Today, Human Rights Ombudswoman Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek submitted and presented the 31st Annual Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia and the Annual Report of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2025 to the Minister of Justice, Dr Mihael Zupančič, and the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Nataša Pirc Musar. She emphasized that the findings, recommendations and statistical data relate to real people who were unable to exercise their rights promptly or effectively.

In 2025, the Ombudsman dealt with 6,517 cases, which was 3.64 per cent more than in the previous year. The Ombudsman considered 3,681 complaints, resolving 2,941 of them (79.90 per cent), and conducted 2,792 in-person and telephone consultations.

Of the 203 substantiated complaints involving alleged human rights violations, the Ombudsman identified 238 violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as other irregularities. The most frequently identified violation was a breach of the principle of good administration, recorded in 59 cases. This was followed by violations of equality before the law, the right to social security, the principles of the rule of law and the social state, unjustified delays in proceedings, and violations of the right to healthcare, the rights of persons with disabilities, and the right to equal protection of rights.

Of particular concern is the fact that 100 (62.5%) of the 160 previous Ombudsman recommendations that remain relevant have not yet been implemented. In 2025, the Ombudsman made a further 57 recommendations and identified five ongoing tasks.

Discussions were held with the Minister of Justice regarding outstanding recommendations and necessary systemic changes

The Ombudswoman briefed the Minister of Justice, Dr Mihael Zupančič, on outstanding recommendations for which the Ministry of Justice is the sole addressee, a joint addressee, or the required coordinator. According to the Ombudsman’s records, 16 such recommendations or ongoing tasks remain active. The oldest outstanding recommendations include two from 2021. One of these concerns the expansion of the possibility of subsidiary prosecution for the criminal offence of public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance under Article 297 of the Criminal Code. The other recommendation relates to the publication of significant judgements delivered by the European Court of Human Rights against other countries in Slovenian.

A significant part of the discussion concerned prison conditions. The Ombudswoman drew attention to the critical shortage of prison officers, prisoners’ access to healthcare and psychiatric care, and the situation of elderly, sick and disabled prisoners. She also emphasized the importance of maintaining contact with their families. She also emphasized the necessity of clearer legislative rules to govern the supervision of house arrest and the limitations placed on the rights of detainees and their family members.

The two interlocutors also discussed the situation of women prisoners and the timely preparation for the implementation of the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act, as well as judicial reform. The ombudswoman emphasized the importance of effective procedural safeguards for vulnerable people and children, highlighted the shortage of clinical psychologists, child psychiatrists, and court experts, and stressed the need to consistently apply child-friendly justice standards, including in family and other civil proceedings. With regard to access to justice, she emphasized that, as the judiciary becomes increasingly digitalized, the state must retain a comprehensible and effective non-digital route. The effect of videoconferencing on the quality of trials must also be monitored, as must the consequences of reorganizing the court network for people in different parts of the country, and the system of lay judges must be appropriately regulated.

The Ombudswoman also called on the minister to prepare a comprehensive amendment to the Human Rights Ombudsman Act. This should ensure timely and transparent appointment procedures, continuity in the institution's leadership, and its functional, staffing, and financial independence. The Act should also regulate the protection of children’s rights more appropriately, as well as the performance of the national human rights institution's functions and the independent mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In June 2026, the ombudsman was reaccredited as an A-status national human rights institution under the Paris Principles. The Ombudsman also received recommendations concerning the further strengthening of the statutory safeguards for its independence.

The discussion also covered hate speech, hate motivation, and responsible public discourse. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, but it is not absolute. It is limited by the rights of others, human dignity, and the constitutional prohibition of incitement to inequality, intolerance, and violence. Public office holders have a particular responsibility to promote firm yet respectful public discourse, and to unequivocally reject dehumanization, incitement and violence.

'The annual reports reflect the state of human rights in society. Recommendations are our tool, but their true purpose is to effect change in practice. I therefore expect the Ministry to provide a clear overview of who is responsible for implementing each recommendation, the next steps and the completion dates. Urgent measures are needed in the prison system, in healthcare provision for prisoners, in the implementation of the new juvenile justice framework, and in preparing amendments to the Human Rights Ombudsman Act. A recommendation is only implemented when people's situation actually improves,' emphasized Human Rights Ombudswoman Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek.

She proposed that the Ministry prepare a substantive review of the implementation of all active recommendations, identify those responsible, and set deadlines. She also expressed her expectation that the ministries' responses in the government response report would be clear, substantive and mutually coordinated.

A discussion with the President of the Republic was held regarding independent institutions, state accountability and public trust

The Ombudswoman presented the annual reports to the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Nataša Pirc Musar, providing an overview of the effective implementation of human rights and a basis for strengthening constitutional culture. She emphasized that a right enshrined in law is insufficient if an individual cannot exercise it due to a failure to respond by an authority, excessively lengthy proceedings or shifting responsibility between authorities. Good administration is not an administrative add-on, but a prerequisite for the equal and dignified treatment of people.

The Ombudswoman also highlighted the importance of independent oversight institutions for constitutional democracy and the system of checks and balances. For most of 2025, the ombudsman institution operated without a head who had been elected to a full term of office. Nevertheless, it performed its duties without interruption and maintained its professionalism, independence, accessibility, and international activities. This experience confirms the need for timely and transparent appointments, as well as legally guaranteed continuity in the leadership of independent institutions.

The Ombudswoman also informed the president of the prolonged failure to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations. She emphasized the importance of regularly monitoring the implementation of recommendations and decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, and of executing judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, and making this monitoring publicly accessible. Responsible bodies must be clearly identified, as well as deadlines, reasoned responses and verification of the actual effects of the measures adopted.

Children’s rights were among the key substantive issues highlighted. Due to lengthy family and judicial proceedings, a shortage of court experts and limited access to child psychiatric and clinical psychological assistance, children may experience uncertainty for several years. The Ombudswoman therefore emphasized the need to strengthen the system of independent protection of children’s rights. She also informed the President that Slovenia had not yet properly established the independent mechanism required under Article 33(2) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for promoting, protecting and monitoring its implementation.

'A strong, professional and genuinely independent ombudsman is not a rival to the other branches of government, but an essential part of the system of checks and balances.' When 100 of the previous 160 recommendations remain unimplemented, merely enshrining rights in law is not enough. The state must show who will take action, how they will act, and by when. People trust the state when institutions explain their actions, acknowledge and rectify their mistakes, and apply the rules equally to everyone,” she emphasized when presenting the reports to the President of the Republic.

The National Preventive Mechanism issued 329 recommendations

The Ombudswoman also submitted the 2025 annual report of the national preventive mechanism to both interlocutors. The National Preventive Mechanism visited 73 places of deprivation of liberty, 71 of which were unannounced visits, and issued 329 recommendations to the institutions visited. It conducted 16 regular visits, 20 follow-up visits and 37 thematic visits.

The findings point to recurring problems involving staffing, medical and psychiatric care, accommodation conditions, and the treatment of older people, sick people, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable people. Deprivation of liberty does not entail the loss of human dignity, and independent preventive monitoring is essential to prevent inhuman or degrading treatment.

The annual reports call on the relevant authorities to translate the findings and recommendations into concrete measures with clearly defined responsibilities and timeframes. Public institutions and all decision-makers acting on behalf of the state or local authorities exist to serve the people. Their decisions must respect human rights and safeguard human dignity.