• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Austrian Ombudsman Board Annual Report 2018 on the activities of the Austrian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) Protection & Promotion of Human Rights Preface This report documents the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) in 2018. More than 500 monitoring visits were carried out, most of them in public and private institutions and facilities where the freedom of individuals is restricted. The responsible ministries, supervisory authorities and the affected institutions and facilities were informed about the results of the visits in detail. The NPM also strongly advocated in the year under review that the identified deficits should be rectified as quickly as possible. A large number of presentations and information events were held with the goal of raising public awareness and placing the protection of human rights on a broad basis. International cooperation was further intensified above and beyond these nationwide activities. All of these measures have a common objective: they serve to protect persons from being treated in an inhuman or degrading manner. Human dignity is at considerable risk in places where persons’ liberty is deprived in particular, such as in correctional institutions, police detention centres or retirement and nursing homes. Persons living in such places have little chance to be heard, as they have only limited contact to the outside world. To a large extent, they are at the mercy of the staff of the respective institution or facility or they are, at least, in a dependent position. This inevitably leads to precarious situations. The essence of the preventive mandate is to detect these risks as early as possible and to help in avoiding maladministration before it occurs. The regular and mostly unannounced monitoring visits play a central role here. They are considered a particularly effective mechanism in preventing violation of human rights. All visits are made on the basis of the monitoring methodology developed by the NPM and according to harmonised standards. Special attention is paid to identifying risks. In this way, it is possible to answer the question as to which preventive measures are necessary to avert the violation of human rights or, at least, to render such violations less likely. The information gathered and observations made by the commissions are documented in comprehensive visit reports; a total of 3,134 have been drafted since 2012. The NPM has been collecting recommendations that summarise the results of the reports of the commissions since the very beginning. A total of 179 new recommendations were formulated alone in the year under review 2018. These recommendations are designed to provide orientation to the institutions and the staff working there, on which human rights standards have to be guaranteed. To this end, it is necessary to increase the awareness of all those involved for what treating persons with human dignity entails. The individual activities of the NPM are strategically aligned to interact with one another and be able to trigger a change process in the institutions and facilities, with those responsible and in society. The promotion of human rights protection is a time- consuming process. This is evident from the fact that many deficits are still observed on the monitoring visits, which was the case in 82% of the visits in 2018. The most serious and frequent deficits are covered in detail in this volume. They should not be trivialised as isolated incidents, as, in most cases, they are symptomatic for the system in which the institutions and facilities operate. This report also documents many positive developments and improvements that could be achieved. Seven years after the NPM has been granted the human rights mandate, it can be safely said that the interaction between the NPM and the institutions and facilities that it monitors has improved considerably. One indication for this is that the recommendations of the commissions are more frequently received as helpful feedback from the outside and suggestions for improvement are quickly adopted. This is attributable not only to the professionalization of the work, but also to the higher awareness level of the NPM. The preventive work also profits from the long-standing commitment to an international network. The exchange of information with similar organisations facilitates continued development and alignment with international experience, which also benefits the Austrian institutions. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the commissions for their commitment, and the Human Rights Advisory Council for their advisory support. We would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to all of our staff who make an enormous contribution to protecting human rights in Austria in their day-to-day work. This report will also be sent to the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). Günther Kräuter Gertrude Brinek Peter Fichtenbauer Vienna, June 2019 Introduction This volume provides a summary of the work of the AOB and its commissions in 2018. Since it has been granted the OPCAT mandate, the Austrian NPM conducts about 500 monitoring visits every year; 520 were carried out in the year under review. Due to the large number of visits conducted it is not possible to report the results of the monitoring in detail. This volume thus concentrates on the key statements and on the priorities set in 2018. Some of the depicted cases of maladministration were already the subject of previous reports. These were deliberately included once again, as this report serves to draw public attention to the deficits and to expedite reform processes. Realistically speaking, it can be assumed that where deficits are systemic in particular, the reforms require a certain lead time despite the considerable efforts made on the part of the NPM. This volume is divided into three sections: a summary of the overall activities of the NPM is depicted in chapter 1. The preventive mandate of the NPM described at the beginning sets the relevant framework. Details on the organisation of the NPM, the personnel situation and the budget follow. The nature and scope of the monitoring work is broken down into detail using statistics. Information is provided on how many visits were conducted in which institutions and facilities, how these were distributed across the individual Laender and in how many cases shortcomings in the human rights situation were identified. The relevant areas subject to criticism are also indicated. The final section presents the international activities which are now established thanks to numerous NPM networks and guarantee both an ongoing sharing of experience and an approach which is as standardised as possible. The observations of the commissions and results of the investigations are covered in detail in chapter 2. The focus is on conditions that are seen critical from a human rights point of view and which indicate systemic deficits. In accordance with the preventive approach set forth in the mandate, these are deficits that can result in the violation of human rights. The discussion of the individual problem areas is followed by concrete recommendations by the NPM. Outside of the scope of systemic deficits, isolated cases are documented, where particularly critical situations were observed. The work of the NPM is very solution-oriented. In concrete terms, this means that the work of the NPM is not only comprised of conducting visits. After the visits, contact is made and negotiations are held with the responsible supervisory authorities and the affected institutions and facilities with the aim of effecting improvement. The Report also takes account of this by making reference to the reactions of those responsible and highlighting positive developments. All of the recommendations made by the NPM since it has been granted the mandate are listed in the last chapter. They are structured according to the type of facility and focus of content. The recommendations should be seen as a kind of instruction manual for safeguarding guarantees covered by human rights. They are designed to make a contribution to preventively averting violations of human rights. 4 1. Overview of the National Preventive Mechanism 1.1. Mandate The Act on the Implementation of the OPCAT (OPCAT-Durchführungsgesetz – Federal Law Gazette 1/2012) was enacted in Austria in order to conform to the stipulations set down by OPCAT. With the coming into force of the same on 1 July 2012, the NPM, which was set up at the same time, and its six commissions took up their work. The commissions visit places where liberty is deprived, observe and monitor the bodies empowered to issue direct orders and carry out coercive measures, and perform the tasks set forth in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). With the OPCAT mandate, the Austrian Ombudsman Board (AOB) was upgraded to the “Human Rights House of the Republic of Austria” and has, since then, the constitutional obligatoin to work for the “protection and promotion of human rights” (Article 148a (3) of the Federal Constitutional Law – B-VG). According to the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), the construct of the Austrian NPM is unique. That the Austrian model with its relatively large number of commission members (currently 57 in total) enables highly frequent visits nationwide and a diverse range of expertise within the individual commissions is seen as an advantage. The commissions carried out 520 monitoring visits in 2018. Most of the initial visits were to institutions for persons with disabilities, retirement and nursing homes, child and youth welfare facilities and police stations. Besides, it has been possible to visit many of the classic places of detention such as correctional institutions, police stations and police detention centres since 2012. The visit reports drawn up by the commissions on their monitoring activities contain both observations and human rights assessments including derived recommendations for rectification for the AOB.

Load more

  175

Copy Link