However, the officials who did accept to obtain evidence often said to the beneficiaries that they would be waiting for documents for a long time, suggesting that it was better for them to do it by themselves. Thus the beneficiaries were warned that they would be waiting at least for one or two months, and in some cases even five or six months. Since the law prescribes that the authority conducting the procedure shall promptly request data from another authority and that another authority shall provide the requested data within 15 days35, we can reasonably question whether the authorities, by suggesting a much longer deadline for obtaining evidence than prescribed, are actually trying to avoid their obligation and deter citizens from insisting on the obtaining evidence by the authorities. In several cases the officials went so far in their unlawful actions that they were informing the beneficiaries that obtaining evidence ex officio required so much time that the deadline for exercising the right would expire (for example for determining the child’s name or the right to social assistance). In some cases the beneficiaries were placed even in a worse position: some social welfare centres to which they submitted requests drew up a record including the beneficiary’s statement saying, among other things, that the submitter of request was familiar with the fact that he or she needed to obtain evidence and accepted to do so within the specified deadline (7, 20 or 30 days). It is also stated that the beneficiary “has been informed about the legal consequence of missing the deadline" or that the “request will be rejected" if the evidence is not provided within the specified deadline. It happened even more often that the beneficiaries were provided with a list of documents they had to obtain by themselves (usually between 10 and 20 documents). For all the aforesaid, the beneficiaries often accepted to obtain documents by themselves. “We have to do it, that’s it. We have to hurry up or we’ll not succeed in anything”, said one Praxis’ beneficiary, who was threatened in the social welfare centre that she would be waiting for six month for the issuance of decision on social assistance if she did not obtain evidence by herself. The interviews with the beneficiaries have revealed that it was very important for them to be on good terms with the officials, because they are afraid of the possibility of losing the right they want to exercise before that authority. Also, it seems that many Praxis’ beneficiaries are so accustomed to obtain all documents by themselves and to be referred from one authority to another to obtain evidence that it is now difficult to explain to them that the authorities are obliged to obtain all the documents. When we asked one Praxis beneficiary why she did not go to submit a request for an ID card (after we had previously explained to her that she did not have to bring birth and citizenship certificates to the police station), she replied: "Yes, but it’s crowded there and they ask you to." On the other hand, the persons for whom the authorities obtained evidence without problems were satisfied: "It’s OK, you don’t have to rush, to bother, to pay for public transport". However, as noted above, there are twice as many of those who are dissatisfied than those who are satisfied. Even five months after the beginning of the implementation of the Law, Praxis still has the beneficiaries, on a daily basis, who were instructed by different authorities to obtain evidence by themselves. Based on their experiences, we can conclude that in the first several months the Law was implemented with many problems and that in a large number of cases the officials violated their duties. On the other hand, it is interesting, though not unexpected, that the implementation of the Law looks completely different from the aspect of the officials who are supposed to obtain evidence. 35 Article 103, paragraph 2 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette of RS, no. 18/2016 25