EXPERIENCES OF OFFICIALS: As already said, the interviews were conducted with 10 officials who work with clients and apply the rules of administrative procedure. Five of them are employed in local self-government bodies, four in social welfare centres and one in the police. Nine of ten officials said that their authorities obtained evidence ex officio, and only one official said that in case of exercising the right to social assistance and only when submitting the first request, the beneficiaries obtained evidence by themselves, and later, at the time of review, the authority did it. She also stressed that her authority had acted like that even before the entry into force of new Law on General Administrative Procedure, while another official said that her authority (also SWC) had obtained evidence earlier in the procedures conducted by her, since those were the sensitive cases of violating the fundamental rights of the child. The officials were asked also how long it took to receive data and evidence from other authorities, and they answered that it usually took about 15 days (this was the response of 4 officials) or 10-15 days (response of 3 officials). Two officials answered that the requested evidence was provided even faster (within 7 days and between 7 and 10 days) and one official said that it took 30 days to receive evidence. Asked whether they managed to provide other authorities with evidence within the legal deadline of 15 days, all officials responded that they managed. All in all, these data differ significantly from the experiences of beneficiaries who were usually informed that they had to wait between one and six months. As regards the way of exchanging evidence between the authorities, it is done mainly through regular mail: five authorities request evidence from other authorities only in that way, one authority usually uses regular mail, while three authorities use both regular and electronic mail. Only one official says that they usually use e-mail. Asked to assess the provisions of the new law and point to possible obstacles that hinder their implementation, some officials mentioned technical problems and poor equipment that hinders communication. Two officials stressed as particular problem the fact that not all registry books were converted into electronic form, and one official said that the implementation of the new law and obtaining of data would be much easier in case of having a single database or the system to which all officials could access, instead of using regular mail for all information. Some of them also stated that a biometric ID card should be sufficient evidence of the status and identity of a person, and that other evidence was unnecessary. One official remarked that changes on personal status of citizens were not regularly updated in electronic registry books and for that reasons the documents with inaccurate data were issued. Two officials pointed that their authorities encountered particularly big problems with obtaining documents from individual registry offices administering the registry books for Kosovo municipalities, while another official said that the documents issued by these registry offices very often contained errors. However, the officials most often mentioned the problem of being overloaded and getting additional responsibilities. FREE LEGAL AID Legally invisible persons and persons at risk of statelessness certainly can be considered the most vulnerable people in Serbia. Almost without exception, these are the members of the Roma minority, whose situation is usually characterised by social marginalisation, discrimination, low educational levels, poverty and various other forms of deprivation. But 26