In the letters sent on 11 May 2015 and 2 June 2015 and described in the introduction, the Unit explicitly informed the court about the poor health of the patient and proposed urgent consideration of the matter, since the security measure was no longer possible or rational. The Unit warned that the patient was dying and no longer receiving any psychiatric drugs, since his condition did not require them. He was not eating or drinking water, and was fed and hydrated by infusion. He received oxygen through a mask while lying stationary in bed at all times. He contracted pneumonia twice within a very short time. According to the Unit’s assessment, the patient was utterly exhausted physically due to his illness and was dying in highly inappropriate circumstances. Therefore, it was believed that it was necessary to terminate the security measure and enable them to accommodate the dying old man in a special care institution. They also pointed out that the Unit was not an appropriate place for people in such a condition and the situation had been assessed as seriously life threatening. The Unit reasonably proposed immediate and urgent verification of whether the security measure was still needed. 2.3 RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY After studying the letter sent by the Unit as of 7 July 2015, and considering all the facts, on the same day, i.e. on 7 July 2015, the Ombudsman requested Celje District Court to provide the information about the consideration of the letters from the Unit and measures taken. On the following day, i.e. on 8 July 2015, we visited the Unit and verified the patient’s health condition. We could only affirm the statements of the Unit on the man’s worrying condition. During our visit, the patient lay in bed and did not responding to what we said. We noted that he was also visually impaired and quite helpless, relying on the assistance of the medical and other staff at the Unit. The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia emphasises that human personality and dignity must be guaranteed in criminal and all other legal proceedings, as well as during the deprivation of liberty and enforcement of punitive sanctions. At the same time, it prohibits any form of violence against persons with limited liberty (Article 21 of the Slovenian Constitution), including torture, inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment (Article 18 of the Slovenian Constitution). In our opinion, the health of the patient required an immediate decision by the court about the assessment of the need for, or rationality of, further continuing the security measure and, consequently, of the patient’s accommodation at an institution such as the Forensic Psychiatry Unit. We once again informed Celje District Court about this fact in a letter of 9 July 2015. We stated that the Ombudsman would consider any delay in making the decision a violation of the person’s personality and dignity, as well as inhumane and degrading treatment. By considering health of the patient, we proposed that the court immediately respond to the Unit’s proposals and decide whether further treatment and care in the health institution was necessary. In its reply, which we received on 14 July 2015, the Court notified us that the public session at which a nontrial panel would decide on the imposed measure had been planned for (as late as) 17 August 2015. In their additional reply of 29 July 2015, they explained that, having considered the Unit’s proposal, a session had been planned for 8 August 2015. We immediately informed the Unit about the date of the session and also encouraged them, given the poor health of the patient, to themselves seek a solution for the patient’s relocation to another proper institution. Unfortunately, this did not happen, since the patient died at the Unit on 16 July 2015. In our opinion, the court did not respond appropriately to the Unit’s warnings about the serious health condition of the patient, i.e. in both letters as described in the introduction. Despite the fact that we also noted this, the session for deciding on the imposed measures was envisaged for mid-August. This was too late for this patient, since he died before this session had even been held. The Ombudsman considers the delay in making the court decision a violation of the person’s personality and dignity, as well as inhumane and degrading treatment. 52 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Despite the fact that the matter involved a person on whom a security measure of obligatory treatment had been imposed, this person had the right to die in an appropriate institution and conditions. Therefore, we were unable to accept the explanation of the court that it “immediately upon the proposal of the Forensic Psychiatry Unit of the Psychiatry Department of Maribor University Medical Centre once again and before the legally determined six-month period started the procedure for verification with regard to the duration and modification of this measure”. The serious health condition of the patient, about which the Unit (and also the Ombudsman) had explicitly informed and which was worsening, required more rapid response from the court. The Ombudsman believes that this case involved circumstances that could be the subject of official supervision of a judge’s work. Therefore, the Ombudsman filed a request for official supervision with the President of Celje District Court on the basis of Article 7 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP) and paragraph one of Article 79b of the Judicial Service Act (ZSS), i. e. on 29 July 2015 to verify whether the judge had responded and worked appropriately in this case. The President of Celje District Court considered our complaint and proposed the implementation of official supervision with regard to this matter to the President of Celje Higher Court. On this basis and also based on information obtained after reviewing the file on the matter, the President of the Higher Court ordered a review of what had occurred, i.e. covering the period after the finality of the decision on the imposition of the security measure. The review was conducted by the Head of the Criminal Justice and Offences Department at Celje Higher Court. In the final report of 15 September 2015, and after studying the comments received on the findings of the review, it was concluded that the termination of the imposed measure had not been ordered and that the level of urgency of the relevant criminal matter required a public session to be organised earlier, also when the court was on vacation, if necessary. He believed that the reason for the delay lay in the lack of harmonisation or coordination of work between the expert co-worker and the reporting judge. Within the scope of their powers, the Head of the Criminal Justice and Offences Department and the President of the District Court (excluding the involved persons) will have to do everything possible to prevent the occurrence of such irregularities in the court’s work in the future. Based on the order of Celje Higher Court as of 23 September 2015, the final report was also added to the personal files of the judges involved in this matter. The warning in the final report was considered by the President of Celje District Court, and on 2 October 2015 he issued an Instruction on the implementation of harmonised and coordinated work between expert co-workers and reporting judges. The President ordered the Head of the Criminal Justice and Offences Department of Celje District Court to notify all participants (registration clerks, expert co-workers and judges) about the aforementioned instruction and to present and explain it to them. He also ordered the preparation of a schedule for the work of panels for a three-month period (until the end of 2015) including the names of members and exact dates of sessions. In the instruction, the President of Celje District Court warned, and indicated that, when holding a public session (of panels), expert co-workers and reporting judges are obliged in cases when matters are considered as regular although the content of proposals (e.g. a proposal to terminate compulsory treatment and care in a health institution or other proposals) indicates that a delay in a court decision would be considered a violation of personality and dignity of the patient (convicted person, detainee, prisoner), such proposals should not be formally considered as regular matters, but studied separately when applications are received and they should then be classified as priority or urgent matters. An expert co-worker should immediately report to the reporting judge, who would make a diligent assessment and order that the matter is considered a priority or urgent matter, as must be indicated in the announcement of the (earliest) date of the public session (the first possible date). The expert co-worker and reporting judge must constantly and regularly collaborate and work in a harmonised and coordinated way (especially considering the content and complexity of the case considered), which will ensure that the decision-making process is not delayed. This is especially important during judicial vacations. Registry clerks should also act accordingly, and immediately (after registration) notify the competent judge or expert co-worker on any new matter (regardless of the potential procedure for establishing the finality of a preliminary decision). ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 53 2.3 RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY months, the court must reconsider whether continued treatment and care in a health-care institution are still required. The non-trial panel of Celje District Court made a judgement by considering this legal provision and after deciding again on the need to continue the imposed measure, it determined with a decision on 24 April 2015, ref. no. I Ks 13711/2014, that continued treatment and care was still needed. Regarding the expert opinion, it was not possible to exclude the possibility that, if discharged, the patient would not present a danger to the environment, although the Unit’s assessment differed, i.e. holding that the patient was no longer dangerous and needed stationary care in the care unit. The statement of the expert, i.e. that any modification would be bad for the patient and that he was receiving the necessary care and treatment at the current facility also influenced the panel’s decision.