Report on the Performance of the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019 criminal offences, despite the CPA stipulating that a report of a crime must be submitted to the competent state's attorney, and if submitted to the police, it is to be forwarded to the SA immediately upon receipt. In addition, the Protocol on the cooperation between the police and the State Attorney's Office during preliminary and criminal proceedings (Protocol) stipulates that, if a relevant police organisational unit has received report of a criminal offence that is prosecuted ex officio, or a request to prosecute, it will immediately convey them to the relevant state's attorney, and if the police have started conducting an investigation, after learning about the crime committed, it needs to notify the state's attorney that same day or the day after. If this is not done, the state's attorney cannot monitor how the investigation is carried out, or instruct the police to take the actions or measures that they deem to be necessary. Citizens' complaints also concerned the inefficiency of police investigations, that is, omissions to find out the perpetrators of criminal offences in line with the measures defined by the CPA. A complainant residing in Sarajevo twice requested from the commander of a border police station (BPS) that his rights be protected, and on the third attempt, also addressed his complaint to the Ombudswoman, as the police officers' behaviour led him to conclude that he will not be able to realise his need for legal interests. Namely, in his complaints, he pointed out that during his absence from his vacation house in RC, his things were deliberately damaged and looted. Acting on the complaints, the police officers formally exercised some of their powers as defined by the Act on Police Tasks and Authorities (APTA), without establishing whether there have been acts constituting criminal or misdemeanour offences at first. However, the relevant CPA’s procedure to ascertain the legality of police conduct and use of police authority has established that there have been mistakes, 16 as the police officers in question made facile conclusions, without interviewing all the persons singled out in the proceedings, while additional police actions resulted in identifying of the real perpetrators; therefore, a special report was submitted to the state's attorney. In this respect, we used a recommendation to highlight the importance of consistence in enforcing the CPA, which prescribes the police force's rights and duties in finding and identifying perpetrators. We also received a complaint from a journalist and commentator who was identified by police officers at her workplace, with the explanation that they are doing so at the request of the neighbouring PD, in relation to a request by a private individual's lawyer – actions she considered constituted intimidation of her as a journalist pursuing her work. Having analysed the Director General's report on the legal basis and causes for the action undertaken by the police, we established that there was another legal means for the potential private plaintiff (personally or through a legal representative) to gather data on the person he believed violated his rights. In addition, it was also established that the police use different criteria and proceeds unevenly in comparable situations. In this case specifically, they checked the journalist's identity so that her personal information could be handed over to the private individual's representative before charges were filed, while in another case, in which we also acted on a complaint, the police linked handing over of personal information to the filing of charges in the relevant case and to the request issued by the court. In the case in hand, in line with the CPA, the potential private plaintiff could have filed a private lawsuit before the criminal court, which would preliminarily examine whether there was enough evidence to confirm