proceedings, i.e. with the objective of comprehensive consideration and thus correct decision making in similar cases. The Ombudsman considered the complaint as founded, since the complainant pointed out the irregularities when discussing the alleged offence. We expect that the lessons learned from the findings and measures taken in this case will have a salutary effect so that such cases do recur. 6.6-6/2015 Amended ZP-1J In 2015, the Ministry of Justice drafted (as many as three) proposals for the Act Amending the Minor Offences Act (ZP-1J). With this amending act, the ZP-1 is primarily being harmonised with decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia on the elimination of imprisonment for the non-payment of fines and the finding of the partial unconstitutionality of paragraph one of Article 193 of the ZP-1. The proposed ZP1J regulates anew or significantly amends certain rules, which will affect the systemic implementation of minor offence legislation, which is why we also submitted our comments to certain of the solutions proposed. We also emphasised that we do not support the decision to reintroduce custodial sentences as a substitute for the non-payment of fines or the fines that were not collected. We believe that the state should find other, more suitable mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of its decisions (e.g. by enhancing the efficiency of the service which collects fines), i.e. with measures which would improve effectiveness of the service, instead of resorting to a great encroachment upon personal freedom such as imprisonment. It must not been overlooked that sanctions in the form of fines (in addition to some other measures), not the deprivation of liberty, are prescribed for minor offences which are less threatening criminal offences to society. Regarding this aspect of minor offences, the Ombudsman assesses that deprivation of liberty (in any form) should not be permitted in the procedure of collecting fines imposed for minor offences. We nevertheless observed that some of our comments were, or will be, considered when the anticipated provisions on substituting imprisonment are drafted, particularly when determining the procedure for custodial sentences, and it is expected that imprisonment will (should) be imposed in practice only exceptionally. According to the text of the proposed act, imprisonment is to be executed according to the rules determined by the act governing the enforcement of sentences. On that note, we commented that the applicable ZIKS-1 includes no rules in this regard, and it is also not clear in which regimes (closed, semi-open or open) or in which prisons custodial sentences will be served if the legislator decides to apply them. The content of complaints in 2015 also related primarily to the dissatisfaction of complainants with individual decisions of prosecutors (e.g. rejection of complaints) and the lengthy processing of their criminal complaints or (non-)responsiveness to individual complaints. The complaints we considered justified (3) are described in more detail below; the remainder were closed with clarifications regarding their content (after inquiries had been made if these were necessary). Two recommendations in the 2014 report also referred to the functioning of the prosecution service. The Ombudsman thus further encouraged the prosecution service to continue to provide for the speedy and effective criminal prosecution of perpetrators of criminal offences, and to adequately inform injured parties of clear and substantiated reasons for decisions on the potential rejection of indictments or suspension of prosecutions (recommendation no. 49). The Ombudsman also recommended that state prosecutors pay special attention to the treatment of those aliens who are under special protection in accordance with the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (recommendation no. 50). Regarding the latter, no complaints were discussed in 2015, which would indicate that this recommendation was not being observed in practice. With regard to recommendation no. 49, which is of more general or permanent application, we did not establish anything worthy of note when considering complaints received in 2015; however, we believe that the recommendation was worth repeating given the nature of the discussed complaints considered. We again noted that the situation of injured parties in criminal proceedings has not improved, a matter discussed more extensively in recent annual reports. The Ministry of Justice informed us that, in correspondence with the Office of the State Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia, it was examining additional possibilities to ensure due diligence when exercising injured party’s rights regarding the start or assumption of criminal prosecution. Therefore, we anticipate the imminent realisation of the anticipated solutions in this field. In one of the examples below, it is understood from the prosecution service’s statement that it would not inform the complainant about filing a charge it was preparing, stating that it was not obliged to do so. While this is true, the Ombudsman adds that such statement by the prosecution service cannot be understood as friendly to the victim of a criminal offence, particularly since the complainant claimed that she had inquired about the progress of the criminal complaint several times. With regard to the above, we can commend the new Internet application which the police now have for notifying victims of criminal offences and enabling fast and direct provision of information about pre-trial procedures. The application also contains a link to a brochure, “When I am a victim of a criminal offence”, which provides information to victims about the rights they have as victims. 2.4 JUSTICE 2.4.5 Prosecution service In the sub-section of pre-litigation proceedings, where most complaints concern the work of state prosecutors, 31 complaints were considered in 2015 (38 in 2014). Complainants’ claims were verified at heads of state prosecution offices if necessary (and we informed the State Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia thereof) who usually (with few exceptions) responded regularly to our inquiries. Similarly to judges, state prosecutors are autonomous when performing their duties, but must nevertheless comply with the Constitution and the law. Their main role in criminal proceedings is to prosecute offenders and in this capacity present the charges, while observing constitutional and legal provisions. When conducting state prosecutions, prosecutors must comply with the Code of Ethics for State Prosecutors, which consists of ethical and moral principles (the Code was adopted by the State Prosecutorial Council on 22 September 2015). Principled opinions relating to conduct contrary to the Code are evaluated by the Ethics and Integrity Committee. 74 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Complainant receives documentation from the prosecution file only after the Ombudsman’s intervention A complainant who failed to receive a response from the District State Prosecutor’s Office in Ljubljana asked the Ombudsman for help. As a father whose son was deceased, he submitted a written request to the prosecution service, which investigated his son’s sudden death, to obtain a copy of the police report. The prosecution service failed to respond to the request for over three months. He wanted to obtain a document which would exclude any suspicion of a criminal offence as the cause of his son’s death. The Ombudsman also failed to receive a reply to its inquiry addressed to the prosecution service; the Ombudsman then demanded a response. The head of the prosecution service then replied that the complainant’s request for a photocopy of the police report was actually in the prosecution file, but it was not equipped with an order from the head of the prosecution service or the department that it was to be submitted to the relevant state prosecutor for consideration. The prosecution service stated that the registration service had apparently filed the complainant’s request to the already archived file. When the prosecution service received the Ombudsman’s first inquiry, the head of the prosecution service asked to be sent the relevant prosecution file, which was forwarded only after the receipt of the Ombudsman’s urgent letter. On that note, the head of the prosecution service ensured that the copy of the relevant police report had already been sent to the complainant. The complainant informed us that he received the copy of the police report several days after the Ombudsman had received the assurance from the head of the prosecution service. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 75 2.4 JUSTICE Example: Furthermore, it is also not clear if or what personal plan will be drafted for this category of prisoners, or if and who will be dealing with them during their imprisonment, and where they would be accommodated (separate from other categories of prisoners?) given that the majority of Slovenian prisons are already overcrowded. It is with such issues that we have discovered most problems when visiting prisons, and we have also repeatedly drawn the attention to this situation.