Ombudsman Peter Kostelka Looking back at the almost twelve years during which I had the honour of being responsible for the organisation and in particular for my area of competence, I can state with a clear conscience that the AOB is in the midst of dynamic development. It was originally constituted for the purpose of “ex-post control of alleged maladministration”. There was widespread agreement that undertaking only selective, system-compatible changes would not produce improved “access to justice” nor create an objective interest in the legality of actions by public administration. The perception of what kind of guarantees a State that considers itself to be a so-called state under the rule of law must provide in order to increase the efficiency of its system of judicial protection has changed since then. The process toward comprehensive protection against discrimination – both at the European level and in Austria – is well under way, but it is not finished by far. And the AOB sees this in its day-to-day work. Protection and promotion of human rights Much of what we have initiated in the area of preventive monitoring and control – with substantial assistance from our staff – would not have been possible without extended and well-founded preparation. A crucial aspect is that even prior to the Act on the Implementation of the OPCAT we understood our mandate to monitor and control maladministration to be very broad – and inclusive of our obligations under international law as part of the legal system. Knowledge of the normative nature of the international commitments that Austria has undertaken was made a core part of the ex-post control sector as a benchmark. The good contacts that the AOB has maintained for years to the Council of Europe and – through the IOI General Secretariat – to ombudsman institutions worldwide have been very helpful in our National Preventive Mechanism activities, especially in the development phase. I continue to view the new competences as challenging. They are, however, the consistent continuation of a path that this institution had already gradually developed in the past. It is not enough for good governance to be merely efficient, but it must also be highly effective and must – with respect to its dealings with people – be accompanied by communication where both parties are on equal footing. Ombudsman institutions are able to do this and must remain believable and approach others proactively, without putting up barriers. The television programme Bürgeranwalt, which was resumed in 2002, the free telephone hotline and the consultation 30