El material es de libre acceso y está a disposición de todos los centros educativos de Cataluña
 

La síndica de greuges de Cataluña y Junior Report han elaborado una unidad didáctica para que los jóvenes (3.º y 4.º ESO) se acerquen a sus derechos y para que tengan herramientas para defenderlos cuando los consideren vulnerados. El recurso educativo, de libre acceso, está pensado para centros educativos y permite trabajar en el aula conceptos vinculados a la ciudadanía activa, al funcionamiento de las instituciones democráticas y a la protección de los derechos humanos.

La unidad explica de forma clara qué es la institución, cuál es su función y cómo puede ayudar a las personas ante posibles situaciones de injusticia o de mala administración. También da a conocer derechos básicos, como el derecho a la educación, a la salud o a unos servicios públicos de calidad, y explica los pasos que hay que seguir para presentar una queja ante la institución.

Entre los materiales que se ofrecen, encontramos artículos divulgativos, actividades y propuestas prácticas adaptadas al currículum escolar para que el alumnado pueda reflexionar sobre sus derechos y aprenda a identificar situaciones en que estos puedan quedar afectados.

Esta iniciativa refuerza el compromiso de la institución del Síndic con la educación en derechos y la promoción de una ciudadanía crítica, informada y participativa.

La unidad didáctica se puede consultar gratuitamente en la web de Junior Report.

On October 2, 2026, at the 30th General Assembly of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) held in Barcelona, ​​Spain, Irine Chikhladze, Deputy Public Defender of Georgia, was elected the network's Chair-elect.

Over the coming year, Irine Chikhladze will participate in the activities of the ENOC Bureau in the capacity of Chair-elect, and in 2027, following the General Assembly, she will assume the role of Chair of the network.

The election of the Deputy Public Defender of Georgia to this position marks a significant milestone in the long-standing cooperation between the Georgian Public Defender’s Office and ENOC. It will help strengthen the Public Defender’s role in European cooperation on child rights protection and create additional opportunities to define the network's strategic priorities, develop joint initiatives, and actively participate in discussions regarding pressing child rights challenges at the international level.

The Public Defender of Georgia has been a full member of ENOC since 2018 and actively participates in the network's activities – as a Bureau member and in thematic working groups, sharing professional expertise, and engaging in initiatives aimed at fostering the participation of children and young people. The election of Irine Chikhladze as the incoming Chair marks a significant continuation of this long-standing and consistent cooperation.

The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) brings together independent children’s rights institutions across Europe and promotes the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, joint responses to common challenges, the sharing of best practices, and the participation of children and young people. The network’s seven-member Bureau coordinates the organization’s activities and facilitates the implementation of the General Assembly’s decisions. For the 2026–2027 term, the Bureau includes representatives from independent children’s rights institutions of Georgia, Spain (Catalonia), Moldova, Northern Ireland, Wales, Cyprus, and Luxembourg.

In the radio programme WinWin on Radio 2, Flemish Ombudsman Myriam Parys discussed the complaints received by the Flemish Ombudsman Service about De Lijn, Flanders' public transport operator. Topics included transport poverty, discontinued bus stops and routes, and fines issued to so-called fare evaders without a valid ticket.

The Flemish Ombudsman Service has already received 550 complaints about De Lijn this year. Citizens report that changes to public transport services have made it more difficult for them to get to school, work, healthcare facilities, or social activities.

During the interview, Myriam Parys explained the signals received by the Flemish Ombudsman Service, what transport poverty and fare evasion are, and how citizens can challenge a fine.

More information

Listen to the WinWin radio interview or read our thematic page on problems with De Lijn.

1. Problems with De Lijn? Here's what you need to know
2. Listen to the interview on VRT MAX (from 5:19 onwards)

Nach Schneebruchkatastrophe: Behörde verweigerte Bewilligung für Forststraße – Borkenkäferbefall verursachte sechsstelligen Schaden. Volksanwalt unterstützt Kärntner Forstwirt.

Große Teile des Waldes eines Kärntner Forstwirts sind im Jahr 2019 einer massiven Schneebruchkatastrophe zum Opfer gefallen. Damit durch das entstandene Bruchholz keine Borkenkäfer-Invasion ausgelöst wird, galt es, dieses so rasch wie möglich zu entfernen. Um einen zügigen Abtransport des Schadholzes mit LKWs zu ermöglichen, musste der Waldbesitzer aus der Gemeinde Mallnitz jedoch erst eine bereits bestehende Forststraße ausbauen. 

Der Bewilligungsprozess vor der zuständigen Forstbehörde entpuppte sich jedoch als Bürokratie-Hölle und wurde zu einem jahrelangen Martyrium. Der Waldbesitzer blieb schlussendlich auf einem horrenden Borkenkäferschaden sitzen. 

Mit Unterstützung der Volksanwaltschaft kämpft er nun für sein Recht und thematisierte seinen Fall gemeinsam mit Volksanwalt Dr. Christoph Luisser in der ORF-Sendung „Bürgeranwalt“ am 10. Oktober 2026.

Drohender Borkenkäferbefall macht rasches Handeln notwendig – Behörde hat dennoch kein Einsehen

Verrottendes Schadholz im Wald ist bekanntlich ein Borkenkäfer-Magnet. Ebenso bekannt ist die Tatsache, dass Borkenkäfer einen enormen Schaden in einer Forstwirtschaft anrichten. Um genau dieses Szenario zu verhindern beantragte der betroffenen Waldbesitzer im Mai 2020 die Forststraßenerweiterung. Die Bezirkshauptmannschaft Spittal an der Drau lehnte den Antrag trotz der Dringlichkeit ab. Der obere Teil des Weges sei zu kurvig und steil. Außerdem erschließe dieser nicht die Nachbargrundstücke.

Um den dringenden Abtransport nicht noch weiter zu verzögern schränkte der betroffene Forstwirt den Ausbau auf den unteren Wegabschnitt ein. Die Bewilligung für den abgeänderten Ausbauplan wurde ihm allerdings erst im Juni 2021 erteilt.

„Der Forstwirt hat einem gesetzlichen Auftrag gemäß dem Forstgesetz nachzukommen. Dies beinhaltet Schädlingen vorzubeugen und vorhandenes Schadholz zu entfernen. Der Betroffene hat stets das gemacht, was ihm die Behörde gesagt hat. Am Schluss ist er durch beide Stühle durchgerutscht. Das kann doch nicht der Anspruch der österreichischen Verwaltung sein“, kritisierte Volksanwalt Dr. Christoph Luisser diese Behörden-Groteske.

Kein Amtshaftungsanspruch – Waldbesitzer bleibt auf Schaden sitzen

In der Zwischenzeit ist der gesamte Waldbestand an den Borkenkäfer verloren gegangen. Rund 20 Hektar befallener Forst haben laut Angaben des Besitzers einen Schaden von etlichen hunderttausend bis zu eine Million Euro verursacht. Ein Schadenersatz wurde von der Finanzprokuratur abgelehnt.

Die Volksanwaltschaft bemängelte in ihrer Prüfung dennoch das ungenau geführte Bewilligungsverfahren der Behörde. Die Dokumentation ist lückenhaft und wesentliche Verfahrensschritte, wie ein stattgefundener Lokalaugenschein, wurden nicht protokolliert. Ebenso fehlen entscheidende Aktenvermerke. Es kann daher nicht schlüssig nachvollzogen werden, wie die Bezirkshauptmannschaft zu einer Ablehnungserkenntnis gekommen ist. 

Volksanwalt Dr. Christoph Luisser dazu: „Eine Stilblüte dieses Falls ist die Tatsache, dass im Zuge des Verwaltungsverfahrens beinahe nichts dokumentiert wurde. Die Behörde hat die Verpflichtung, sämtliche Verfahrensschritte nachvollziehbar darzulegen. Alles andere ist rechtswidrig.“

Introduction

In the online edition of Avvenire of the 10 October 2026 Mario Marazziti wrote an exceptional article entitled “Occhio per occhio, dente per dente: cosi` nell`era digitale la pena di morte e` diventata uno show”. 

In his opinion piece, Marazziti refers to an extract from an essay “Reflections on the Guillotine” which Albert Camus published in 1957.

In particular Camus recounts an incident involving his father that would become central in his moral opposition to capital punishment. 

His father had gone specifically to witness the execution of a criminal whose offence he considered so appalling that the death penalty appeared entirely justified. Yet what he witnessed profoundly disturbed him.   The father returned home visibly shaken, refused to speak, lay down briefly and suddenly began to vomit.

Camus

The significance of this account extends beyond emotional reaction but raises a fundamental question on the relationship between capital punishment, public opinion and the institution of the State.

Camus challenges the assumption that an action becomes morally acceptable simply because it is authorised by law, supported by public opinion or presented as necessary for the preservation of social order.

His argument remains relevant because the fundamental tension between legal authority and moral responsibility has not disappeared. It continues to arise wherever institutions exercise power over persons, particularly those who are vulnerable or unable to defend themselves effectively.

Fundamental

In primis, I am - convincingly, ethically, legally and as a Judge – against capital punishment.

Nonetheless whether one agrees with capital punishment or not is not the core issue.

What should be really disturbing is whether the public execution of a death penalty to the widest audience possible should be possible.

Should the State expose the reality of capital punishment to the public? By so doing, would the execution of a punishment not transform the administration of justice into a spectacle of human suffering? 

These and other questions concern the moral responsibility of the State, the right of the public to examine the exercise of power, the dignity of the condemned person and the danger of transforming death into something it should never be.  The challenge is to determine whether visibility strengthens justice or undermines the very humanity that justice is expected to protect.

History

Historically, public executions were intended to demonstrate the authority of the State, discourage criminal behaviour and reassure society that serious offences would receive serious punishment. They were often organised as public ceremonies, with crowds gathering to witness the ultimate exercise of judicial authority.  The underlying message was that the State had the power to punish, and those who violated its laws would suffer the consequences. 

However, public executions did not always produce the response that authorities intended. They often provoked sympathy for the condemned, hostility towards the authorities or a disturbing fascination with violence.  In some circumstances, the show of execution did alienate the public.

In countries where capital punishment has been retained, executions are generally conducted within controlled institutional settings.  These arrangements are frequently defended on grounds of security, public order and the dignity of those involved.  Public accountability does not necessarily require an unrestricted audience. Independent observation, accurate reporting, judicial oversight and access to relevant information can provide meaningful safeguards without exposing the condemned person to public humiliation. 

Live streaming

Today a live broadcast could reach millions of viewers across national boundaries. An execution could be watched on mobile phones, reproduced through social media, recorded permanently and circulated long after the event. Live streaming introduces objective dangers. An execution broadcast to a mass audience can become a morbid spectacle.  Where permitted at law – again I do not agree - the final moments of a human life cannot become anything else but the execution of a punishment ordered by a judicial body.  Therefore, death by court order cannot be accompanied by the permanent digital exposure of the person who died.

Dignity

A person convicted of a crime remains a human being. Even in jurisdictions where capital punishment is legal, the manner how the condemned person is treated raises separate moral and legal questions.  Public exposure at the moment of death humiliates that person, opens wide the grief of the family of the victim, and serves no legitimate purpose relating the execution of punishment.  The families of victims may regard public execution as a demonstration of accountability.  Others may find the spectacle deeply distressing or inconsistent with their understanding of justice.  Punishment must not be deliberately transformed into degradation. The State cannot defend the dignity of justice by unnecessarily stripping a condemned person of dignity.

Deterrent

There is no reliable evidence that public executions or live broadcasts would provide an additional deterrent. The experience of witnessing an execution can produce a response opposite to that anticipated because human responses to violence differ considerably.  Involving public exposure of death cannot responsibly be justified on speculative assumptions about its educational or deterrent effects.

Transparency

Transparency and spectacle are not one and the same. The public has a legitimate interest to know whether safeguards against wrongful conviction have been respected, whether complaints of mistreatment have been investigated and whether the execution itself is according to what the law requires. Information is essential to meaningful democratic scrutiny. 

However, the live transmission of the death of a person is wrong on all counts. There is a clear red line: the right of the public to know cannot give way to the alleged right to watch.  Transparency is not a convenient justification for humiliation.  The end does not justify the means.

Camus

Back to Camus. 

His father did not need any legal explanation on the legitimacy of the execution he witnessed. He already believed that the punishment was justified.  What changed his response was his first-hand experience that his opinion and the real thing were not one and the same. 

The State has an obligation to apply methods that really and truly respect human dignity rather than resort to limelight scenarios.  The responsibility of the State is to ensure that the exercise of public authority remains open to scrutiny without turning human suffering into an instrument of public display.  That responsibility becomes crucial claims a right to take life by operation of its laws.

Conclusion

The public cannot have an unfettered right whatsoever to watch executions. Society cannot allow any shade of justice to disguise what an execution actually means. The State must be answerable for every life it takes. But accountability does not require the public exhibition of death.  Therefore, the strongest case against live-streaming executions is not that society should be shielded from uncomfortable truths. It is that a condemned human being should never become the object of public humiliation.  Perhaps the most compelling issue is not whether executions should be conducted in public, or transmitted live to millions, but whether a society that genuinely respects human dignity should permit the deliberate execution of a person in the first place. 

For Camus, that was ultimately the question that did matter. The horror witnessed by his father was not an argument for making executions more visible. It was a warning about what can happen when society becomes comfortable with justice in name but detached from the reality of death inflicted in its name.