Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 conduct, which certainly constitutes the violation of the Constitution, ECHR and AA, as well as other international and national regulations governing deprivation of liberty. The order of the General Police Directorate from 15 February 2017 introduced a new treatment of irregular migrants apprehended within the territory, which ordered all police administrations to escort irregular migrants to a police administration at the external border with a prior written announcement, regardless of the place at which they were apprehended. The police administration at the external border was then competent to define all the circumstances of their entry and stay. However, if the police administration that apprehended irregular migrants within its territory assessed that the escort to a police administration at the external border would not be useful for strengthening the external border control measures, it could conduct the procedure in accordance to the FA on its own. From 15 February to 24 November 2017 (unfortunately the MoI did not provide us with full data for 2017), following the aforementioned order, the Tovarnik Police Station carried out the so-called summary procedure on 1,116 persons and issued return decision to all of them, and Bajakovo border crossing to 1,473 persons. Following the order, all case files included the printed form no. 6 (Declaration of Identity), foreigner's photograph, return decision on form no. 11, signed delivery note and official record. A copy of the official record was also submitted to the police officers at Tovarnik Police Station with the following statements: “the foreigner has no visible injuries and has not complained about his/her health“, “it was determined that s/he speaks Arabic/Pashto and can communicate in English, an interpreter for this language was contacted but was unable to report to the Tovarnik Police Station, therefore an interview in English was conducted with the help of Google Translate, and during the entire procedure the foreigner did not express an intention to apply for international protection“. Each reviewed file of the so-called summary procedure had an official record almost identical to the one above. After such procedure, in which everything is assumed beforehand and an interpreter is not even contacted, a decision on voluntary return is issued, with a deadline by which the foreigner has to leave the RC, i.e. the EEA. Issuing a return decision in such circumstances does not allow irregular migrants to present all the circumstances important for issuing the decision, in due time and with an interpreter, in accordance with Article 30 of the APA. This also constitutes the violation of Article 7 of the APA, which refers to providing help to an illiterate party, or the recommendations from the trainings organized by the MoI on the treatment of migrants. The review of the files found that, in the majority of them, the procedure was carried out on multiple persons, even 50 at once. Return decisions were issued, and the actions taken were described in a very short official record, which, besides the statements from the above given sample, also contained their names and a couple of sentences about how they crossed the border. Moreover, such very short official records on the implemented procedures were also made in cases of groups with unaccompanied children. They evidently show that social welfare centres or special guardians were not contacted, children were not taken to a mandatory medical examination, and it is especially not evident how family relationships within the group were established. It is therefore assumed that this was also defined only on the basis of the statement of an older group member, which again brings into question the 41