With regard to the recommendation made last year, i.e. that the police should inform all units when irregularities in their work are discovered to prevent the recurrence of similar or the same errors (recommendation no. 60), we can state that the Sector for complaints against the Police of the Police and Security Directorate prepared materials including the summaries of justified complaints received in 2014 at the beginning of 2015. The material was prepared in order to prevent unsuitable behaviour by police officers when they implement police tasks and ensure the consistent observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons in police proceedings, including a proposal to inform all police units of the relevant content when training police officers. This is considered a case of good practice, which should be continued. We are convinced that the findings from the complaints we considered can be used as guidance in improving police work and in detecting and eliminating the causes of potential new (similar) complaints. The complaints considered with regard to other (general) recommendations in the 2014 report (e.g. recommendation no. 56 and recommendation no. 57) do not indicate cause for concern. One of the recommendations made in the previous year emphasised that special attention should be paid in the exercise of police powers to children, who must not, and cannot, find themselves in a similar position to that of their parents. Therefore, law enforcement authorities must also consider how to protect children when seeking accommodation for them (recommendation no. 58). In this regard, we also positively assessed the conduct of police officers in a case in connection with a complaint considered in 2015, in which the complainant stated that prior to searching her home police officers allowed her to take care of her children and accompany them to kindergarten and school; they also stated that they would include the competent social work centre in the matter. With regard to our recommendation on the procedure of diligently studying and verifying information received about possible criminal offences passed on by means of an anonymous telephone number (recommendation no. 56) and the organisation of work in courts whereby investigating judges can see or initiate the procedure without delay to discuss a case of a person arrested on a European arrest and surrender warrant after the conclusion of police proceedings (recommendation no. 59), we received no complaints, so we were unable to monitor the realisation of the recommendation. 2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS 2.5.3 Findings from complaints considered In addition to dealing with complaints in this field, we also visited certain police stations in 2015 when implementing tasks and powers under the National Prevention Mechanism (NPM), which is the subject of a special report on the implementation of tasks and powers of the NPM. 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 with the police. We can again commend the prompt responses of the Ministry of the Interior and the Police. Within the scope of preparations for implementing guidelines and compulsory instructions on the preparation of the police work plan, we once again met the Police and Security Directorate at the Ministry of the Interior and considered individual issues (e.g. some aspects of secret police operations) with the Director General of the Police or the General Police Administration. As an external expert, Deputy Ombudsman Ivan Šelih continued cooperating on the Expert Council on Police Law and Powers, a permanent, autonomous and consultative body of the Police and the Police and Security Directorate at the Ministry of the Interior. The Council combines the external and internal expert public in the provision of the lawful, expert and proportionate application of police powers, and contributes to enhancing trust among the internal and external public in the expert integrity and operational autonomy of the work of the police. appropriate for the police to constantly strive to improve the quality of their work. And the Ombudsman assists them with relevant recommendations. Due to the oppressive nature of the work, the Ombudsman expects the police to be careful when dealing with the weakest people, and that the police have appropriately qualified and motivated personnel for this purpose. Therefore, the working conditions of police officers are very important. The Ombudsman expects the Government of the Republic of Slovenia to find methods to improve them. The complaints we encountered most frequently referred to violations of rights to equality before the law, protection of a person’s personality and dignity, the right to personal dignity and safety, legal guarantees in minor offence proceedings, the right to equal protection of rights and others. Complaints expressing the helplessness and despair of complainants due to disputes with neighbours, domestic violence or other threats were also frequent. We emphasise that in such cases, complaints or requests for further action must be responded to, and the actual situation of all the complaints that are considered must be diligently and properly examined, since this is the basis for possible further actions by police officers, which must be effective. There were also some complaints with regard to the (lack of) measures taken by the police in cases of unregulated ownership of public roads. Criminal repressive measure is an extreme way to deal with conflicts, so a comprehensive solution to the issue of public road ownership is possible with the immediate reconciliation of disputable regulations of municipalities with the law. As well as being in the public interest, the interests of the owners of disputable land and those who use municipal roads also demand this. This year, complainants most frequently pointed out irregularities in police proceedings in which the police acted as a minor offence authority when considering violations of public peace and order and road traffic offences, as well as road accidents. The (in)action of police officers, subjectivity when establishing the facts and circumstances of alleged offences, incomplete establishment of the actual situation, and dissatisfaction with the issue of a payment order or a fine and other violations of rights were mentioned in particular. Some complaints were also made about impolite and incorrect or inappropriate verbal behaviour by police officers. At the end of 2015, the Ombudsman was alerted to the allegedly inappropriate behaviour of some individual of police officers towards refugees. We warned the Ministry of the Interior about this matter and demanded appropriate action. The alleged inappropriate conduct of individual police officers detracts from the continuing and considerable efforts of most police officers in the treatment of refugees. The remaining complaints referred to allegations of police misconduct, e.g. in the use of coercive measures, detention (see the case below), (discriminatory) conduct of border controls, pre-trial procedure management and within the scope of this procedure, the collection of notifications or performed interviews, failure to respond to reports or requests for action, notifications on the process and conclusion of a police investigation etc. With regard to the above mentioned, we can commend the new Internet application which the police now have for notifying victims of criminal offences and enabling fast and direct provision of information about pretrial procedures. The application also contains a link to a brochure ‘When I Am a Victim of a Criminal Offence’, which provides information to victims about their rights as victims. Example: Detention of suspects continued for longer than registered A complainant contacted the Ombudsman stating that, while shopping, he and his wife had been wrongly accused of stealing clothes by a security officer at a shopping centre in Maribor on 4 June 2014. Although the security officer had tried to prevent them from leaving, they drove from the shopping centre in their own car and were then stopped in the centre of Maribor by a police patrol. They then had to drive to the police station accompanied by police officers, where, according to complainant’s statements, a number of irregularities occurred. During police officers’ strike, the Ombudsman as the custodian of good management informed the Government of the Republic of Slovenia by a press release that the negotiations with the police unions was a moment when comprehensive information on the work and conditions under which police officers work could have been obtained, and when appropriate measures can be adopted. Good working conditions and appropriate remuneration can contribute to the dignity of employed police officers and their motivation, and this leads to the more appropriate implementation of tasks and powers, as well as to greater concern for the rights of people with whom they come in contact. Poor working conditions have quite the opposite effect. It is Because the complainant did not file a complaint about the conduct of the police officers involved, the Ombudsman was primarily concerned with establishing the legality of the deprivation of liberty, and the examination of the complainants’ car and of his and his wife’s person. The Ombudsman inquired at the Ministry of the Interior and reviewed the file about the complainant and his wife that is kept at Maribor II Police Station. Based on this information we found that the police officers had stopped the complainant at 12:24 at the crossroads of Dravograjska cesta and Ulica na Poljanah in Maribor. When recording information about both of the passengers in the vehicle, police officers noticed bags and parts of clothes that could have been obtained 82 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 83 2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS anonymous e-complaints, which can be malicious and can stigmatise individuals or their families in the local environment – recommendation no. 56).