The Ombudsman responded to many invitations from media organisations; she spoke at Radio Europa05 regularly every month about current issues. We also cooperate regularly with Pravna praksa (Legal Practice Journal). In 2015, the Ombudsman regularly published her column every two weeks at the IUS INFO legal portal. The Ombudsman also has two profiles on Facebook and two websites: one for children and the adults who take care of them, and the other for information on the exceptionally multi-layered work of the Ombudsman, on which the public is also informed through press releases or at individual events. We inform the media and interested public about our work via newsletters every Friday. 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK The media are a source of information for the Ombudsman’s actions. Due to mistrust of institutions or a lack of information on whether the Ombudsman might help, many people turn to the media and share their difficult stories with them. The Ombudsman perceives information from the media as a source of information about possible violations. It assesses and studies the appropriateness of initiating a complaint of our own accord and if it meets the conditions for our taking action. The Ombudsman ensures a qualitative, professionally justified, fair and prompt response to complaints from the media and their questions. The Ombudsman responds publicly when this is deemed necessary in the light of its role and powers. The Ombudsman responds to individual cases when all the relevant information from the competent authorities has been collected and when an opinion has been formed on the basis of the information. Due to the principle of confidentiality in this process, the Ombudsman always acquires the consent of complainants prior to disclosing any details about individual cases. Without such consent, only general opinions are provided about a certain problem. Questions from journalists Most written inquiries from journalists in 2015 concerned constitutional rights and discrimination (over 80 in all) and children’s rights (more than 40), followed by social matters (17), the judiciary (21), health care and health insurance (21) and employment relationships (9), pension and disability insurance (5), restriction of personal freedom (3), the environment (5), police procedures, administrative matters, housing issues and discrimination (1). This merely informative overview does not include all of the questions that the Ombudsman and her deputies were asked on various occasions. The exceptional increase in the field of constitutional rights and discrimination is the result of events relating to amendments to the Marriage and Family Relations Act and the refugee crisis in the second part of the year. Constitutional rights usually receive a lot of attention every year because they also include the ethics of public discourse (communication, hate speech etc.), privacy and the rights of homosexuals, the Roma and vulnerable groups. In relation to the amendments to the Marriage and Family Relations Act, we encountered an interesting question posed by a journalist as to whether an invitation to express personal opinions and beliefs in a workplace is considered mobbing. The Director of the Municipal Administration in the Municipality of Ljubljana was said to have invited her colleagues and subordinate employees to a group photo session to support the Act if this action complied with their beliefs. We received many questions throughout the year about the amendments to the Act, and journalists were particularly interested in our actions. More on the Ombudsman’s measures presented to the public as replies to questions by means of press releases or at press conferences can be found in the chapter on discrimination and equal opportunities relating to sexual orientation. The Ombudsman publicly commended the passage of the Marriage and Family Relations Act and thus the equalising of same-sex relationships with heterosexual ones. The Ombudsman assessed that homosexual persons would thus be granted the same rights, since they had been previously discriminated against in certain fields, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. During the campaign, the Ombudsman called for a debate based on verified facts and excluding intolerance of people with contrary opinions. The Constitutional Court permitted a referendum. Following the rejection of the amendments to the Act, the Ombudsman in cooperation with NGOs began studying the need for, and possibilities of, filing requests for a review of the constitutionality and legality of regulations which preclude persons in same-sex partnerships from having equal rights. Within the context of the amendments to the Act, we were also asked about the abuse of children for political purposes, since children were included in a video against same-sex relationships and efforts to acquire equal rights. More on this can be found in Chapter 2.16.10 Children in the media. Expressions of hatred against refugees made by leading political representatives In autumn 2015, journalists asked the Ombudsman how to deal with the growing number of expressions of hatred directed against refugees. We provided clarifications in this regard in our press release. More on this topic can also be found in Chapter 2.1.4 Ethics of public discourse. We were informed about a case of supposed hate speech on social networks by a sister of a deputy of the National Assembly and a journalist. We explained that we do not follow communications on social networks on a daily basis and do not express an opinion on everything appearing there, particularly because the Ombudsman’s responsibility lies in protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to the authorities, and we are thus unable to discuss examples in which individuals express their opinions and positions on social networks which could denote hate speech or intolerance. Due to the directness and severity of the statement, the Ombudsman was able to assess that the journalist’s statement undoubtedly exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and constituted a violation of Article 63 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia which defines any incitement to violence as unconstitutional. The Ombudsman condemned the statement, since it very directly proposed the killing of refugees as a solution to the refugee crisis. That human life is inviolable is stated in Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Life is the most protected social value and an absolutely protected human right, and any appeal to take it is unlawful and immoral. The Ombudsman expressed the understanding that the occurrence of an exceptional increase in the number of refugees raises important social questions and concern among citizens. However, any participant in the public discussion who does not have sufficient decency and compassion for a person in distress should at least observe the legally permissible boundaries when proposing ways to overcome the migration crisis. ZLOvenija Although the case was not presented to us in the form of a complaint and we did not verify the journalist’s claims, we made certain general observations. We stated that an invitation to express one’s world view could lead to discrimination, but not necessarily. The employer’s motives would have to be determined. Article 46 of the Employment Relationship Act (ZDR-1) stipulates the employer’s obligation to protect and respect an employee’s personality, and to observe and protect the employee’s privacy. An invitation to express one’s world view at a workplace could be considered a form of mobbing only on the assumption that other elements defining mobbing were also present. The ZLOvenija project received a lot of attention. An unknown author published statements and photographs of Slovenians with xenophobic content about what bad should happen or be done to refugees. Some people approved of it, and it was assessed as a good method for combating hate speech or as an effective way of responding to cases of hate speech on the Internet. It initiated a substantive discussion on what hate speech was and how to respond to it. In this regard, questions of intervening in the privacy of people who publicly spread intolerance on their social profiles were raised. The Ombudsman assessed that the Internet is also a public space if content is easily accessible to an undetermined number of people, and that spreading 186 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 187 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK various authorities, particularly ministers, we usually held a short press conference at the Ombudsman’s head office, where we informed the public about the results of our discussions.