On 26 March 2024, Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen nominated a new Human Rights Delegation to serve a term from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2028. The Delegation has 28 members, who are listed in the appended nomination decision. A total of 101 people applied to join the Human Rights Delegation. 

The Human Rights Delegation is an organ of the Human Rights Centre, which began operating in administrative connection with the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman at the beginning of 2012. In accordance with the law, the Human Rights Delegation has 20-40 members consisting of researchers into fundamental and human rights as well as representatives of other bodies engaged in promoting and protecting fundamental and human rights. 

This is the fourth Human Rights Delegation to be nominated. The Director of the Human Rights Centre chairs the Delegation.

Duties of the Human Rights Delegation

The Delegation deals with matters of far-reaching significance and principal importance in the field of fundamental and human rights and approves the Human Rights Centre’s plan of action and annual report each year. It also functions as a national cooperative body for actors in the sector of fundamental and human rights. 

Together with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Human Rights Centre, the Human Rights Delegation constitute a National Human Rights Institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. 

The Delegation may have working committees and divisions to organise its activities. Of these, the Division for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been a permanent division since 2016 due to the obligations deriving from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). 

The statutory duty of the Human Rights Centre is to promote the implementation of fundamental and human rights. Together with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Human Rights Centre, the Human Rights Delegation constitute a National Human Rights Institution in accordance with the Paris Principles.

Further information is available from Secretary General Jari Råman, tel. +358 9 432 3333 and Deputy Director of the Human Rights Centre Susan Villa, tel. +358 9 432 3738. 

Nomination decision (in Finnish)

Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen has issued a decision on a complaint concerning a person with paraplegia who had been transported without a wheelchair to a police prison, where the facilities were not accessible for the complainant who had reduced mobility. Among other things, the complainant had been forced to defecate at different sides of the cell while lying on their side.

The Ombudsman finds that the treatment of the complainant during detention violated the complainant’s human dignity and the rights guaranteed by the Finnish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Ombudsman has drawn the attention of the police department to deficiencies, such as the accessibility of facilities, and issued a reprimand to the police department for future reference on 

• procedures that violate the principle of respecting fundamental and human rights stipulated in the Police Act
• lack of access to the toilet
• having meals on the floor
• insufficient supervision 
• the refusal of reasonable accommodation

The Ombudsman has requested the National Police Board to obtain a report of each police prison on how the prisons have accommodated for people with disabilities and reduced mobility and prepared for arranging reasonable accommodation. He has asked the National Police Board to give a statement on the reports and to consider issuing instructions on these matters.

n addition, Jääskeläinen proposes that the National Police Board consider whether training on the rights of persons with disabilities should be organised for police personnel and whether related general guidance should be issued. 

The Ombudsman draws the serious attention of the National Police Board and the Ministry of the Interior to the deficiencies in the facilities and structures of the police prison in question. The facilities were meant to be temporary, but they have been in use for years.

The Ombudsman proposes that the State of Finland compensate the complainant for any violations committed against them. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has sent his decision to the State Treasury and requested it to decide on compensation.

The Ombudsman has requested the police department to report on its measures by 31 May 2024, and the National Police Board, the Ministry of the Interior and the State Treasury to report by 30 September 2024.

When processing the complaint, it was revealed that the complainant had been transported to the police prison on the floor of the back of a police vehicle. On the way, there were road sections with a speed limit of up to 100 km/h. The Ombudsman has taken up the investigation of the transport safety of police vehicles on his own initiative.

The full text of Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen’s decision no 151/2023 has been published (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi. 

Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen reprimanded a criminal investigator for unlawful actions in concluding a pre-investigation trial and giving a caution. In addition, the Ombudsman has for the third time drawn the attention of the National Police Board to the problems in the decision-making process of concluding a pre-trial investigation in the information system of the police. The Ombudsman has also submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior for eliminating the deficiency he has detected in legislation.

The senior constable who had served as the investigator had issued a written caution to the suspect although there were no legal preconditions for it. The Ombudsman emphasised that giving a caution based on the Criminal Investigation Act is a decision in which the suspect is considered guilty of the offence. In particular, it requires that the evidence of the suspect's guilt obtained in the pre-trial investigation is clear. In this case, the suspect had not been questioned and was not even aware of being suspected of an offence. The right to be heard is one of the most important guarantees for legal protection under the Constitution. 

Only the head investigator would have had the powers required to make the decision and give a caution. However, the investigator had decided on the matter themselves and recorded the decision in the information system of police matters using the head investigator’s ID without informing the head investigator of this.

The Ombudsman also considered that the investigator had behaved inappropriately when the person cautioned had anxiously contacted the investigator about it.

The Ombudsman has already considered it very problematic in two of his earlier decisions that a possibility to make decisions on behalf of another person has been created in the police information system at all. Furthermore, a decision can also be made by a investigator whose position does not even give them a legal right to make the decision. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the head investigator should themselves approve the decision with their own ID in the information system. He therefore drew the attention of the National Police Board for the third time to the problems that the procedure accepted in its guidelines may lead to and that this case is a concrete example of.

More generally, the Ombudsman also noted that a caution under the Criminal Investigation Act is a decision within the scope of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it considers the suspect guilty, i.e. it rebuts the presumption of innocence. As a rule, this kind of decision can only be made by a court. However, the European Court of Human Rights has approved the consideration of minor offences and the rebutting of the presumption of innocence taking place outside courts, but only on the condition that the suspect has the opportunity to bring the matter to a court for consideration.

In Finland, giving a caution referred to in the Criminal Investigation Act cannot be brought before a court, however. The Ombudsman is of the view that either such a possibility should be created or the powers of the police in making a decision finding the suspect guilty and giving a caution should be removed, as has already been done with regard to the prosecutor. Both alternatives require legislative measures.

In this case, the head investigator had later removed the investigator’s unlawful decision to give a caution. However, the Ombudsman emphasises that, for example, the possibility to lodge a complaint is not sufficient from the point of view of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Instead, it must ultimately be possible to bring the issue of guilt to a court.

The Ombudsman proposed to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior that they should take measures to eliminate the deficiency he has detected in legislation.

The Ombudsman has requested that the National Police Board and the ministries report by 28 June 2024 on the measures that have been taken in response to the decision.

The full text of decision no 4610/2022 was published (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

Further information is available from Senior Legal Adviser Peter Fagerholm, tel. +358 9 432 3372

Published 

29.12.2023

The Parliamentary Ombudsman received 16 complaints about the actions of the police at the demonstrations at Töölöntori on the Independence Day. Based on what was stated in the complaints, Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen decided to begin an investigation of the actions of the police on his own initiative. 

In the complaints, the police were criticised for issues such as use of disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators and for the use of horses, which had caused dangerous situations in the crowd. In addition, the complainants reported that the freedom of assembly had been unduly restricted when the ‘Helsinki without Nazis’ demonstration was not allowed to go ahead. The Ombudsman has requested the police to report on how efforts had been made to negotiate with the organiser of that demonstration both before the Independence Day and on the actual day.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has requested a report and a statement on the matter 8038/2023 from the National Police Board by 15 April 2024.

For more information on the matter, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Juha Haapamäki, tel. +358 9 432 3334