Report on the Performance of the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019 the garage until the criminal investigations were concluded, in order to shelter them from unfavourable weather conditions even though the accommodation conditions there were unsatisfactory; furthermore, that water, food and use of a toilet were made available to all the persons involved, that they were not physically or psychologically abused during the process, and that their overall stay at the station lasted no more than a few hours. However, in the course of our investigation, having directly inspected the case-files and the secondary records, we established that the two groups mentioned were not the only larger migrant groups processed at the BPS during 2019, yet we were unable to establish the reasons and criteria for detaining some, and not others, at the garage. In addition, it could not be ascertained when and for how long these two groups, which included children, were in the yard, the garage, or elsewhere on the station premises. Also, the custody units, which did meet the prescribed conditions, were demolished in February and new ones, repurposed from the garage space, were completed in July. Thus, the BPS, which is responsible for a part of the border with BH where migrants often move, and which often deals with migrants, even larger groups, was left without an adequate space to accommodate them other than the yard and the garage, holding persons in which is a breach of Art. 3 of the ECHR, that is, degrading treatment, as it violates human dignity and causes feelings of fear, suffering and subordination (M.M. v RC (2015)). In addition, in view of the concept of deprivation of liberty in line with Art. 5, para. 1 of the ECHR, and Art. 4, para 2. of OPCAT, there was a failure to record when the persons were brought into the BPS, and why between six and ten hours elapsed between their discovery and their arrest, that is, why they were not arrested as soon as circumstances allowed, which is necessary in order to establish the duration of the deprivation of liberty. Moreover, a direct inspection of the secondary 26 records and cases has established that these groups were there over a longer period, rather than just a few hours, as the written answer had stated. Allegations of illegal treatment of migrants, both from CSOs and international NGOs reports, as well as from the complaints received, correspond with the allegations contained in a complaint sent to the Ombudswoman by a police officer from a border police station, which he submitted anonymously, due to fear of negative consequences for his family and work. He describes a command by senior police officers to take actions against irregular migrants, that is, alleges that based on an order by the commanding officer of the BPS and the "executives and management", police officers were instructed to return all refugees and migrants into BH territory, "no papers, no processing" so as to leave no trace, to take their money, break their mobile phones and throw them into the river, or keep them for themselves. In addition, his appeal to stop such behaviour is worrying, as he states that the situation in reality is even worse than what the Ombudswoman stressed in her public statements, but that he cannot do anything out of fear of getting dismissed, as he would not be able to feed his family.