45 and guidelines necessary for their operations, even before the occurrence of a crisis situation for which there was a possibility to occur. The transit route of the refugees through Serbia was redirected towards Šid. As of the closure of the border with Hungary, only in ten days, the total of 49,509 refugees passed to the Republic of Croatia, which then caused destabilization of the relationships between the two countries and led to the closure of all border crossing points. Refugees entered the surrounding fields in the no-man-land between Serbian-Croatian borders and stayed there until the Croatian police officers let them enter the territory of Croatia. After that, the Agreement between the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia and the MoI of Croatia on Cross-Border Cooperation was signed. As a result of the signed Agreement, a direct line from Serbia (Šid) to Croatia (Slavonski Brod) was established for the transport of refugees. 1. Organizing of transit trough Serbia Transit of refugees through Serbia was not organized in a sufficiently efficient manner and in that process the risks of corruption and actions of informal groups were quite serious.110 Namely, refugees used to cross, on foot, the Serbian-Macedonian border using dirt roads going towards Miratovac. Certain part of that road, vulnerable categories of these persons (disabled persons, pregnant women, women with children, sick and exhausted persons) were forced to cross on their own so as to reach the vehicles that would take them to the Camp in Miratovac. Besides, despite the fact that the vans of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and of the UNHCR were transporting vulnerable categories from the camp in Miratovac to the reception Centre in Preševo, these vehicles were not able to transport all persons falling under the vulnerable category of persons. The access to the camp in Miratovac was allowed only the vans of the IOM and UNHCR, but not to the other buses that would transport refugees / migrants free of charge. As a large number of them were passing the route from Miratovac to the village of Miratovac on foot, and therefrom were transported by buses free of charge to the Reception Centre in Preševo, the NPM recommended to allow the access to the camp in Miratovac to all those vehicles that transport refugees free of charge to the Reception Centre in Preševo. From Preševo, refugees, on their own expenses, used private carrier buses, but also taxis to transport them to the Reception Centre in Adaševci, and from there to Šid, where they would embark on the train, that would take them to Croatia. The bus ticket was EUR 35 per persons, and they paid in that foreign currency, with no invoice issued. Buses were mainly overcrowded, but no inspections controlled them. 2. Accommodation and reception conditions All state authorities and non-state authorities, Commissariat for Refugees and Migrations, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Defence, international and non-governmental organizations were involved in the reception and provision for activities. Huge challenge was to establish coordination and harmonize activities of all participants.111 Due to a large inflow of people and insufficient number of the engaged staff in the reception centres, it occurred that material conditions of accommodation, particularly hygiene – sanitary conditions were very poor.112 Likewise, in order to protect persons with disability, the NPM sent the recommendation to the Reception Centre in Preševo, to ensure gradual reconstruction of rooms for an adequate accommodation of all persons.113 In line with the NPM recommendations, an adequate canopy was set in front of the Reception Centre in Preševo, so that people waiting in queue could have shelter from unfavourable weather conditions. Likewise, acting in line with the NPM recommendations, all reception centres put on a visible places house rules, translated into 110Analysis: Differences in treatment of refugees in the Balkan route, no. 71-120/15 Analysis: Differences in treatment of refugees in the Balkan route, no. 71-120/15 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 111