Criticism of Göta Court of Appeal for among other things deficient documentation when persons unaffiliated to the court were admitted to a main hearing behind closed doors. Also a statement on the application of the second sentence of Section 3 of Chapter 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

The decision in brief: Under certain circumstances, a court hearing may be held behind closed doors. Pursuant to Section 3 of Chapter 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740), the presiding judge may also admit persons who are not serving in or officers of the court if there are special reasons for doing so.

In the case in question, which dealt with offences including rape, an adult defendant’s mother and sister were admitted to a hearing behind closed doors in the court of appeal. The case documents do not state why their presence was permitted. The injured party, who was not in attendance at the court of appeal, found it humiliating that the defendant’s family were able to watch videos of her examination in the district court.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there is seldom reason to maintain secrecy with regard to persons whose presence has been consented to by the person that secrecy is intended to protect. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, when she or he has not consented to the presence of others, their presence must be presumed to be of benefit to the proceedings if special reasons are to be deemed to exist. Furthermore, there may be reason to balance the interests of secrecy and admitting others to the hearing.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that, in the case in question, it is debatable whether such reasons existed to warrant the presence of others. That said, as this is ultimately a matter of judgement, the court of appeal’s action in this regard is not cause for criticism. However, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that the court of appeal deserves criticism for deficient documentation of grounds for the decision.

Luna alerta de que ofrecer plazas por teléfono y darlas por aceptadas sin constancia documental provoca inseguridad jurídica y puede causar perjuicios económicos 

El síndic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana, Angel Luna, ha recomendado que cualquier oferta, aceptación o renuncia a recursos del sistema de dependencia quede documentada por escrito y debidamente incorporada al expediente, tras detectar incidencias en un caso en el que una mujer en situación de dependencia ha estado más de nueve meses sin cobrar la ayuda económica que le permitía recibir cuidados en su entorno familiar.

Según la resolución, no consta en su expediente una aceptación expresa y formal de la plaza residencial —extremo que la familia niega— y sí figura la renuncia presentada por escrito pocos días después, sin que la mujer llegara a ingresar en el centro. Por ello, el Síndic solicita restablecer la prestación con efectos retroactivos.

Pese a ello, la Conselleria no revisó la decisión ni reactivó la prestación. El Síndic considera especialmente relevante que, una vez recibida la renuncia y sin haberse producido el ingreso, la Administración no diera marcha atrás para dejar sin efecto la resolución adoptada y restablecer la ayuda económica previamente reconocida. Esta situación obligó a la familia a iniciar de nuevo los trámites y a permanecer durante meses sin percibir la prestación.

La resolución evidencia deficiencias en un sistema que permite adoptar decisiones relevantes sin respaldo documental suficiente. En este sentido, el Síndic advierte de que la práctica de ofertar plazas por vía telefónica y considerar aceptadas dichas ofertas sin confirmación escrita genera inseguridad jurídica y puede derivar en perjuicios económicos como el analizado.

Asimismo, el Síndic solicita la revisión del caso concreto, la retroacción de las actuaciones al momento de la renuncia y el reconocimiento del derecho a percibir la prestación desde que fue retirada.

Consulta nuestra resolución.

At the initiative of the Human Rights Ombudswoman of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (CC) adopted a decision on the temporary suspension of the implementation of Article 8 of the Act on Emergency Measures to Ensure Public Safety (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 93/25) (U-I-24/26).

Ombudswoman Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek welcomes the decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) to temporarily suspend Article 8 of the Act on Emergency Measures to Ensure Public Safety. She assesses that the Constitutional Court has thereby upheld the proposal and arguments of the Ombudsman that the harmful consequences of further enforcement against cash social assistance, which is intended to ensure the survival of individuals and families in distress, outweigh the harmful consequences of the temporary suspension of the contested regulation. As stated in the request of the Ombudsman, the state can postpone such interventions until the Constitutional Court decides whether the regulation is in conformity with the Constitution, whereas the needs of socially vulnerable individuals cannot wait. Ombudswoman Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek expects that, in the continuation of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court will decide on the constitutionality of the contested legal regulation as soon as possible. This will also constitute an important contribution to constitutional case law regarding the protection of human dignity and the right to social security.

Ombudswoman Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek stated: “I welcome the decision of the Constitutional Court. It upheld our arguments that the state can wait to interfere with the subsistence minimum of individuals until its final decision, whereas the needs of the socially vulnerable cannot wait. In doing so, the Constitutional Court accepted our argument that a regulation allowing enforcement against minimum social benefits intended for survival may cause consequences for individuals that are difficult or impossible to remedy. It is, however, in the public interest that the Constitutional Court also adopts a substantive decision as soon as possible.”

The Ombudswoman maintained this position when filing the request for a constitutional review, as enforcement against cash social assistance endangers the survival of the most vulnerable families and individuals. She also assessed that the continued implementation of Article 8 of the Act could cause consequences that would be difficult to remedy for individuals living on the brink of survival.

The Ombudswoman has received numerous initiatives from citizens across Slovenia who have found themselves in severe hardship due to enforcement against cash social assistance and extraordinary cash social assistance, which for many represent the only or primary source of subsistence. She has also become acquainted with many such cases in the course of monitoring and addressing this issue. These include older persons, single-parent families, families with multiple children, persons with disabilities, chronically ill individuals, individuals with mental health difficulties, homeless persons and people without a social support network. What they have in common is their dependence on social transfers to meet their basic living needs.

On 13 February 2026, the Ombudswoman therefore filed a request with the Constitutional Court for a review of the constitutionality of Article 8 of the Act on Emergency Measures to Ensure Public Safety (ZNUZJV) and proposed its temporary suspension and priority consideration.

On March 30, 31 and April 1, 2026, First Deputy Public Defender Tamar Gvaramadze participated in the events of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) and the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) held in Geneva, as well as in the conferences and meetings held in parallel.

At the ENNHRI general meeting, reports were presented on the activities and financial situation of the organization over the past 6 months, and priorities for the next period were also determined.

At the GANHRI Bureau meeting and later at the general meeting, reports were presented on the novelties and activities of Asia-Pacific, Africa, America and Europe; The reports of the Secretariat’s activities and working groups and the draft work plans and budgets for 2026 were discussed. Issues related to the accreditation of national human rights institutions were also discussed. Tamar Gvaramadze, as a member of the ENNHRI Governing Board and GANHRI Governing Bureau, was actively involved in the discussions. At the meeting on sharing work experience, she spoke about the experience of the Public Defender on the protection of migrants’ rights.

Tamar Gvaramadze, as a speaker, participated in the presentation of the UNDP-prepared manual on the right to live in a healthy environment, in the preparation of which the Public Defender’s Office was also involved. Tamar Gvaramadze spoke about the details of her participation in the development of the manual, and also discussed the project implemented by the Public Defender within the framework of the international tripartite (UNDP-GANHRI-OHCHR) partnership, which made it possible to realize the right to water in Georgia.

At the annual conference on the impact of digital technologies on human rights, Tamar Gvaramadze chaired the third panel, and during the moderation she spoke about the special report prepared by the Public Defender on artificial intelligence and presented the practice of the Office.

Every year sepsis kills more people than cancer. It is the primary cause of preventable death.

Our latest Case Digest highlights investigations where we've found failings in the prevention or treatment of sepsis in healthcare settings. It looks at the recommendations we've made to try and stop these failings re-occurring. 

It is also intended to raise public awareness about sepsis and encourage people to speak up if they have concerns.