Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 Accommodation conditions in numerous penal institutions are not appropriate to ensure human dignity and health standards. In some cases, they can even be considered degrading. Non-compliance with spatial standards, lack of privacy when having to go to toilet, joint accommodation for both smokers and non-smokers represent only some of the problems that we have indicated in our previous report and that still remain unresolved. Although spatial adaptations require significant investment, this fact may not be used as an excuse to postpone harmonization of accommodation conditions with legal and international standards. In addition, inconsistencies still remain a challenge, as previously pointed out. Lack of clear and consistent criteria, especially in terms of deprivation and restriction of rights, puts persons deprived of liberty in an unequal position and provokes feelings of injustice and arbitrariness, that can create some negative trends. Since shortcomings in the legislative framework have a direct effect on inconsistencies in practice, it is necessary to improve and harmonize it with international standards as soon as possible. Also, in line with the EPSA, the Prison System and Probation Directorate should continuously monitor and analyse how persons deprived of liberty are being treated and take measures to harmonize practice. Although some positive trends have been observed, acting on prisoners complaints in the prison system often boils down to form only, without detailed and impartial examination of allegations. Efficiency of legal remedies is still not sufficient, and effective Lack of clear and consistent criteria, especially in terms of deprivation and restriction of rights, puts persons deprived of liberty in an unequal position and provokes feelings of injustice and arbitrariness. examination of all allegations about possible abuse is still not being carried out. This is illustrated by the fact that the Decision of the Constitutional Court U-IIIBi/369/2016 of 2017, established the breach of procedural aspects of rights guaranteed by the Articles 23 and 25 of the Constitution and the Article 3 of the ECHR. Namely, the Prison System Directorate did not reply to the complaint filed by a prisoner on remand but only forwarded it to the Zadar County Court. The Court failed to submit any feedback to the complainant or adopt a decision. Furthermore, although, in line with the case law of the Constitutional Court, access to court represents a part of a fundamental human right to fair trial, procedures launched on the basis of applications for judicial protection and complaints against decisions of heads of prison are often too lengthy, making the adopted decisions meaningless. By taking into account the fact that the efficiency of judicial protection represents a precondition for respect of prisoners’ rights and fight against impunity of crimes involving any forms of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the existing situation calls for immediate improvements. Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act from 2017 strengthening the remedies to provide judicial protection to prisoners on remand represent a positive step in that direction. Nevertheless, despite our recommendations from the previous reports, the amendments of provisions on the execution of prison on remand have again been implemented only partially. This puts prisoners on remand in a more difficult position compared to prisoners serving a prison sentence in situations when this is not necessary and this fact should be taken into consideration when drafting next amendments. 20