2.2.4 National and ethnic minorities Most complaints concerning discrimination based on national or ethnic origin in 2015 referred to the Roma community living in Slovenia. In addition to these complaints, we also encountered these issues during our field sessions and numerous discussions with complainants and representatives of non-governmental organisations. The response of state authorities to the Ombudsman’s inquiries in this field was good, particularly of the Office for National Minorities. We again found that the situation in this field is not improving or is improving too slowly, so most recommendations from previous years remain current. 2.2 DISCRIMINATION 2.2.5 Special rights of national communities The Ombudsman received no complaints in 2015 claiming a direct violation of any of the special rights guaranteed to members of the two self-governing national communities (Italian and Hungarian) in the Republic of Slovenia. There were some complaints regarding the ethics of public discourse which evinced hatred of members of other nations, including both indigenous national communities. After discussions with the members of parliament representing the Italian and Hungarian national communities, who highlighted some deficiencies in the use of the nationalities’ respective languages in bilingual areas, the Ombudsman opened a general file upon its own initiative and decided to be proactive in this area. For this purpose, the competent Deputy Ombudsman and expert assistant made unannounced visits to state and local institutions in bilingual areas in January and February 2016 and checked the accessibility of forms in the nationality’s language in the field, thus acquiring additional information about the possibility of using the nationality language in various procedures. The final observations based on this activity which we initiated will be presented in the 2016 report. Roma community Insufficient progress was made in the integration of members of the Roma community into Slovenian society in 2015. In some areas, conditions are even deteriorating or being exacerbated, particularly in the area surrounding Novo mesto. State and local community authorities fail to express sufficient (political) will and readiness to undertake long-term activities leading to the arrangement of conditions in certain critical areas and the integration of the Roma into the social environment. The ZRomS-1 and strategic documents, particularly the National Programme of Measures for Roma of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for the 2010-2015 Period (NPUR), provided some results, but the conditions are improving too slowly, or the changes are being hindered at the local level and the state cannot or does not want to utilise the available mechanisms, especially on the basis of Article 5 of the ZRomS-1. Instead of exploiting these possibilities, national authorities, as is evident from the Government’s response report and the Government’s reply in the case of arranging living conditions and access to drinking water in Goriča vas, are thinking about amending the provisions because they are supposedly interfering in local self-government. in the local environment is difficult, so the state should help municipalities by providing financial assistance and also by taking the necessary decisions at times when for various reasons local politicians cannot or do not want to. The burden of resolving the issue of Roma settlements cannot be placed on municipalities. Only long-term results are possible; however, long-term activities have not been observed at the governmental level. Municipalities are realising the commitments from the national programme for the Roma as they wish; however, there is no readiness at the governmental level to sanction those who do not want to realise the programme or even fail to provide information about this. With the establishment of the Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia, some of the powers and responsibilities for resolving the situation of the Roma community were transferred to the members of this community. Nevertheless, it has to be stated that the current functioning of the Council has not met the expectations raised by the passage of the Act. The conflicts in the Council, which are based on the poor solution of Article 10 of the ZRomS-1 and which the Ombudsman has been noting since 2007, are continuing, and as said before, this body should function as a discussion partner to state authorities in this field, but instead it insufficiently deals with concrete conditions in the field. The Ombudsman believes that in cases when municipalities fail to eliminate established violations of human rights, the state must remedy their (in) action and ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The state is bound to do so by Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and ratified and published international treaties on human rights. When the state fails to fulfil its obligations to provide protection of human rights, violations are solely the state’s responsibility. Example: Access to sanitary facilities in a Roma village A complainant from the Roma village of Šmihel who lived in a multi-dwelling building that had been demolished by the Municipality of Novo mesto due to obsolescence wrote to the Human Rights Ombudsman. When demolishing the multi-dwelling building in August 2013, the municipality promised the complainant, who is a single parent with three minors, that his move to a container would be temporary and that the family would have access to water and sanitary premises in the container. More than one year after the demolition, the municipality had not kept its promise, but even made setting up of sanitary facilities conditional on his signing a statement whereby the complainant would be committed to raising his children to be decent citizens, send them to school and ensure that the surrounding area outside the containers was arranged, that the family would be engaged in village’s and local community’s activities and work with the Roma village representative. The complainant did not want to sign the statement and contacted the Ombudsman in relation to help in acquiring sanitary facilities. The Ombudsman visited the complainant’s family, thereby learning about the relevant circumstances of the case in person. After an inquiry at the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the complainant had really been made a promise that had not been kept. We notified the municipality that their conduct violates the complainant’s right to access sanitary facilities, which is an internationally recognised human right. Resolution No. 64/292 of the United Nations General Assembly declared access to clean water and sanitation a human right. We warned that cases where children are affected by the absence of access to sanitary facilities must be treated with even greater attention. We believe that making the arrangement of a sanitary facility conditional upon a signed statement is unacceptable. The Ombudsman proposed that the municipality immediately fulfil the given promise to arrange sanitary facilities for the complainant. The municipality did not respond to the Ombudsman’s proposal for three months, although we had sent an urgent letter, and the Ombudsman even made the request to the mayor in person to reply. After a second urgent letter, we received an assurance from the municipality that the procedures and activities for arranging a sanitary container for the complainant were in progress. 10.1-16/2014 At the local level, the readiness to make long-term arrangements to improve conditions depends on the (political) will of mayors and majorities in municipal councils. It is clear that political survival with such priorities 38 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 39 2.2 DISCRIMINATION according to the Paris Principles, i.e. by transformation based on the Finnish example (the Human Rights Centre would be added to the Ombudsman’s office, implementing promotion, awareness-raising and research tasks, as well as an advisory or steering council constituted according to the plurality principle). It was also agreed that other amendments to the Human Rights Ombudsman Act are not necessary, because the Act functions well in practice and enables the Ombudsman to fulfil its constitutional mission. The Ombudsman will collaborate on the preparation of amendments and appoint a representative to the working group that will draft a proposal for amendments to the Ombudsman Act.