Public Defender Levan Ioseliani, who is on an official visit to Ankara, met with the Chief Ombudsman of Türkiye, Şeref Malkoç. The parties talked about the memorandum signed between the ombudsman institutions of Georgia and Turkey and discussed issues of future cooperation. Şeref Malkoç introduced the structure of the Turkish ombudsman institution and the manner of studying cases.

At the meeting with the Chairman of the Human Rights andEqualityInstitution ofTurkey, Muharrem Kılıç, the parties talked about the institution's mandate, the work of the Turkish National Preventive Mechanism and the anti-discrimination mechanism, as well as educational, research and awareness-raising activities. Levan Ioseliani reviewed the best practices of the anti-discrimination mechanism and the National Preventive Mechanism of Georgia. He paid special attention to the activities of the Public Defender's Office in the direction of raising public awareness. The Public Defender expressed his readiness to share the many years of experience of his Office with his Turkish colleagues within the framework of the memorandum of cooperation.

Within the framework of the visit, the Public Defender also met with the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to the Republic of Turkey, Giorgi Janjghava, and received information on the state of protection of the rights of Georgian citizens living in the territory of Turkey.

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, y Ángel Garcia (el padre Ángel), fundador y presidente de la ONG Mensajeros de la Paz, han mantenido este jueves un encuentro en la sede de la institución.

En la reunión han abordado el trabajo que se realiza tanto desde el Defensor del Pueblo como en Mensajeros de la Paz en materia de derechos humanos. Ambos han coincidido  en señalar la necesidad de hacer valer la defensa de los derechos humanos, sobre todo de los más vulnerables, desde diversos ámbitos y en todos los aspectos.

En el transcurso del encuentro, Ángel Gabilondo y el padre Ángel trataron la situación de las personas pobres, sin hogar y sin recursos, y los modos de propiciar formas de incorporación a entornos de derechos efectivos.

En la reunión también han estado presentes la directora del Gabinete del Defensor, Isabel Aymerich, y el director general de Mensajeros de la Paz, Sergio Mella.

Languages available: es de et en fr it lv lt hu nl pl pt ro

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-01/cp240011en.pdf

Disaster involving flight MH17: the confidentiality of certain information concerning aviation safety is justified and proportionate

On 17 July 2014, 298 people lost their lives when Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) was downed by a missile of Russian origin while it was above Hrabove, a village located in Donbas, a region of eastern Ukraine that was at that time controlled by pro-Russian separatists. In 2018, RTL Nederland and RTL Nieuws, two Dutch media undertakings, requested information in this connection from the Netherlands Government.

The competent minister refused that request, referring to the confidentiality of the information concerned, under national and EU law 1 .

The RTL undertakings dispute that confidentiality. In addition, in their appeal before the Council of State (Netherlands), they rely on the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information and on the specific role of ‘watchdog’ accorded to the press in that context.

(...)

La Défenseure des droits s’est rendue à Strasbourg les 15 et 16 janvier 2024. Elle a rencontré la Présidente de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, la Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme et des membres de la Commission européenne contre le racisme et l'intolérance (ECRI).

La Présidente de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Síofra O'Leary, a salué le travail de la Défenseure des droits, notamment ses interventions, recommandations et rapports qui contribuent aux travaux des juges de la Cour.

Avec la Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme, Dunja Mijatovics, la Défenseure des droits a échangé sur la responsabilité des États membres fondateurs comme la France et le Royaume-Uni en matière d'exemplarité sur le respect de l'État de droit auprès des autres États membres du Conseil de l'Europe. Elle a également salué le travail de la Commissaire sur des questions liées à la protection des libertés lors des manifestations publiques.

Avec la Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance (ECRI), la Défenseure des droits a évoqué les recommandations de la Commission, notamment sur l'absence de traçabilité lors des contrôles d'identité et la reconnaissance des caravanes comme logement pour les « Gens du voyage » pour faciliter l'accès à d'autres droits.

Enfin, la Défenseure des droits a échangé avec Pap Ndiaye, représentant permanent de la France auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, sur la lutte contre les discriminations en France et l'importance de sensibiliser et d'informer sur les travaux de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme.

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