of the medical profession, which would likely be the procedure if the person in question was not deprived of their liberty, the judicial policemen were saddled with the responsibility, despite neither being educated about applying measures of restraint stipulated in the Protection of Persons with Mental Disorders Act, nor authorised to apply them. The deficiencies of the segment of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against detainees, which we have written about in previous reports, continue to generate absurd situations. In visits to penal institutions carried out so far, we have noted that bans on visits and correspondence is the only disciplinary penalty detainees could be issued with, and whose maximum duration was not stipulated, so it was not issued for periods longer than two months. However, the County Court in Sisak handed down a three-month ban on visits and a sixmonth ban on correspondence to a detainees who twice tested positive for psychoactive substances. By comparison, a prisoner who tested positive for THC was issued with a 30-day measure restricting, or temporarily denying, his access to cash. It should be emphasised that the CPA, unlike the EPSA, does not define using narcotic or psychoactive substances as a transgression. That is to say, pursuant to Art. 140, para 2, point 3 of the CPA, it is a disciplinary transgression to introduce narcotic