The concept of bail in the Republic of Croatia is regulated by the Criminal Procedure Act, the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Bail allows a detainee to defend themselves from liberty by providing legal surety, which is a less repressive measure compared to pre-trial detention. The Croatian Constitution gives the legislature the authority to prescribe cases in which bail can be used, and the Criminal Procedure Act allows its application only in cases of flight risk. The amount of bail is determined based on the severity of the crime, the personal circumstances, and the financial status of the accused. Bail can be in the form of cash, securities, valuables, movable property, or a mortgage on real estate. The decision on bail can be appealed. Once the bail decision becomes final, pre-trial detention is lifted. Bail can cease due to forfeiture (non-compliance with conditions) or cancellation (concealment of circumstances, new reasons for pre-trial detention, conclusion of criminal proceedings). If bail ceases, the surety is returned to the depositor or goes to the state budget. Bail can also be cancelled when the conditions for pre-trial detention are not met, or the same purpose can be achieved by milder measures. The European Court of Human Rights emphasizes the importance of proportionality in decisions regarding the duration of pre-trial detention and the necessity of special diligence in proceedings against persons deprived of liberty. The ECHR has also criticized national courts for failing to consider milder measures instead of pre-trial detention, as was the case in Dervishi v. Croatia. The ECHR found a violation of Article 5 §3 of the Convention due to a lack of progress in the proceedings and the domestic authorities' unwillingness to consider alternative measures, such as precautionary measures. A similar conclusion was reiterated in Dragin v. Croatia, where national courts used stereotypical reasons for extending detention without a concrete analysis of the specific circumstances of the case. However, the practice of national courts has shown improvement, and some decisions are in line with high legal standards. The publication of detailed judgments and the education of judicial officials would allow better analysis and critique of judicial practices, potentially leading to further improvements.