INSTITUTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA right in the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms (as opposed to religion or sexual orientation), age discrimination issues arise in the context of different rights. As such, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as in other areas, ruled it in cases whose facts indicated age discrimination, without actually analyzing the case in this regard, particularly in relation to the treatment of children in the criminal justice system. The European Court of Human Rights has held that "age" is a "different circumstance." 478 The Law on Prohibition of Discrimination in Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulates age as a prohibited basis for discrimination, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1. In the reporting period, the Ombudsmen considered a number of complaints indicating discrimination on the basis of age, and examples of complaints are provided below. Example: The complainant 479 states that she applied for the 2018 Self-Applicant Grant Public Call 480, which was announced on the basis of Decision on criteria for self-employment, number: 01-01-6-3096/18 of 24 April 2018 in the territory of Jajce Municipality. After the preliminary list was published stating that the complainant did not meet the requirements of the public invitation because of her age, she lodged a complaint with the Mayor within the deadline. The complaint stated, inter alia: "... Article 2 of that Decision states: "A candidate who does not meet one of the general conditions will be disqualified." By examining my application and the attached documentation, it is possible to establish that all the general conditions have been fully fulfilled and that the age limit has not been set as a general condition, neither in the Jajce Municipality Decision nor in the Public Invitation..,” Following the investigation, the Ombudsmen made a recommendation 481 to Municipality of Jajce. The recommendation was implemented. Example: Ombudsmen acted on complaint 482 citing violations of the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, i.e. Age Discrimination in the Procedure for Public Selection of Police Officers in the rank of "police officer" and "junior inspector" in the Federation Police Directorate, No. 09-19/1-34- 2-527, dated December 12, 2017. During the investigation procedure it was found that the by-law of the Federation Police Directorate “Criterion on Method, and System of Scoring, Candidate Testing and Physical Aptitude” has deficiencies in a way that it is not harmonized with the amendments to the Law on Police Officers, which provides for an exception in terms of enabling reporting and candidates over 35 years, because without the provisions of the by-law “Criterion on the Method and System of Scoring, Candidate Testing and Physical Aptitude” which will set norms adapted to candidates older than 35 years, these candidates are given only a formal opportunity to apply for the competition, but not a realistic possibility to participate until the end of the competition and to be competitive in accordance with the principle of fairness. Following the investigation procedure, a Recommendation was sent 483 Director of the Federation Police Administration. The recommendation was implemented. 478 ECtHR, Schwizgebel v. Switzerland (No. 25762/07), 10 June 2010. Ž-SA-06-866/18 480 Grant No: 02-14-3539/18 of 28 May 2018. 481 Recommendation No. P-30/19 of 12 February 2019. 482 Ž-SA-04-798/18 483 Recommendation No. P-106/19 of 24 April 2019. 479 120