More efficient measures for high-quality and timely judicial decision-making are expected Similarly to 2014, one quarter of complaints received in 2015 involving judicial matters were related to lengthy judicial proceedings, and three quarters discussed the content of court decisions or the conduct of procedural acts, i.e. issues regarding the quality of trials. We are aware that the Ministry of Justice is striving for the efficient implementation of the right to trial without undue delay, and is also taking action in accordance with its jurisdiction; however, amendments to the current regulatory bases will also be necessary to realise our constant recommendations from the viewpoint of effectively providing the right to trial without undue delay, the aspect of the right to an effective remedy and the question of the timely award of just satisfaction. I also strive to have further measures adopted for high-quality judicial decision-making with a system of consistently established judicial responsibility, which will function within the constitutional principle of the independence of judges and the judiciary. I emphasise that it is understood that public employees and judges also have their own obligations and responsibilities. They are obliged to perform their work correctly, with fairness and responsibility, and ensure their judicial function is effectively implemented. A judge’s independence must not mean they are inviolable or non-culpable, because they must comply with the Constitution and the law. The Ombudsman again calls for the further improvement of the operational efficiency of judicial supervisory authorities in order to ensure the quality of courts’ work and strengthen their integrity, which must not affect their autonomy. We must respect the dignity of persons deprived of liberty The Ombudsman receives and discusses many complaints from persons deprived of their liberty for various reasons. In the role of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), we conducted 67 visits in 2015. We visited detainees, prisoners serving sentence in solitary confinement, persons in forensic units, minors in juvenile detention, minors in correctional and juvenile facilities and special education institutions, several people with mental disorders or diseases in social and health-care institutions, and aliens at the Aliens Centre. The purpose of these visits was to improve the protection of these persons against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We are pleased that regulatory improvements have been made on the basis of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. Nevertheless, many problems remain. Our prisons are still overcrowded and the legal option of sentencing alternatives is still not being applied frequently enough. I particularly stress that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) established in its judgements (Arapović v. Slovenia and Beljkaš v. Slovenia) unsuitable conditions of detention or degrading treatment in Ljubljana Prison, which the state is obliged to eliminate with systemic measures, possibly also with the planned construction of new prisons in Ljubljana. In addition to overcrowding in individual prisons and, consequently, poor living conditions, we also highlight the shortage of personnel and overburdening of employees, which is reflected in the quality of expert work with prisoners and their care, including worsening security conditions in prisons. It is mandatory to adopt staffing norms for work in prisons. We also established that no progress has been made on providing work opportunities for prisoners. The Ombudsman has been pointing out this issue for several years, also in its role of the NPM. We cannot accept the justification that the Prison Administration are slow to discusses complaints due to staffing problems. Prisoners even state that prison staff deter them from seeking legal remedies or complaining. Complaints must be discussed within the statutory time limits. I am pleased to determine that not many complaints received in 2015 accused judicial police officers of illtreatment; however, we expect more consistent recording of data on the alleged occurrence of injuries or ill-treatment in prisoners’ medical records. We further stress the unresolved situation of elderly, ill, physicallyimpaired or other disabled prisoners serving prison sentences and the unacceptable delay in preparing a regulation to define in more detail the functioning of the Forensic Psychiatry Unit. In the past and also now, 16 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 the Ombudsman has highlighted the issue of accommodating persons with mental disorders in secure wards of social care institutions, where the situation is alarming. We also noted that minors and families are usually accommodated at the Aliens Centre, where freedom of movement is limited. In this regard, we contacted the ministries and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and asked them to take suitable measures. They said that the problem would be solved and families and minors would be relocated to more suitable institutions; however, this has not happened. I emphasise that, in acting in this way, Slovenia, is violating the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, according to which children in our country are subject to special protection and also the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). In 2015, we enquired about concrete procedures relating to complaints about the work of police officers particularly at the Ministry of the Interior and in certain cases directly at the police. We can again commend the prompt and high-quality responses of the Ministry of the Interior and the police. We nevertheless urge them to continue to consistently observe human rights in police procedures, suitable communication and for police officers to take a respectful approach to individuals, and consistent discussion of all possible irregularities in the work of police officers. We require more efficient and qualitative public administration I determined that the principle of good administration in particular had been violated in most the complaints in which it was established that human rights had been violated. Professional officials should be more sensitive to the needs of users and be aware that they serve the people. As the Ombudsman, I am dissatisfied with the fact that certain state authorities, local authorities and holders of public authorisations (institutions, social work centres and others) function too slowly, take too long to resolve applications and exceed all reasonable time limits when making their decisions. Prompt decision making is particularly important in cases of recognising the right to unemployment benefit or other forms of social assistance. When inquiring and obtaining the information needed for the Ombudsman’s work when discussing complaints, certain authorities respond only after several interventions, although the Ombudsman clearly provides the expected deadline for a reply. Such conduct amounts to obstruction of the Ombudsman’s work. Any authority responsible for making decisions in an administrative procedure must decide on the rights and duties of individuals within deadlines determined by the General Administrative Procedure Act or other acts, and such excuses as the lack of personnel, sick leave or other reasons are unacceptable to the public and the Ombudsman. This is even more important in procedures which involve severe encroachment on the rights of individuals and come into force before the finality of a decision, e.g. removal of children from their parents. The state and local authorities should not overlook or merely put in a drawer letters, requests or petitions from Slovenian citizens (submitted in paper or electronic form) but should always reply to them in writing, as per the principle of good administration. The constitutional right to petition is particularly important, and so is the duty of the state authority which is its addressee, to state its position on the content of the proposal within a reasonable deadline and within its jurisdiction. Modern information technology may make the work of state authorities faster and more efficient, but its technical limitations must not cause unequal treatment, which cannot be rehabilitated in any other way than by a revocation and repetition (e.g. of a public procurement for allocation of grants for shortage occupations). Information technology (IT) cannot and must not be a substitute for rational analyses of the situation of a person who needs social or any other form of assistance or a service; at best, IT may provide support. It facilitates, sometimes even unduly, interference of public authorities with personal data and people’s privacy, and with its publication (also on a website or on local TV) may constitute an unacceptable violation of the right to privacy (e.g. publication of names and surnames of pupils with approved payment of school meals). Also in cases when reporters submit various complaints to state authorities and wish to remain anonymous, the state or local authorities should not forward reporters’ personal data to third persons without their consent; by ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 17 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION or expressions of hostility will never be completely eliminated; nevertheless, serious consideration should be given to sanctioning them. The Ombudsman further proposes that deputies and other politicians adopt a code of ethics and form a tribunal to respond to individual cases subject to public condemnation.