The Eight Annual Report

Republic of Slovenia The Eighth Annual Report, Ljubljana, June 2003 Introduction This latest Annual Report from the Human Rights Ombudsman again differs little from previous reports, since the problems and human rights violations we have identified are, for the most part, the same as in previous years: lengthy resolving of administrative and judicial matters, the slow pace of adopting laws that are important for the protection of human rights, or laws that run counter to the constitution, non-adherence to legal deadlines and the slow pace of amending the implementation of regulations, the non-implementation of valid laws and so forth. This points to the irrespon- sible behaviour of those holding authority, since they are insufficiently aware that slowness or neg- ligence in their work ultimately has a direct effect on people, increases social hardship, reduces the prospects of overcoming poverty and reduces trust in the legal safety of the country. The state and those employed in its institutions are insufficiently aware of this fact. Last year our expanded staff began more intensive monitoring of the area of children’s rights, violence (especially domestic) and the inappropriate responses of the state to these increasingly burn- ing issues, so this area is dealt with in a special supplement to this report. Otherwise the structure of the report is similar to previous ones: the first chapter sets out an assessment of the state of human rights in Slovenia, and we highlight those problems requiring particular emphasis. In this, we also call upon all those involved, and primarily those with the greatest power in society, to exer- cise greater commitment in respecting human rights. The second chapter presents a more detailed analysis of the problems in individual areas encountered by the ombudsman. The issues of personal data protection and children’s rights are also incorporated into this chapter, as they were last year. Subsequent chapters provide general information about methods of work, communication with the public, a review of financial expenditure and statistics. The report concludes with a presentation of some particularly noteworthy cases. Our desire is that this year’s annual report will be taken seriously both in the public and by state institutions, which are especially responsible for the respect of human rights. We also hope that it will contribute to an elimination of those errors, misunderstandings or conscious actions that rep- resent human rights violations, since without respect for the rights of the individual we cannot speak of a progressive, developed and democratic society where people enjoy a high quality of life. And we would undoubtedly like to achieve such a society. Matja< Han<ek, Human Rights Ombudsman Human Rights Ombudsman Annual Report 2002 3 Contents 1. ASSESSMENT OF RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL SECURITY IN THE COUNTRY . 7 2. ISSUES DEALT WITH . 15 2.1. Constitutional rights . 15 2.2. Personal data protection . 21 2.3. Restriction of personal liberty . 26 2.4. Justice . 32 2.5. Police procedures . 46 2.6. Administrative matters . 54 2.7. Environment and spatial planning . 71 2.8. Commercial public services . 75 2.9. Housing . 75 2.10. Employment and unemployment . 78 2.11. Pension and disability insurance . 80 2.12. Health insurance and health care . 84 2.13. Social security . 85 2.14. Children’s rights . .87 2.15.Other matters . .92 3. INFORMATION ON THE WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN . 95 3.1. Forms and methods of work . 95 3.2. Finances . 104 3.3. Statistics . 105 4. DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED CASES . 119 5. APPENDICES . 147 Violence against women . 147 Protection of children against sexual abuse . 154 Violence against children – the commitment to a non-violent society . 161 List of abbreviations used . 165 4 Human Rights Ombudsman Annual Report 2002 1. ASSESSMENT OF RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL SECURITY IN THE COUNTRY Forming an assessment of the state of human rights merely on the basis of complaints received by the Human Rights Ombudsman could be misleading. Whether an individual whose rights are sus- pected to have been violated approaches the ombudsman, depends on many factors. It depends primarily on whether individuals are sufficiently acquainted with their rights and whom to approach if these rights have been violated. Here they must at least partly trust the system: they must believe that their complaint will exert an influence for change. So the society must reach a certain level of development for the work of the Human Rights Ombudsman to have any purpose. In monitoring the complaints received by the Human Rights Ombudsman we have observed that some groups of people almost never approach the ombudsman; these are primarily marginalised people (children, Roma, refugees), and the reason for this is probably their insufficient familiarity with human rights. So this assessment of the state of human rights in Slovenia is composed not only of an analysis con- structed from individual complaints, but also of other information that the ombudsman has obtained in various ways: by monitoring the media, in conversations with individuals, with representatives of various groups of people, non-governmental organisations and also from talks with the representatives of authority and state institutions. The assessment is also fleshed out by the attitude held by these institutions towards the complaints and demands of the Human Rights Ombudsman. For there to be a minimum of violations, requires the greatest possible awareness of them – both on the part of individuals whose rights may have been violated, and of those causing the violations. For this reason the ombudsman’s work is focused not just on resolving complaints, but also on the promotion of human rights, on drawing the attention of state bodies to identified violations or irregu- larities in their functioning, and also pointing out the poor systemic arrangements that cause violations. We have identified such arrangements in dealing with specific complaints (described in detail in the second chapter of this report) or by monitoring events in public life. Although the work of the Human Rights Ombudsman is geared primarily towards resolving specific complaints, it does not stop there; the ombudsman also deals with the systemic problems of human rights. Yet here he is restricted – the work of the traditional ombudsman is orientated chiefly towards resolving individual complaints. Alongside this so to speak “curative” work there is an urgent need for “preventive” work: systemic analyses of the state of human rights in Slovenia, and promotion and education. Insufficient awareness of one’s own rights and those of others is indeed one of the main reasons for their violation, and especially for discrimination against powerless groups of people. For this reason we urgently need a national institution, which would deal more concertedly with this issue, some- thing to which we are bound, after all, by the European Community directive. This task could in part be performed by certain official bodies, especially those whose establishment has already commit- ted them to this (the nationalities, religious communities, equal opportunities, youth and other offices), but their work is fragmented, strung out between various political and party interests, too narrowly defined in law, lacking in personnel and similar. More than anything, however, there is inadequate coordination and will for them to take account of the entire social issue in their work. There undoubtedly exists therefore a need for a standard anti-discrimination policy or for a single state institution that would act as a watchdog for discrimination, human rights education and monitoring of the fulfilment of international conventions. It is no doubt tedious if every year, at least in part, there is a repetition of the findings about the state of human rights in Slovenia, but sadly this year too, we have observed that a whole range of things are the same as the previous year or even several years ago. Some things are improving, but too slow- ly. Often problems are resolved in such a way where we get the feeling that more energy is invested in seeking obstacles to prevent a resolution of the problem, than means of removing these obstacles. We can repeat last year’s finding that state institutions (and not just these) are excessively bureau- cratised and insufficiently active in recognising or eliminating people’s problems. It is still true, therefore, that the common denominator in the assessment of the functioning of institutions is insufficient sensitivity to the problems to those people who need help. Or a certain kind of indiffer- Human Rights Ombudsman Annual Report 2002 7 ence to other people. Sadly we must repeat the record of previous years. For the sixth year running now, the National Assembly has not found the time or inclination to set in law the area of mental health; it would appear that political prestige is more important than help for marginalised people. The non-adoption of implementing regulations and realisation of possibilities for educating special needs children are other such examples repeated from last year’s report. But there is a whole range of similar examples. To this we can add the decade spent resolving the problem of those “deleted”. We may repeat: excessive zeal for “grand historic subjects and tasks” and a callous attitude to the needs and difficulties of the “little” people still mark the attitude of the state to human rights. It has been possible, however, to identify certain positive changes, chiefly in certain institutions accommodating the ombudsman’s intervention. A number of bodies are responding more seriously and rapidly to our cautions, their behaviour is changing and we may conclude that it is also changing in relation to their clients. Unfortunately there are still too many institutions that take complaints from individuals or the work of the ombudsman as unnecessary whining and a disruption to their established operation.

Load more