In 2024, the Gender Department of the Public Defender's Office of Georgia, with the support of UN Women, inspected shelters and crisis centers for victims of domestic violence and trafficking. The monitoring members visited shelters in Tbilisi (2), Batumi, Kutaisi, Gori and Sighnaghi, as well as crisis centers in Tbilisi, Gori, Kutaisi, Ozurgeti, Marneuli, Telavi and Zugdidi.

The special report presents the results of the monitoring conducted by the Gender Department of the Public Defender's Office of Georgia in all state shelters and crisis centers operating in Georgia.

We hope that the shortcomings identified during the monitoring will help state agencies improve the provision of services to victims of violence.

The Ombudsman has sent an official letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, highlighting serious irregularities in both the framework and the implementation of the extraordinary rent support scheme, and calling for its urgent revision. This initiative follows a significant volume of complaints revealing systemic failures, some of which had already been flagged in the last two annual reports submitted to Parliament.

Since the scheme came into effect, established by Decree-Law No. 20-B/2023 and later revised by Decree-Law No. 43/2024, complaints have pointed to recurring and persistent irregularities that undermine beneficiaries’ rights and the effectiveness of the support itself. In 2025, the number of complaints regarding the suspension and reduction of benefits increased significantly.

The Ombudsman concluded, on the one hand, that the legal framework was designed without due regard for the fundamental rights and guarantees of citizens; and, on the other, that the entities responsible – the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (IHRU), the Tax and Customs Authority (AT), and the Social Security Institute (ISS) – have shown insufficient capacity for coordination and response.

Fundamental rights fully enshrined in law have been disregarded within the scope of this support, notably the right to information, the right to be notified of decisions, the right to reasoned administrative acts, and the right to prior hearing.

The IT platforms in use are fragile and unfit for purpose, contributing to severe delays and difficulties in accessing information.

Citizens covered by this support – which was announced as automatic – have been repeatedly redirected from service to service, without being able to obtain the information they need.

Between May 2023 and July 2025, the Ombudsman received around one thousand requests related to this rent support scheme. In many cases, citizens claimed that their social and economic situation actually worsened due to State failures, while also expressing deep mistrust in a legal measure intended to help them.

Complaints received in 2025 reveal that, despite the extreme delays before payments began, when the support is finally granted, only a single monthly installment is paid, with no indication of when the owed retroactive amounts will be delivered.

Given the seriousness of the irregularities and the continuation of the scheme until 2028, the Ombudsman stresses the urgent need to revise the extraordinary rent support program, in order to ensure a system that is fairer, more transparent, efficient, and subject to oversight, while also ensuring a better use of public resources.

You can read the letter sent to the Secretary of State for Housing here [in Portuguese only].

Il ciclo di interviste “Voci in ascolto”, promosso dal Coordinamento Nazionale dei Difensori Civici, sta diventando uno spazio privilegiato per raccontare da vicino il lavoro quotidiano, le sfide e i valori che animano i Difensori civici nelle diverse regioni italiane.

Attraverso questo percorso editoriale, il Coordinamento intende dare voce a esperienze concrete e diversificate, che vanno dalla Sardegna con il Difensore civico Marco Enrico, dove l’attenzione si concentra sul rapporto diretto con i cittadini e sul contrasto alle disuguaglianze territoriali, fino alla Valle d’Aosta con il Difensore Civico Adele Squillaci, dove emerge con forza il tema della prossimità e della tutela delle comunità locali.

Un contributo importante è arrivato anche da Giacomo Bernardi, Difensore Civico della Provincia Autonoma di Trento, che con la sua intervista ha arricchito il ciclo con riflessioni puntuali sul ruolo della difesa civica nelle autonomie speciali e sul valore del dialogo diretto con i territori.

Queste testimonianze non sono solo cronache di attività istituzionali, ma diventano narrazioni capaci di trasmettere fiducia e di avvicinare i cittadini alle istituzioni, rendendo tangibile il ruolo del Difensore civico come garante di diritti, ponte tra persone e amministrazioni e presidio di democrazia.

Non solo Italia: nella programmazione editoriale sono state inserite anche le voci di colleghi esteri, come quelle provenienti da Andorra (Xavier Cañada Bonaetxea) e Aragona (Javier Hernández García), Serbia (Zoran Pašalić), per offrire una visione più ampia e comparata della difesa civica, arricchendo il dibattito con prospettive internazionali.

Marino Fardelli, Presidente del Coordinamento e Difensore civico del Lazio, sottolinea:
«Con “Voci in ascolto” vogliamo raccontare l’Italia dei Difensori civici attraverso i volti e le storie di chi ogni giorno lavora per i cittadini. È un modo per far emergere la dimensione umana della difesa civica, troppo spesso percepita solo come istituzione distante, e invece radicata nella vita delle comunità.»

Guido Giusti, Difensore civico dell’Emilia Romagna e Vice Presidente del Coordinamento, evidenzia il valore del confronto:
«Questo ciclo di interviste rappresenta un’opportunità per condividere esperienze, metodi e approcci diversi, ma accomunati dalla stessa missione: garantire diritti, ascoltare le persone e cercare soluzioni ai problemi quotidiani.»

Paola Baldovino, Difensore civico del Piemonte, guarda al futuro del progetto:
«Mettere a disposizione di tutti queste testimonianze significa non solo valorizzare il lavoro svolto, ma anche costruire un archivio vivo di buone pratiche, utile per cittadini, istituzioni e per gli stessi Difensori civici, che possono trarne spunti e ispirazione.»

Un patrimonio condiviso

Il Coordinamento continuerà a dare spazio alle “Voci in ascolto”, convinto che raccontare storie concrete sia il modo migliore per far crescere la cultura della difesa civica in Italia e in Europa. Ogni intervista è un tassello di un mosaico che mostra l’impegno costante per una democrazia più inclusiva, trasparente e vicina alle persone.

Leggi qui le interviste

Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz: Spitalsbetreiber müssen dafür sorgen, dass ausreichend gut ausgebildetes Personal vorhanden ist, sodass fixierte Patientinnen und Patienten permanent überwacht werden können

Die Volksanwaltschaft ist für die präventive Menschenrechtskontrolle an Orten potentieller Freiheitsbeschränkung zuständig, unter anderem auch in psychiatrischen Abteilungen von Krankenhäusern. Ohne auf den tragischen Fall des in einer Tiroler Psychiatrie während einer Fixierung verstorbenen Mannes eingehen zu können, erinnert Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz die Betreiber von Krankenanstalten, dass für freiheitsbeschränkende Maßnahmen wie Fixierungen mit Gurten und/oder Medikamenten strenge Regeln gelten.

Freiheitsbeschränkende Maßnahmen sind ausschließlich dann zulässig, wenn sie der Abwehr einer gravierenden Gefahr, also der Abwehr einer ernstlichen und erheblichen Gefährdung des eigenen oder fremden Lebens oder der eigenen Gesundheit bzw. der ärztlichen Behandlung und Betreuung dienen. Achitz: „Auf keinen Fall dürfen sie wegen Personalmangels erfolgen. Im Gegenteil: Die Spitalsbetreiber müssen dafür sorgen, dass ausreichend Personal für die ständige Überwachung der fixierten Patientinnen und Patienten vorhanden ist, und dass dieses dafür ausgebildet ist, etwa mit Deeskalationsschulungen.“

Elektronische Überwachungsmaßnahmen reichen nicht aus

Aus menschenrechtlicher Sicht zählen Fixierungen zu den stärksten freiheitsbeschränkenden Maßnahmen. Sie fallen unter das Verbot der Folter oder der unmenschlichen oder erniedrigenden Behandlung, wenn sie unrechtmäßig durchgeführt werden, oder wenn sie zu Schmerzen oder körperlichen Verletzungen führen. Die Dauer von Fixierungen ist auf das Notwendigste zu reduzieren.

Jede Fixierung muss von einer Ärztin bzw. einem Arzt genehmigt sein oder dieser bzw. diesem zumindest unverzüglich zur Genehmigung vorgelegt werden. Wenn eine Akutsituation, die zur Fixierung führt, nicht mehr besteht, ist diese Fixierung unverzüglich zu beenden. Werden Gliedmaße mit Gurten oder Riemen festgeschnallt, muss ständig eine geschulte Mitarbeiterin bzw. ein geschulter Mitarbeiter anwesend sein, um unmittelbar therapeutische Hilfe leisten zu können. Elektronische Überwachungsmaßnahmen reichen nicht aus.

Die Kommissionen der Volksanwaltschaft, die unangekündigte Kontrollen in den Psychiatrien durchführen, stellen auch immer wieder fest, dass die Durchführung von Fixierungen aufgrund der bestehenden räumlichen Situation in vielen Einrichtungen nicht den maßgeblichen menschenrechtlichen Standards entsprechen.

During July we

- responded to 65 enquiries

- made 54 decisions

- 10 community care grants

- 44 crisis grants

- upheld 7 (70%) of community care grants and 8 (18%) of crisis grants

- signposted an additional 55 applicants to other sources of assistance. 80% were calling us instead of their local council in error and a further 13% reported accessibility issues contacting their council as there was no freephone number

- received 13 enquiries from council staff seeking advice

Engagement

This month we are hosting workshops with council staff involved in training, focusing on accessibility, written communication, and decision recording. This work, which forms part of the Scottish Welfare Fund Review Action Plan, aims to support improvements in practice. We are looking forward to engaging with colleagues in this important initiative.

Case studies

Crisis grant calculations – 2025 guidance

C applied for support with food, travel, and energy debts, explaining that a recent relationship breakdown had made budgeting difficult. They reported a decline in their mental health and acknowledged having used some funds for gambling. C stated they had no money available until their next benefit payment.

At initial decision-making stage the council requested bank statements and based on the information provided, refused an award as they noted that C had sufficient funds. At first tier review, C provided up-to-date statements which confirmed they had no money available. The council changed the decision and awarded £150.00 for food costs. They explained to C that travel and debt were excluded from the fund and not something that could be awarded.

We reviewed the council's file and contacted C. We reiterated that the fund could not assist with debts and travel costs. We asked C about their food costs and why the award of £150.00 was not sufficient. We noted that the council had awarded less than the Universal Credit essentials rate, but no reason was detailed for this. C explained they had to purchase baby milk and nappies and that the cost of food was expensive. We changed the council's decision as we noted that they had not followed the guidance when making the award. We awarded C the amount recommended by the SWF guidance.

Recommendations

-  Make a further award of £149.30 to cover C's food costs for their family until their next Universal Credit payment date.

Feedback for the council

-  They did not take into account C's circumstances and ensure the award made met their needs in line with section 7.23 of the guidance.

We have asked the council to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one working day.

You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.