The United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture has been held annually on 26th June since 1998. The purpose of the day is to speak out against the crime of torture and to honour and support victims and survivors of torture throughout the world. 26th June 2015 will be the 17th time that this day has been marked. More information is available at http://www.un.org/events/torture/. On this day we should not only remember victims of torture but also stress our common commitment to work for the prevention of torture in the future, so that others will not suffer as those who have been victims have suffered.

An important role in this field is entrusted to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) since by the Law on Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment  she also carries out important tasks and authorisations of the national preventive mechanism (NPM) together with selected non-governmental organisations. Thus, the Ombudsman is a part of the generally applicable system under the auspices of the United Nations which at the international and national level represents an (additional) mechanism to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment of people deprived of their liberty. This system is particularly based on regular visits to places of detention.

These are preventive visits, the purpose of which is to prevent torture or other ill-treatment before it occurs. In 2015, for example, the Ombudsman has paid 35 visits to places of detention, namely a psychiatric hospital, 13 homes for the elderly, two special social welfare institutions, three educational institutions, 12 police stations and three institutions for those serving prison sentences or sections of these institutions (more about this here)

The NPM drafts a comprehensive (final) report on the findings established at the visited institution after each visit. The report also covers proposals and recommendations for the elimination of established irregularities and to improve the situation, including measures to reduce the possibilities of improper treatment in the future. Based on the report, the response of the competent authority and any additional positions of DPM, a short report on the visit which is published on the internet as well as an annual report on the execution of the tasks and authorities of DPM are prepared for each visit.

In addition to the most important preventive effect of visits, we note that in many of the institutions visited the living conditions and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty have improved and that, therefore, DPM through its operation contributes significantly to the improvement of the situation of persons deprived of their liberty. This was also noted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) when visiting Slovenia in 2012 (see report on this visit, p. 10). 

Assessments of successful work have also come from the expert sphere (See e.g. Korošec, Damjan: To the Ombudsman's report on the implementation of the tasks of the National Preventive Mechanism in: Legal Practice No. 47, 8th December 2011),  since the findings of the NPM have also been quoted by the European Court for Human Rights in its judgements (See e.g. case Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia and Štrucl Jakob and Others v. Slovenia) and are also the subject of many diploma and Master’s theses.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Anglu Farrugia and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, have today addressed the an information session for the newly appointed Liaison Officers from different Ministries, Departments and Public Entities. The role of the Liaison Officers is to serve as a link between the Office of the Ombudsman and the ministry, department or public entity in which they are assigned.

The meeting which was held at the Committee Room, of the House of Representatives, was also addressed by Dr Monica Borg Galea, Head of the Investigation Section at the Office of the Ombudsman.

 Case Number: AJB-3358/2014

Inquiring into a complaint submitted by a parent, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights established that the Primary School of Bodajk and its maintainer, the School District of Mór, had systematically ignored some basic procedural rules providing guarantees. In his report, László Székely put forward some proposals going beyond the given case, since the issues related to the lawful and professional handling of parental petitions seemed to be systemic.

The father of one of the students attending the Primary School of Bodajk turned to the Ombudsman complaining about the school's practices. He learned that one of the school's teachers had physically abused a student, and another used to address the students in rude, insulting terms. The father also expressed his objection to the mandatory attendance in classes starting before 8 am. He contacted the school's maintainer with no result, he would not receive a substantive reply. According to him, the proper investigation of his complaints were made impossible due to the strong interpersonal links between the school and the School District.

The Ombudsman's investigation established that the maintainer, the School District of Mór, had infringed almost all the provisions of guarantee of the Act on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services, as well as the complainant's rights to due process and legal remedy. The School District had failed to act in a case falling under its jurisdiction, to consider the complainant's request on its merits, to keep the deadlines, to conduct an impartial procedure, and to inform the complainant of the possibilities of legal remedy. The maintainer had not only failed to decide on the exclusion of an employee reporting partiality, but it had also relied on the biased employee in handling the case; it had also failed to forward to the supervising authority the objection filed against the principal on the grounds of partiality.

According to the relevant legal regulations, morning classes may not start before 7:15 am in primary schools. Notwithstanding, extra morning classes started at 7:00 am, and students could not have a break between the extra and the first regular morning classes. The report points out that the school's internal regulations contain conflicting provisions, and the school policy does not comply with the relevant legal provisions of guarantees either in connection with the duration of the classes and breaks or concerning the handling of students being late to classes.

The Commissioner pointed out that students have to attend classes and to provide an explanation for their absence: unjustified absence from classes shall have its legal consequences. The school has to notify the parents and draw their attention to the potential legal consequences right after the student's first unjustified absence. If the notification does not yield the expected result and the student keeps on skipping classes, the school has to contact the parents through the competent child welfare service.

However, it is the director of the School District of Mór who sent a letter, instead of the school, to the parents, calling their attention to the number of classes their child had been absent from without justification. Having done so, the maintainer clearly overstepped its powers. The Commissioner also pointed out that the relevant legal regulations do not provide for subsequent participation, absence from classes may not be "compensated". The Ombudsman concluded that although the student in question had in fact not attended the extra morning classes, his legal representative had been continuously raising objection to the staring time of those classes. The school had failed to schedule the classes in accordance with the law; therefore, according to the Commissioner, the student's absence could not be legally held against him.

The Commissioner requested the Director of the Klebelsberg Institution Maintenance Center (KLIK) to take the necessary measures so that the parents' petition could be considered in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and the proceedings be concluded with a lawful and formal decision. He also requested the KLIK's Director to review the school's internal regulations and to investigate the personal conditions potentially hindering the proper inquiry into the case in question. Furthermore, he suggested to organize a training for school district directors and public servants in charge of educational administration in order to acquaint them with the relevant procedural regulations on handling petitions submitted by parents.