The Ombudsman once again recommended that the regulation determining the work of the Forensic Psychiatry Unit should be prepared as soon as possible (recommendation no. 29); however, no such regulation was adopted in 2015. The 2014 annual report extensively discussed (pages 104–107) observations with regard to fire safety in prisons, including our positive opinion about the fact that the chief inspector at the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Protection against Natural and Other Disasters (IRSPNOD) assured us that they would “follow the Ombudsman’s proposal and include supervision of Ig Prison and other units and institutions of the Prison Administration of the Republic of Slovenia in their 2015 work programme”. At the end of 2015, we verified how many inspections were actually carried out in prisons or their units. The chief inspector at the IRSPNOD informed us that “/.../ at the beginning of 2015 they carried out supervision at Ig Prison and in accordance with the annual work plan they also carried out supervision in four other prisons or their units. The 2016 annual work plan of the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Protection against Natural and Other Disasters includes the task in relation to inspections of fire safety in prisons and their units.” This shows that the Ombudsman’s proposal concerning this matter in 2014 was realised and that some actual measures have been taken. Due to spatial limitations in individual prisons, which are mainly reflected in poor residential conditions, as well as worn, obsolete and deficient equipment in residential and other premises due to the lack of funds, there are still problems related to insufficient staff and this situation remains barely sustainable. Work overload in some cases is also evident in expert work with prisoners and their care, which may also have consequences for security. Therefore, we notified the PARS that staffing standards for work in prisons must be adopted as soon as possible. The PARS notified us that these standards are being prepared and that they hope they will come into effect by the end of 2015. public authority in this right in the way described was not due to national security concerns, public security or economic welfare, to prevent riot or crime, or to protect the health or moral, rights and freedoms of other people. In our view, the detainee’s (in)ability to cope with the architectural features of the prison does not constitute such a reason. In the light of the position of the prison and the explanations that the director did not submit the proposal to the competent court for relocation to another institution, (i.e. that Article 55 of the Rules on the implementation of detention lay down that prisoners may be relocated only for reasons of safety, order and discipline, over-crowding and the successful and rational implementation of criminal proceedings), the Ombudsman decided to contact the president of Celje District Court. The Ombudsman presented the opinion that the circumstances described above require the judicial authority, within the scope of powers provided in Article 213d of the Criminal Procedure Act, to at least verify how the detainee was being treated in Celje Prison, i.e. also with regard to visits by his closest relatives, which was his right to private and family life, and that the court should fulfil its obligation to “act as necessary to eliminate any observed irregularities”. While we were waiting for a reply from the president of Celje District Court, we received a notification from Celje Prison, i.e. that on considering all the facts, they decided to empty the reception section on the ground floor and relocate the detainee in a room with fewer physical obstacles and to enable his relatives to visit him. The next day, we received a notification from the president of Celje District Court, who claimed the same as Celje Prison and added that they had visited the detainee on the previous day and conducted an interview in which the detainee expressed his satisfaction with the relocation. The Ombudsman’s intervention contributed to enabling the detainee to have visits from his wife and daughter in Celje Prison, and visits were no longer prevented merely because he could not use the stairs in the institution where he was detained. The purpose of our mediation in this case was achieved. However, the institution itself could have sought such a solution in collaboration with the court, so that our intervention would not have been necessary. 2.1-4/2015 Most detainees’ complaints referred to detention orders and the implementation of detention, which can otherwise (only) be enforced in judicial proceedings with the aid of ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies. The complainants also complained about poor living conditions in detention, problems with fellow detainees, the conduct of detention staff, limitations on contact with families and unsuitable health care, and the limitation on contacts with relatives (see the example below) as well as other irregularities. Example: Detainee’s disability must not be a reason for preventing visits At the end of August, the Ombudsman received a letter from the wife of a detainee who was detained in Celje Prison, where she pointed out that the detainee had suffered “severe consequences” due to a long hunger strike, and that she and their seven-year-old daughter are prevented from visiting the detainee, although the court permitted them to visit him. The next day, the Ombudsman’s representatives visited the relevant prison and verified the legal and actual situation. We found that the matter involved a detainee who was accommodated in a double room on the second floor, where he was alone. His detention started in the first half of March, and he went on hunger strike in the middle of April, which continued until the end of July. Celje District Court issued his wife and daughter a (permanent) permit for visits; however, problems arose when he became so weak due to the hunger strike that he was not able to walk downstairs from the second floor to the ground floor where visiting premises are located; at the same time his wife and daughter were prevented from visiting him in the room, since it was located within the closed section of the prison. The prison staff provided the detainee with a wheelchair, and took him to the telephone or shower, but did not take him down the stairs to the ground floor (in one of the letters to the vice-president of Celje District Court, the institution stated: “It is practically impossible to carry the detainee to the room for visits down the institution’s staircase. The prison does not have a lift. This was explained by Mr X to the detainee’s visitor on 19 August 2015 when she wanted to visit him. It was also explained to her that as soon as the detainee can walk, we will help him down the stairs and you will be able to visit him.”). These statements showed that Celje Prison does not facilitate the detainee’s right to private and family life in the form of visits by his two closest relatives (which was also permitted by the court), the interference of the 46 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 In certain cases, we also encouraged detainees to use internal complaint channels as enabled by Article 70 of the Rules on the implementation of remand, which stipulate that detainees may complain to the president of the relevant district court or the Director-General of the Prison Administration of the Republic of Slovenia if they believe that prison staff are not treating them correctly. The Director-General is obliged to reply in writing within 30 days of receiving a complaint. 2.3.4 Prisoners Complaints of prisoners referred to practically all aspects of imprisonment such as the call for serving sentence, the start of serving sentence, poor living conditions, the regime of incarceration or relocation from a more liberal to a stricter regime, relocations to other prisons or departments (or premises), interruptions or suspensions of incarceration, endangerment by, or violence of, fellow prisoners, bonuses for work performed, possibilities for work, granting (or withdrawing) various privileges, visits and other communication with the outside world (e.g. writing), confiscation of personal belongings, health care, inclusion in addiction treatment programmes, urine testing, diet, escort by judicial police officers, parole and other. Some complaints also referred to the possibility of doing community service instead of serving a custodial service. As in the case of complaints by detainees, prisoners’ complaints were also verified if necessary (in some cases by visits) at the relevant authorities, particularly at the Prison Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, the Ministry of Justice or the relevant prison. Prisoners serving their sentences were further motivated that they could complain about violations of rights and other irregularities which are not subject to judicial protection as per Article 85 of the ZIKS-1 with a complaint to the Director-General of the Prison Administration of the Republic of Slovenia. According to the above Article of the ZIKS-1, a convicted person has in the case of “other violations of rights or other irregularities which are not subject to judicial protection” also “the right to complain to the DirectorGeneral of the Prison Administration”, and if they fail to receive a reply to their complaint within 30 days after its submission or if they are not satisfied with the decision of the Director-General, they also have the “right to file a complaint with the ministry responsible for justice”. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 47 2.3 RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY 2.3 RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY 2.3.3 Detainees