deciding upon complaints by second-instance authorities. In these cases, the Protector of Citizens initiated procedures “because of the silence of the administration” and the MoI after that efficiently decided upon complaints, which removed the omissions in operation. The Protector of Citizens believes that in 2019 the decision making on the request for entrance into citizenship of the Republic of Serbia was accelerated and that the operation of the Administration for administrative affairs of the MoI (hereinafter: AAA) was improved compared to previous years. Furthermore, the Protector of Citizens emphasizes that the AAA, having initiated the oversight procedure of the Protector of Citizens efficiently removed the omissions in operation, which resulted in the termination of the procedure by suspension to the complainants’ content. However, it is necessary to highlight that there is still a serious backlog in the operation with regards to requests for entrance into citizenship. For instance, the Protector of Citizens recently initiated the procedure due to failure to make decision on the request for the entrance into citizenship from 2010. In 2019 the Law on Travel Documents154 was amended, so the effects of the application still cannot be analyzed. During 2019, the Protector of Citizens received a certain number of complaints of foreign citizens, in which the decisions of the border police station were made about the prohibition of entrance into the Republic of Serbia to them. Having performed the insight into the complaints, the Protector of Citizens concluded that the Border Police Directorate acted in accordance with the Law on Foreigners so these foreign citizens in writing (by decision) were prohibited from entering the state. Foreign citizens were entitled to the use of regular legal remedy of complaint to the decisions they received. The Protector of Citizens did not confirm the improvement of complaint procedure at the MoI in comparison to the previous year. It was concluded that complaint procedures are implemented pursuant to the Law on Police and Rulebook on the Manner of Actions During the Complaint Procedure but that in responses issued by the MoI to complainants to the operation of police officers most frequently the actions taken with regards to the complaint are not stated and the facts of importance on decision making on its justification are not presented. The Protector of Citizens believes that in the complaint procedure in material sense occasionally there are deviations with regards to the rules of profession and principles of good administration, which is aimed at the avoidance of protentional disciplinary responsibility of police officers. The MoI on several occasions suggested that it is in the interest of citizens, police officers and Ministry itself that the complaint procedures are implemented in compliance with the law, without the existence of doubt about their process or outcome. It is necessary that the MoI develops and strengthens internal mechanisms of control of its operation in first-instance and second-instance procedure (when it comes to the regular complaint procedure) as well as to improve actions in expedited complaint procedure (when pursuant to the law the complainant is prevented from participating in the procedure). Even though in the previous period the Law on Police155 was amended and the Law on Records and Data Procession in the Field of Internal Affairs156 was passed, the Protector of Citizens believes that the application of the stated laws did not improve the operation of the MoI in 2019. “Official Gazette of RS“, no. 90/07, 116/08, 104/09, 76/10, 62/14, 81/19. Law on Amendments to the Law on Police, “Official Gazette of RS“, no. 24/18 and Law on Amendments to the Law on Police, “Official Gazette of RS“, no. 87/18. 156 “Official Gazette of RS“, no. 24/18. 154 155 - 86 -