With regard to the issue of allegations of unconstitutionality of the Act on compensation for damage to erased persons, or the ZPŠOIRSP, we must initially emphasise that the Ombudsman has dealt with the issue of injustice committed with illegal and unconstitutional erasure since the start of the term of office. Efforts in this area are evident from the annual reports; in 2004, we issued a special report on this matter informing the National Assembly. We regret that 23 years have passed since the erasure, and that until 2014, especially due to the lack of political will, the injustices committed by the erasure were not appropriately corrected. We also regret that the highest-ranking (political) state authorities were not able to publicly admit this injustice and appropriately apologise and that there was no political will to establish the circumstances or political responsibility of individuals for erasure. The European Court of Human Rights “forced” the state to start rectifying this injustice. If we had done this ourselves and sooner, it would have been much less painful. After examining the available material and information, and based on a unanimous decision of all seven members of the Ombudsman’s board, the Ombudsman decided not to submit a request for a review of constitutionality of the ZPŠOIRSP. There are several reasons for this, and we would like to point out the following. No rectification of injustice in the past by laws is, and cannot be, just for individuals who have suffered injustice. Generalised compensations that equate all individuals – although each has their own story and injustice, and this cannot be considered and individualised appropriately – inevitably present a certain satisfaction, but not the reimbursement of actual and total damage. Any act to rectify injustice committed in the past at the same time presents a burden for people who did not cause the injustice and the redistribution of available public funds in society. This is particularly painful if the persons who actually caused the injustice are not officially revealed and do not contribute to the rectification of injustice. The amount of (lump sum) compensation for damage recognised by law, is always too little for those who suffered injustice, and a (unjustifiable) burden for those who had nothing to do with injustice but who have to contribute to rectifying it, or who bear the consequences due to the reduction in public funds. All compensation for injustice is therefore merely symbolic. If the amount of lump sum compensation as envisaged by the ZPŠOIRSP is assessed, it will be found that it is a similar amount to the compensation envisaged to rectify other forms of injustice. The amounts of compensation based on the Payment of Compensation to the Victims of War and Post-war Aggression Act (ZSPOZ) that determines compensation based on three different acts on the rectification of injustice (Act on Victims of War Violence, Redressing of Injustices Act and Act on Special Rights of Slovenia War Victims 1991) are comparable to compensation based on the ZPŠOIRSP. The total amount which an individual can receive based on the aforementioned acts is even lower than the total amount which a beneficiary receives based on the ZPŠOIRSP (we must emphasise that the Ombudsman received many complaints from victims of previous injustices who cannot agree to such limitations and low compensation and consider such legal regulation unjust). On the other hand, we can seek differences between the aforementioned regulations, e.g. on who caused the injustice subject to rectification. We assessed that, from the great number of requests for financial compensation based on the ZPŠOIRSP, more than one half of the total number of beneficiaries (according to information from the Ministry of the Interior) and a small number of complaints sent to the Ombudsman in this regard (which frequently did not fulfil the conditions for consideration) and a relatively small number of requests through the courts show that the great majority of beneficiaries accepted what the ZPŠOIRSP offered. The foundation and causality with damage do not have to be proven in an administrative procedure, so this solution is probably better for beneficiaries than 94 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 procedures where actual damage must be proven, especially given the lapse of time from when the damage occurred. The possibility of receiving higher compensation, although with a limit, by means of a judicial procedure is also still available. Nonetheless, we must consider that Article 15 of the ZPŠOIRSP envisages other forms of just satisfaction for the erased. Besides monetary compensation under the conditions from the mentioned Act, beneficiaries are also entitled to the following forms of just satisfaction: payment of the obligatory health insurance contribution, inclusion and priority consideration in social care programmes, relief in the enforcement of rights to public funds, national scholarships, equal treatment in resolving residential issues, access to the educational system, inclusion and priority consideration in programmes for assistance in the inclusion of aliens who are not citizens of EU Member States, i.e. in the cultural, economic and social life of the Republic of Slovenia. The regulation of a special form of compensation based on the ZPŠOIRSP involves a special legal regulation whereby the legislator has many opportunities to arrange the method of enforcement of compensation and the possibility of balancing the interests of beneficiaries and the capacities of the state and citizens. As is evident from the explanations of amendments in the adoption of the ZPŠOIRSP, this balance was accurately presented and explained. Also, because according to judicial practice the right to compensation based on erasure exceeded its limitation period, the regulation can be treated as a special case. This was also done by the legislator in other similar cases involving the enforcement of monetary compensation, also in the case of the act on the protection of the right to trial without undue delay. Erased children are also entitled to compensation according to the ZPŠOIRSP, but not those children born to the erased subsequently who were not actually erased. Now the legislator envisages that the damage caused to non-erased children can be considered only within the scope of enforcing compensation in a judicial procedure. We must also consider that the legal regulation of these issues requires a complex and casuistic standardisation of different life situations; therefore, it is more appropriate to consider similar cases individually. The Constitutional Court stressed that there should also be an option for a judicial assessment of the legal regulation, including the Constitutional Court’s assessment. With regard to the legal deadline for enforcing compensation and the regulation of inheritance, we believe that the legislator must assess this issue. Granting Slovenian citizenship of a minor child of a Slovenian citizen The Ombudsman considered a complaint of a foreign citizen with regard to granting Slovenian citizenship to her minor son. The complainant stated that she and her husband, who was a Slovenian citizen, divorced in 2006. Their son was born in 2000; however, the father never wanted to bring him to the Republic of Slovenia. After the divorce, the complainant came to the Republic of Slovenia for employment purposes, and she arranged her status and residence here. At that time, her son was staying with grandparents in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2013, he visited the father in Slovenia, where he had a major accident and was hospitalised. The father should have signed documents to arrange residence for the son, but refused to do so. Residence was subsequently arranged, not due to the father’s status, but based on the mother’s residence. Since the complainant obtained the information that she could also submit an application for a subsequent entry of citizenship, she went to the administrative unit in Maribor, where she was rejected with the explanation that subsequent entry of citizenship can only be made by the parent with Slovenian citizenship. She asked the Ombudsman for help. The Ombudsman explained to the complainant the provisions of the current Citizenship Act of the Republic of Slovenia (ZDRS) that refer to the subsequent application for Slovenian citizenship. Considering the situation described above, the Ombudsman assessed that the provision of Article 5 of the ZDRS is inflexible and could encroach on the constitutional right to equality, and also be a violation of the equal treatment principle and the principle of the child’s best interests. According to the aforementioned provision, an application for Slovenian citizenship can be made only by a parent with Slovenian citizenship, which means in the case concerned that children may be considered differently, since it is left to the will of the parent who is a Slovenian citizen. We assessed that the ZDRS should allow the application to be submitted by a parent who is not a Slovenian citizen, or submitted by the child by legal representative. The Ombudsman informed the Ministry of the Interior of this assessment and requested a comment on the possibilities of amending Article 5 of the ZDRS in accordance with our assessment. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 95 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS form of eliminating the consequences of human rights violations was established due to erasure from the permanent residency register”. The court also stated: “When reviewing the constitutionality of the ZUSDDD, it is essential that this Act enabled persons who were erased from the permanent residency register based on their request to arrange their legal situation in advance, i.e. by acquiring a permanent residence permit under conditions that were more beneficial than at the time when the ZTuj regulated the system, as well as by acquiring a supplementary or special decision on permanent residence retrospectively, i.e. from the moment of erasure from the permanent residence register onwards.” It is evident that the court permits the possibility that individuals may claim violations of human rights in individual cases, but it must be “considered that the addressees of legal norms have to always abrogate violations of human rights before the competent court as far as possible, thus ensuring that the courts also decide on constitutional law issues”. We also considered the fact that with regard to the realisation of the ZUSDD the Ombudsman did not receive any complaints that were obviously justified or indicated the unconstitutionality of legal solutions.