TABLE OF CONTENTS Opening Remarks from the Ombudsperson CHAPTER 1 Legal and institutional framework CHAPTER 2 Following up on and implementation of the Assembly resolution on the evaluation of the Ombudsperson activity in 2017 CHAPTER 3 Assessment of the public administration in regard to upholding human rights 3.1 Rights of persons deprived of freedom 3.2 Upholding human rights in State Police structures 3.3 Preventing violence and torture 3.4 Upholding human rights in the Prosecution offices 3.5 Right to a due process of law 3.6 Free legal aid 3.7. Execution of civil and administrative court decisions 3.8 Upholding the right to property 3.9. Child protection and rights 3.10 Upholding the right to health care 3.11 Upholding the right to education 3.12 Upholding the freedom of speech 3.13 Upholding the right to social care 3.14. Upholding the rights of people with disabilities 3.15. Gender equality and upholding the rights of the LGBTI community 3.16. Upholding the rights of the elderly 3.17 Upholding the rights of minorities 3.18. Upholding rights in the social insurance domain CHAPTER 4 Other institutional engagements 4.1 Special report on “Astir” 4.2 Freedom of assembly 4.3 Steps taken by the Ombudsperson in identifying damages caused by the 26 November 2019 earthquake and measures taken by relevant institutions to address them 1 4.4 Acting in the quality of observer during the draw for the selection of the Justice Appointments Council members and in the quality of participant in the meetings and activities of this Council 4.5. Monitoring certain aspects of the transitional re-evaluation of judges and prosecutors process in the Republic of Albania 4.6. Synthesis report on child rights protection 4.7. Monitoring report on disbursement of economic assistance and the upholding of disabled persons rights. 4.9 Annual conference CHAPTER 5 Cooperation 5.1 Cooperation with the Public Administration Institutions and level OP recommendations implementation 5.2 Cooperation with civil society 5.3 International cooperation 5.4 Cooperation with projects CHAPTER 6 Support services 6.1 Human and Administrative Resources Management 6.2 Overview of revenue and expenditures 6.3 Regional offices operation CHAPTER 7 Figures and facts related to complaints and complaint review 7.1 Number of complaints, requests and notices reviewed 7.2 Cases carried over from previous years 2 Opening Remarks from the Ombudsperson The report you are reading today summarizes the annual work of the largest human rights institution in Albania. Above all, the report is a testimonial of the citizen trust in this institution, as during the year a slew of complaints related to the dissatisfaction of our citizens with public institutions have been submitted to the Ombudsperson. We have learned much from these complaints. We have learned that our institutions still have a long way to go to fully uphold human rights. Also, these complaints provide accurate information on the level of our citizens’ freedom of expression. A citizen that complains is a free citizen. A person who is not afraid to state their dissatisfaction and holds the institutions of his/her state accountable, is a citizen the exercises the attributes of the freedom of expression. The freedom to complain is a form of freedom of expression. In itself freedom of expression implicates two preconditions. The first is that there should be a possibility to express oneself, and the second is that this expression should be manifested freely. There can be neither freedom, nor expression if one of these two elements is absent. Without freedom there cannot be true expression and at the same time there cannot be the expression of one’s mind without freedom. Throughout history a wrong perception that dictatorships hate freedom and therefore restrict expression has existed. However, freedom is in itself a tool, a means that enables the articulation of dissatisfaction. Autocracy hates the expression of dissatisfaction and that is why it restricts freedom with the final goal of not allowing the expression of dissatisfaction. In autocracy no one must be dissatisfied. Even if there are, they should not have the freedom to express their dissatisfaction. For this reason, in the democracy we are striving to build, we must always keep an eye on any tendency of any power to restrict the freedom of anyone and to devalue rights, making them part of a populist rhetoric to keep any construction discussion of our concerns at bay! These are nothing but their first steps to undo the freedom of expression, which allows anyone to express dissatisfaction with any power in democracy. The strength of democracies stands not in the silencing critical voices, but in fundamentally addressing with reason the opinion of others, which could be different from ours. Freedom of expression is fragile in fragile democracies like ours and that is why our efforts to safeguard them must be that much greater. 3 CHAPTER 1 Legal and institutional framework In a democracy, the very important principle of division of powers and checks and balances mainly aims at avoiding the risk of power concentration into the hand of one entity or specific persons, which inherently carries the risk of abuse of power. For this reason, even though state power in its entirety is one and undivided, within it there are a series of mutual intertwining relations that the Constitution provides between the given segments of the state. At the core of this principle then, stands the idea that the three central level powers should not only be exercised independently, but also in a balanced manner. In this regard, the Constitution provides also for the establishment of other central level institutions taking a neutral or in-between position, and the role and position of which is highly important for the functioning of a democratic state and the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms of the citizens. These important bodies exercising their constitutional functions enjoy independence that is guaranteed by specific provisions of the Constitution. The constitutional provisions regulate to care to best protect and ensure the independence of constitutional bodies and institutions, especially from the potential influence or intervention of politics or the executive, which could threaten their activity in the framework of the relevant constitutional functions. One of the components of democracy is good governance that implies good administration. Democracy goes beyond elections. It includes daily governance practices. There cannot be good governance when the public administration fails to uphold human rights. The right to better administration is part of citizen rights. So is any decision making by the state administration and legislators with an approach and from a perspective of human rights1. Institutions established to protect human rights are relevant state building stakeholders in democratic systems. Both in exercising its traditional and broader mandate as one of these institutions, the Ombudsperson plays an irreplaceable role, being first and foremost an indicator of the level of maturity in the political class and of the mentality of the society creating it. The Institution of the Ombudsperson, pursuant to the national legislation (Constitution and Law No. 8454, dated 04.02.1999 “On the Ombudsperson”, as amended) and the international law (especially the Principles of Paris and the principles of the Venice Commission), has been provided with a broad mandate as the highest level national institution for the promotion, violation prevention and protection of human rights, also based on international standards. This mandate is translated in the jurisdiction and the competences of the institution provided in the Constitution, the law “On the Ombudsperson” and in other duties provided by specific laws. 1The now well-known principle of the “human rights approach” 4 The Ombudsperson is increasingly becoming not only an institution with a voice but also one that is critical for the protection of citizen rights and the stimulation of government bodies' accountability. It is ever more stressing the exercise of its mandate as a front line for the protection of citizen rights and to stimulate government body accountability. This has become more evident considering the need for an open and accountable government. Citizen requests to have the Ombudsperson intervene or take an institutional position related to high public interest issues are continuously on the rise. This is a responsibility that we try to meet and realize at all time, regardless of the very limited capacities available. It is the constitutional competence of the Ombudsperson in the framework of its functions to make the public administration more sensitive and responsible to the requests for justice and confidence. In other words, in cooperation with public officials at the central and local level, the Ombudsperson enjoys the right and the obligation to strive to create a democratic culture of high human rights and freedoms standards in the country. The General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted Resolution 48/134, dated 20.12.1993 providing standards that member states should implement to guarantee an effective Human Rights protection system. This resolution, widely known as the Paris Principles, is the document providing standards for the functioning of National Institutions to Promote and Protect Human Rights. In order for National Human Rights Institutions to be conceptualized and act in line with these principles and to act as guiding institutions in promoting and protecting Human Rights, they are subjected to accreditation which is conducted every 4 years. This process is conducted by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) which operates as an independent organization with the support of the United Nations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations in Geneva acts as a secretariat for the accreditation process.