The impact on witnesses, accomplices or cover-ups is one of the most common grounds for detention. For years and decades, these provisions did not change because they were considered clear and unambiguous. However, there are situations in which this basis can be questionable when deciding on determining, extending or abolishing the detention of the accused. For example, what good is it that a defendant who is in custody cannot influence witnesses, when his family, friends, lawyers, etc. can do so. The epilogue is the same, which is that the impact on witnesses, accomplices or cover-ups still exists, but not by the defendant, but by the above persons, which essentially discourages the defendant from being in custody. Seemingly indisputable legal provisions on detention even though they exist for decades have their shortcomings, which are therefore subject to different interpretations and abuses. The loss of freedom, even if it is temporary, must not be a consequence of existing provisions and the facilitation of detention of persons prosecuted. After all, because of such behaviour by the courts, Serbia as a state pays millions in damages to those individuals in the name of unfounded detention. Therefore, the impact on witnesses, accomplices or concealers as grounds for determining and prolonging detention should be very restrictive. On the dilemmas and problems related to this basis, judicial practice has not been "addressed" for decades, nor has it given any significance, nor has there been any interest, finding that all provisions in Article 211 are completely acceptable and understandable to the ZKP.