2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS When considering complaints in which statements on key facts differ, i.e. on what really happened between the officer and the injured party, the Ombudsman has previously point to the practice where officers’ statements are usually considered true. We would again like to point out that the assessment of evidence cannot be based on the view that the individual’s statements (or statements of witnesses proposed by the individual) are less reliable merely because they are involved in a police procedure. We cannot give the uniform an absolute advantage in comparison to an injured party who is being considered in a procedure. We understand that, due to the nature of the procedure in which the individual is involved, and due to the fact that an offence, even a criminal offence, may have been committed, the individual has an interest in not telling the truth. Despite this fact, we cannot exclude the fact that police officers may also have an interest in describing the course of events differently from the way in which they actually happened. Therefore, we would like to point out that a great deal of caution is always required in the assessment of all circumstances of individual cases, as well as when there is doubt because two different interpretations of the same event are provided; therefore, it is not permissible to unilaterally, or even without criticism believe the statements of a police officer or officers. The fact that the police or the Ministry of the Interior could neither confirm nor dismiss the claims of the injured person is not enough reason to automatically accept the police officer’s claims in the Ombudsman’s opinion. The appeals authority is not bound by any rules of evidence when establishing decisive facts. They must consider the rules of experience including the rules of logic when weighting, comparing and assessing the claims and statements of each side. The credibility of the description of events as presented by the police officer involved in the procedure must always be equally verified. In the complaint procedure, a complaint can also be considered by means of a conciliation procedure. The conciliation procedure entails a meeting between the head of the police unit to which the police officer about whom the complaint was made is assigned and the complainant in which the head of the unit informs the complainant of the findings concerning the complaint. They must allow the complainant to present facts about the complaint and propose evidence for establishing the actual situation. Police powers and police officers’ conduct in the event in question are explained, and if the complaint is justified, the complainant is informed about the measures that have been and will be taken (apology, written and oral warning to the police officer, proposal to initiate a disciplinary procedure, offence procedure or criminal proceedings). If the complainant attends the conciliation procedure and accepts the findings, the complaint procedure is concluded when the minutes are signed. If the conciliation procedure is conducted appropriately, it can resolve most of the conflicts that cause complainants’ dissatisfaction, especially with regard to complaints about minor encroachments of police officers on an individual’s rights. on the suitability of visits by an assistant commander to a complainant’s home after a complaint is filed if this is an element in the complaint procedure. With regard to the quality of conducting conciliation procedures the Ministry of the Interior also stated that individual conciliation procedures are (still) not evolving at the desired level of quality, and therefore, the Sector for complaints against the Police is engaged in a number of activities in this field, which the Ombudsman commends. In the first half of 2014, training on conciliation procedures and other individual tasks in the complaint procedure was conducted at all police administration units, and the minister’s authorised representatives constantly monitored conciliation procedures, which has proven to be a very good practice, since complainants consider this an additional concern and safeguard against the biased management of the complaint or conciliation procedure. The Ministry of the Interior announced that training would be carried out in the first half of 2015. Regarding the aspect of the suitability of an assistant commander’s visit, the Ministry of the Interior explained that if the head of the police unit assesses that an interview with the complainant is required to completely clarify the circumstances of the subject of the complaint, this can be done prior to the conciliation procedure. Any speculation or encouragement of the complainant to withdraw the complaint are of course not permissible. The Ministry of the interior has found that the need to visit the complainant in this case was not convincingly proven, and at the same time the Ministry could not confirm the complainant’s statements about the authorised representative of the head of the police unit attempt to encourage the complainant to withdraw the complaint or alleged speculation that the complainant would not be able to prove the statements made in the complaint. After an unsuccessful conciliation procedure with the head of the police unit (who considers complaints based on accusations of minor encroachments by police officers on individual’s human rights) the complaint is considered by the appeals panel of the Ministry of the Interior (as well as complaints based on paragraph four of Article 148 of the ZNPPol). The minister’s representative, who is assigned to head the panel, may decide, in accordance with paragraph two of Article 152 of the aforementioned Act, not to schedule a panel meeting after an unsuccessful conciliation procedure. The condition for this is that all evidence-based procedures (e.g. review of documentation, interviews with witnesses) have been implemented in the conciliation procedure and that all procedure circumstances are verified and the current situation accurately examined. An additional condition is the evaluation that, based on the evidence obtained, a panel procedure would not lead to a different decision. According to the explanations of the Ministry of the Interior, this enables the conclusion of the complaint procedure in cases when the complainant does not accept correct explanations in the conciliation procedure based on justified reasons, or if the statements of the police officer and the complainant differ in significant respects in the absence of potential witnesses and if there are no other ways to establish the current situation of the complaint, as well as when a further procedure would not be reasonable based on the principle of efficiency. We must emphasise that the application of this practise must be diligently considered and substantively justified. 2.5.7 Private security and traffic warden services We did not consider any complaint in 2015 that required our action due to the work of security staff or traffic warden services, although they frequently encroach on human rights and freedoms. Therefore, issues related to this area are also of interest to the Ombudsman. We explained to some complainants the duties and measures of security guards and methods of complaint, but they did not contact us subsequently. Due to the importance of the method of resolving complaints in the conciliation procedure, during the consideration of one matter, we proposed to the Ministry of the Interior, which is competent for managing and supervising individual complaint procedures, that it take additional measures to improve the situation in this field, especially in order to improve the quality of managing conciliation procedures and to resolve more complaints successfully already at the first level, which is also one of the goals of resolving complaints about the work of police officers. Regarding one of the case considered, we also proposed that they comment We considered a complaint of one of the security services providers who requested our standpoint on the application or scope of application of Article 58 of the Private Security Act (ZZasV-1). This provision determines that, if, while doing private security tasks, a security guard discover that a criminal offence is being planned, executed or has been committed for which an offender is prosecuted ex officio, the security guard is obliged, in accordance with the act regulating criminal procedure, to immediately notify the nearest police station or to file charges with the competent state authority. The security services provider informed us that an unusual situation occurs if the injured party does not request prosecution or denies prosecution in advance; however, the police violate the personal integrity of persons (also injured parties) who do not want this or even oppose it. 86 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 87 2.5 POLICE PROCEEDINGS The Ombudsman encourages independent, objective, professional and high-quality resolutions of complaints about the work of police officers. We established several times that the statements of complainants on the one hand and the police’s explanations on the other hand differ with regard to important facts referring to particular police procedures. Based on the established facts and circumstances, we were able to conclude in the majority of similar cases that our potential further detailed investigation of a particular event would probably not help discover the actual conduct of the officers concerned. Thus, we can mention a complainant who did not agree with the decision of the appeals senate, i.e. that none of her reasons for complaining were founded. She emphasised the individual assessments of evidence by the senate, such as: “The senate sees no reason to disbelieve the police officers /.../”, “The senate sees no reason to disbelieve the police officer /.../”, “The senate concludes that it is not possible to confirm your allegations /.../, “/.../ the senate believes that the police officer /.../ was convincing and credible in his statement, in which he identified himself as the police officer to whom the reason for the appeal refers /.../”. On the other hand, the senate did not find the statement of the complainant’s friend significant and found that her statements were not convincing or credible because of their friendship, although the senate itself accepted the statements of police officers as “always” credible. The complainant believed that this was an indicator of double standards and bias.