On March 27-28, 2025, Public Defender Levan Ioseliani and First Deputy Public Defender Tamar Gvaramadze participated in the High-Level Conference with Ombudsperson Institutions and National Human Rights Institutions organized by the Council of Europe.

The conference discussed challenges in terms of the protection of human rights and the rule of law, and the role and capabilities of ombudsmen institutions and NHRIs to overcome these challenges.

Participants in the meeting were introduced to the examples of best practices in the protection of human rights during times of crisis; discussed the role of ombudsmen and NHRIs in the implementation of the Venice Principles, the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgements of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights; as well as opportunities for cooperation with the Council of Europe.

The conference also addressed the role of national human rights institutions in the implementation of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence.

On March 27, 2025, the Public Defender of Georgia, Levan Ioseliani, met with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, in Strasbourg.

The Public Defender provided the Secretary General with information on the human rights situation in Georgia, discussed the current situation in terms of the realization of the rights of freedom of the media, freedom of expression and assembly, as well as recent legislative developments and the Public Defender's opinions on the aforementioned changes.

The Public Defender and the First Deputy Public Defender Tamar Gvaramadze also met with the Director General of Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe and the Executive Secretary of the Committee against Torture in Strasbourg.

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia was alerted to the controversial definition of students with special needs in the proposal for the new Higher Education Act, and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation warned that the definition of students with special needs in the new Higher Education Act must be formulated in such a way that all students who need them will receive adjustments, undoubtedly including students with autism spectrum disorders. The Ministry informed the Ombudsman that it had corrected the definition and that it now also explicitly mentions students with autism spectrum disorders.

The Association of Non-Governmental Organisations for Autism of Slovenia (the complainant) has drawn the attention of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) to the controversial definition of students with special needs in the proposal for the new Higher Education Act. It was pointed out that the text of the proposal for the law, which was in public discussion last year, was more appropriate, while the revised generalised definition, as currently proposed, could exclude individuals with autism spectrum disorders from the scope of students with special needs. If this change were adopted, people with autism spectrum disorders could be left without key adjustments, such as adjustments to exams, support in the form of a personal assistant, or specific learning strategies. As a result, this could have long-term negative effects on their inclusion in the study process and their study success. The Ombudsman was not informed of the final text of the bill, but according to the complainant, students with special needs are defined in Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the bill, which states: "Students with special needs are students with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments (e.g. students with visual impairments, deaf and hard of hearing students, students with speech and language disorders, students with mobility disabilities), and students with psychosocial problems."

The Ombudsman sent a letter to the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation (MVSZI), in which he stressed that the accuracy of the definition of students with special needs is important for greater inclusion and equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their challenges. Students with special needs certainly also include students with autism spectrum disorders, whose special rights regarding education are also recognised by the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ICRD) in Article 24. From the commentary on Article 24 of the ICRD by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[1], it can be seen that the Committee also recognises that some groups are more at risk of exclusion from education than others. These are: persons with intellectual or multiple disabilities, persons with speech and language disorders, persons with autism spectrum disorders, or persons with disabilities in humanitarian crises. At the same time, the Committee notes that many States parties do not provide adequate conditions for persons with disabilities, in particular persons with autism spectrum disorders, persons with speech-language disorders, and persons with sensory impairments, to acquire life, language and social skills that are essential for participation in education and in their communities.

The Ombudsman warned the MVSZI that the definition of students with special needs in the new Higher Education Act must be formulated in such a way that there will be no problems in practice and that all students who need them will receive adjustments. This undoubtedly includes students with autism spectrum disorders. The Ombudsman agreed that the aforementioned text of the proposal for Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Act does not follow this.

In its response to the Ombudsman, the MVSZI noted that the current proposal for the new Higher Education Act of 5 March 2025, which was sent for consideration to the March session of the Economic and Social Council, in Article 115 on students with special needs and special status, contains the definition: "Students with special needs are blind and visually impaired students or students with impaired visual function, deaf and hard of hearing students, deaf-blind students, students with speech-language disorders, students with deficits in individual areas of learning, physically disabled students, long-term ill students, students with autism spectrum disorders, and students with psychosocial problems." The MVSZI emphasised that it was never their intention to exclude students with autism spectrum disorders.

The Ombudsman welcomes the decision of the MVSZI to change the definition of students with special needs. We are pleased that we have jointly contributed to the successful outcome of the matter. We expect that it will be adopted in this form in the legislative process. 0.1-6/2025

Assistierter Suizid muss auch im Pflegeheim möglich sein. Dass einige Heime über die Hausordnung verbieten, dass sich Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner auch nur darüber informieren, ist verfassungs- und menschenrechtswidrig. Darauf haben Volksanwaltschaft und Menschenrechtsbeirat vor einem Jahr aufmerksam gemacht – aber immer noch halten sich nicht alle Einrichtungen daran, kritisiert nun Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz: „Wir werden die Kommissionen der Volksanwaltschaft ersuchen, im Rahmen der Präventiven Menschenrechtskontrolle besonders auf solche rechtswidrigen Hausordnungen zu achten. Und die Länder als Aufsicht fordere ich auf, solche Klauseln schon in den Förderverträgen für die Einrichtungen eindeutig auszuschließen.“

Investitionen in Palliativversorgung nötig

„Die Durchführung eines Assistierten Suizids ist nicht erlaubt“, heißt es in der Hausordnung einer Einrichtung in Tirol. Eine Schwerpunktprüfung der Volksanwaltschafts-Kommissionen hat gezeigt, dass mehrheitlich keine Möglichkeit zum assistierten Suizid in den Einrichtungen besteht. Im Februar 2024 hat ein Gutachten des Menschenrechtsbeirats der Volksanwaltschaft für Aufmerksamkeit gesorgt: Demnach müssen die Heimträger die im Sterbeverfügungsgesetz vorgesehene Möglichkeit des straflosen assistieren Suizids für schwerst- und unheilbar Kranke aus Respekt vor der freien Entscheidung der Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner akzeptieren. „Der assistierte Suizid muss aber der allerletzte Ausweg sein. Die Volksanwaltschaft fordert daher vor allem mehr Investitionen in die Hospize, denn das Recht auf würdevolles Sterben kann ohne flächendeckende Angebote der Beratung und Palliativversorgung nicht umgesetzt werden“, sagt Volksanwalt Achitz