El Ararteko ha emitido una resolución instando al Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz a eliminar la obligatoriedad de la cita previa para interponer denuncias en la Policía Local, permitiendo a la ciudadanía presentar denuncias de manera presencial sin barreras innecesarias. La recomendación responde a la queja de un ciudadano que encontró dificultades y retrasos al intentar denunciar un delito debido a la existencia de este requisito.

Tras analizar el caso, el Ararteko ha constatado que la imposición de la cita previa puede generar indefensión y vulnerar derechos fundamentales, como la tutela judicial efectiva y la protección de las víctimas. Además, ha manifestado su preocupación por la posibilidad de que esta medida impida la atención inmediata en situaciones especialmente graves, como casos de violencia de género o delitos que requieran una actuación urgente.

En su resolución, el Ararteko recomienda que la cita previa se mantenga únicamente como una opción voluntaria y que el Ayuntamiento informe de manera clara, tanto presencialmente como por vía electrónica, sobre su funcionamiento y en qué casos puede resultar útil. Con esta medida, el Ararteko refuerza su compromiso con una administración accesible y con la garantía de que la ciudadanía pueda ejercer sus derechos sin trabas administrativas injustificadas.

La Diputada del Común, Lola Padrón, participó este lunes en un acto organizado por la Real Sociedad de Amigos del País de Tenerife con motivo de la conmemoración del 8 de marzo. Durante el evento se presentó también el mural de Carmen Cólogan ‘ Mujeres Premios Canarias’.
La Diputada del Común impartió la conferencia titulada ‘La situación de la mujer en Canarias desde la perspectiva de la Diputación del Común ‘. En su ponencia, insistió en el retroceso de derechos sufridos por las mujeres con las políticas de Igualdad. Durante su intervención reflejó algunas de las quejas recibidas en la institución. Temas tan fundamentales como que no haya una oficina de víctimas del délito y mujeres que no pueden alejarse de su agresor por no tener una vivienda dónde ir, así como el retraso en la gestión del ingreso mínimo vital tan necesario para prosperar.

Die Landesregierung will für Studierende einen Verwaltungskostenbeitrag von 60 Euro pro Semester einführen. Dagegen laufen die Betroffenen Sturm – heute im Rahmen einer Anhörung im Petitionsausschuss. Begleitet von einer kleinen Schar Demonstranten vor dem Landeshaus haben Studierende im Petitionsausschuss des Landtages ihre Argumente gegen die vom Bildungsministerium geplante Einführung einer Verwaltungsgebühr...

The family of a man who died in hospital only discovered after his death that a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) order had been put in place.

An investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman (PHSO) found that Barts Health NHS Trust failed in its duty to tell Ali Asghar and his family about the order. 

A DNACPR order means that, if someone’s heart or breathing stops, doctors will not attempt resuscitation. The decision is made by a doctor and does not require patient consent but a patient must be informed if they have capacity. If they do not have capacity their next of kin must be informed.

The Ombudsman is urging all healthcare providers to make sure their teams are trained to have these crucial conversations about end-of-life care in a timely and sensitive manner.

In 2024, the Ombudsman published a report that found many people are not told as a matter of course that a DNACPR decision has been made. 

Ombudsman Rebecca Hilsenrath said:

End-of-life care is so important in providing dignity, empathy, and compassion to both the patient and their family during the most difficult of times. It is therefore vital that these crucial discussions are held in the right way and at the right time. 

 

“It is a legal requirement that a doctor has a conversation with a patient or their family about DNACPR. Failing to do so is a breach of human rights. In a report published last year, we found that these conversations were not always happening. This must improve as a matter of urgency. 

 

“We made a series of recommendations to enhance the communication surrounding DNAPCR so that doctors, patients and their loved ones can make informed choices. These recommendations have been welcomed by healthcare leaders and we are working with the Government to explore how they can be implemented on the frontline so that patients and their families are involved in discussions critical to their future care.”

In its recent investigation, PHSO looked at the case of Ali Asghar, a 73-year-old grandfather from East Ham. 

A few days after testing positive for COVID-19 in January 2021, he was struggling to breathe and taken by ambulance to Newham University Hospital. A chest X-ray showed that Ali had COVID pneumonia, a lung infection caused by COVID-19. A DNACPR order was put in place that day. 

The reasons for the order were cited as a stroke he had experienced the year before, his frailty and the severity of his illness.

Ali was not told that the order had been made. His wife, Firdose Asghar, and family only found out about the order following his death six days after he was admitted to hospital.

The Ombudsman found that while the DNACPR order was appropriate, the Trust failed to consult about it with the patient or the family beforehand. 

PHSO found no evidence to suggest that Ali lacked the mental capacity to discuss the order at the time. 

Their investigation also revealed that the Trust failed to allow his family to visit when it was clear that Ali’s health was deteriorating. Ali was not assessed for malnutrition and there were further failings with the Trust’s complaint-handling.

The Ombudsman did not find any failings with other issues raised by Firdose, including how staff responded to Ali’s calls for assistance, the provision of drink and pain medication, communication with his family about his condition and not allowing Ali to go home. 

PHSO recommended that the Trust acknowledge its failings, apologise to Ali’s family and pay them £700 for the upset and distress caused.

PHSO also recommended that the Trust takes action to remind its doctors to follow DNACPR guidance. The Trust has complied with all recommendations.

Firdose, 66, said:

I was shocked when I found out about the DNACPR order. It feels like they went behind our backs to make this important decision, without even a phone call to us when I was calling them multiple times a day to ask about his wellbeing.

 

“The hospital staff never asked us what we wanted to do in that scenario and they didn’t allow us to visit him. If he was confused and deteriorating, we could have been there with him and maybe we could have accepted his passing more easily. Losing someone is hard enough but these failings in his care and the lack of communication have just added to our pain.

 

“When I raised my concerns with Barts Health NHS Trust, they did not take any responsibility and that made me angry. I took my complaint to the Ombudsman because I wanted justice for my husband and some kind of closure.

 

“This has affected my trust in the NHS to the point that when I have gone to A&E for my own health problems I have begged doctors not to admit me to a ward and when I have needed treatment I have gone abroad instead.” 

On March 11, 2025, at the General Assembly of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) held in Geneva, Switzerland, the Public Defender of Georgia was awarded a re-accreditation certificate, which confirms the full compliance of the Public Defender's Office with the requirements set out in the UN Paris Principles.

As a result, the Public Defender's Office has been reaccredited with "A" status for a period of 5 years.