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.

Today, 13 October, at the international conference “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Fundamental Rights and the Role of Human Rights Protection Institutions” organized by the Bulgarian Ombudsman’s Office in Sofia, Ombudsperson Karina Palkova presented Latvia’s achievements in establishing a legal and practical framework for the protection of human rights in the context of artificial intelligence (AI).

“The development of artificial intelligence opens up vast opportunities, but at the same time raises new and complex questions from a human rights perspective. One of the most significant challenges is ensuring a balanced deployment of AI, so that technological development and innovation progress alongside the protection of human rights. Our task is not to hinder technological advancement, but to help create an environment where innovation, fundamental rights, and the interests of society are in balance. Latvia has already taken concrete steps in this area, and through our experience we can contribute to the development of a common European approach,” emphasized Ombudsperson Karina Palkova.

Latvia is not only implementing European Union requirements in the field of AI oversight, but is also sharing its experience in human rights protection and actively contributing to the development of common European solutions.

Certain powers related to AI oversight have already been established for the Ombudsman’s Office in Latvia. Since February 2026, the Office has been entitled to request documentation relating to AI systems and, where necessary, initiate technical assessments in order to evaluate potential human rights violations.

Latvia’s experience and expertise are also valuable at the European level. The Ombudsman’s Office participates in the work of European Commission experts, contributes to the further development of AI regulation, and takes part in European standard-setting processes. The Office is also actively involved in the artificial intelligence working group of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI), promoting the exchange of experience and a common approach to human rights protection across Europe.

According to K. Palkova, preventive work is of particular importance. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s Office participates in AI regulatory sandbox initiatives, identifying potential human rights risks before new technologies are deployed on a wider scale. This practical experience is especially valuable at a time when European countries are establishing effective AI oversight mechanisms.

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, ha inaugurado este martes, en la sede de la institución, una jornada para analizar el uso de las contenciones mecánicas en el entorno penitenciario, en los centros para menores infractores, en la hospitalización psiquiátrica y en el ámbito sociosanitario.

Durante su intervención el Defensor del Pueblo ha destacado la importancia del documento de Buenas prácticas en las contenciones mecánicas, que la institución registró en las Cortes Generales el pasado mes de junio, señalando que este documento “nace de una experiencia, de múltiples experiencias, de las de quienes han tenido conocimiento directo en el lugar en el que han sucedido o suceden las contenciones, experiencia desde luego dura y difícil, y de las entrevistas realizadas a numerosos profesionales del ámbito de la seguridad, juristas, personal facultativo de enfermería, psicólogos y auxiliares, así como a internos en centros penitenciarios y pacientes sanitarios en situación de internamiento involuntario, que han transmitido su conocimiento, experiencia y percepciones”.

En opinión de Ángel Gabilondo, “el asunto resulta de una enorme complejidad y hemos de huir de todo tipo de simplismos. Es dura la situación que se genera, pero asimismo lo es la decisión, tanto si se adopta para ejecutar la práctica o para evitarla”.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha hecho hincapié en que “son precisos este tipo de textos que no pretenden ser un manual de instrucciones, ni ser prescriptivos, pero sí la conclusión de alternativas a las que puede verse avocado, y de las posibles vías de quien ha de afrontarla”. Para Ángel Gabilondo “este es un documento vivo para personas que trabajan con personas, con absoluta consideración de la libertad y del bienestar no solo propio, sino también ajeno”.

El citado documento sobre cuyo análisis y debate ha girado esta jornada recoge principios, recomendaciones y criterios orientados a prevenir el uso innecesario de estas medidas, promover alternativas eficaces y garantizar que, cuando excepcionalmente resulten imprescindibles, se apliquen con las máximas garantías legales, éticas y asistenciales.
En el encuentro han participado Miguel Paneque, director del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura; Andrés Jiménez, director del Área de Seguridad y Justicia del Defensor del Pueblo; Fernando Santos, fiscal delegado de Apoyo a las Personas con Discapacidad y Mayores en Andalucía; Elena Domínguez, inspectora de Servicios de la Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias; José Martínez, Dirección General de Salud Mental del Servicio Murciano de Salud, y Sara Movellán, responsable educativa del Departamento de Justicia y Derechos Humanos del Gobierno Vasco.

Además, han asistido a la Jornada la adjunta primera, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril, la adjunta segunda, Patricia Bárcena, y Ángel Luis Ortiz, secretario general de Instituciones Penitenciarias.

Con esta jornada se ha querido promover un espacio de intercambio de experiencias y buenas prácticas entre profesionales, responsables institucionales y especialistas de distintos ámbitos en los que pueden emplearse contenciones o medios coercitivos.