Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers the report of Slovenia

Committee on the Elimination
  of Racial Discrimination

2 December 2015

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined eighth to eleventh periodic report of Slovenia on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Vojislav Šuc, Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Slovenia’s legislation, programmes and policies in the field of human rights were aimed at promoting social integration, providing equal opportunities and respecting cultural diversity.  The National Assembly had passed a declaration on the status of national communities of members of nations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Slovenia.  The Slovenian delegation stated that the Government was aware of the need to improve the social inclusion of certain members of the Roma community and had made it a priority to draft a new comprehensive national programme for the next five-year period.   In order to regulate the status of persons deleted from the register of permanent residents, Slovenia had in 2010 introduced amendments to the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Living in Slovenia.  The amended Criminal Code had been adopted in 2011, further extending the scope of personal circumstances providing the basis for “hatred, violence or intolerance”.

In the discussion which followed, Committee Experts focused particularly on two issues: the status of “the erased” persons - citizens of other republics of the former Yugoslavia, and the conditions of the Roma minority.  They wanted to know what the Government was planning to do regarding those “erased” who had failed to submit their registration application within the three-year timeframe and asked for details on reparations.  Concerns were expressed regarding the living conditions, education and forced evictions of  Roma.  Experts also wanted to know about the status of the Ombudsman and the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, the existence of racist discourse in the political arena, how Slovenia was dealing with the unprecedented influx of migrants and refugees, and the definition of racial hatred as an aggravating circumstance.  Other questions raised included the application of the rule of non-refoulement, efforts to combat trafficking in human persons, cultural diversity and police oversight.

Fatimata-Binta Dah, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Slovenia, in concluding remarks, said that a great deal of information had been provided, in addition to a very detailed core document and a strong report.  On the basis of all of that information, the Committee would provide a set of recommendations.  Slovenia had shown that it was resolving the most important matters, such as the problem of the “erased” people and the Roma.

Mr. Šuc, in closing remarks, thanked the Committee for the open and honest exchange of views.  Slovenia would continue to strive to promote a free and open society, and would stand ready to continue its cooperation with the human rights treaty bodies.

The delegation of Slovenia included representatives of the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government Office for National Minorities, and the Permanent Mission of Slovenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon to discuss the combined nineteenth to twenty-second periodic report of Mongolia (CERD/C/MNG/19-22).

Report
 
The combined eighth to eleventh periodic report of Slovenia can be found here: CERD/C/SVN/8-11.

Presentation of the Report
 
VOJISLAV ŠUC, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Slovenia’s legislation, programmes and policies in the field of human rights were aimed at promoting social integration, providing equal opportunities and respecting cultural diversity, without discrimination.  Several programmes promoting intercultural dialogue focused on raising  awareness of the importance of accepting migrants in society, their social integration and the elimination of stereotypes.  Slovenia continued to provide equal access to free education to all children, regardless of their mother tongue, citizenship or legal status, with pluri-lingualism and inter-culturalism remaining the foundation of the Slovenian education system.

Slovenia provided long-lasting support to the Ljubljana-based Institute of African Studies, which, inter alia, carried out projects aimed at promoting African culture and cultural diversity, and providing assistance to migrants of African descent seeking asylum in Slovenia.  The National Assembly had passed, by a two-thirds majority, a declaration on the status of national communities of members of nations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Slovenia, as well as a resolution on a national programme for culture, which stressed the importance of cultural diversity.  Guidelines had also been adopted on a concerted approach to the prosecution of, and punishment for, criminal offences involving incitement to racial intolerance. 

Following the July 2014 parliamentary elections, 35.6 per cent of parliamentarians were women, who also constituted half of the Ministers in the current cabinet.  Even though Slovenia had suffered one of the sharpest drops in Gross Domestic Product in the European Union, as a consequence of the economic crisis, social exclusion levels remained below the European Union average.  The Roma unemployment rate remained within the remits of the pre-crisis rate.   Since mid-October 2015, more than 280,000 refugees and migrants had entered Slovenia, which amounted to more than 14 per cent of its population.  While the Government had done everything in its power to provide those masses of people with basic necessities, the scale of the humanitarian challenges exceeded the country’s capacities, which was why an appeal for international assistance had been made.  Recently, measures had been taken to control the migration flow.

TJAŠA HERMAN, Senior Adviser at the Government Office for National Minorities, said that, notwithstanding certain progress, the Government was aware of the need to improve the social inclusion of certain members of the Roma community and had made it a priority to draft a new comprehensive national programme for the next five-year period.   It would place additional focus on intolerance towards Roma and hate speech and the elimination of prejudices and stereotypes, as well as improving Roma living conditions.  Eight centres would be set up in eight Roma settlements in 2016, to act as operational and educational incubators and bring together various stakeholders.

ALENKA SNOJ, Head of the Status Affairs Division at the Ministry of the Interior, informed that, in order to regulate the status of persons deleted from the register of permanent residents, Slovenia had in 2010 introduced amendments to the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of the Former Yugoslavia Living in Slovenia.  The Act provided a deadline of three years for all potential applicants to get acquainted with the Act and file their applications.  Those who had failed to apply or whose applications had not been positively assessed had the right to apply for a residence permit in Slovenia under the conditions set in the Aliens Act.  Another act, adopted in 2013, provided for remedies for the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms for those who had been deleted from the register. 

TANJA TRTNIK, Senior Adviser at the Ministry of Justice, explained that the amended Criminal Code had been adopted in 2011, further extending the scope of personal circumstances providing the basis for “hatred, violence or intolerance”, explicitly referring to ethnic affiliation.  The wording “any other personal circumstance” had also been added.  Elements of a criminal offence were present if hate content had been distributed to a large group of persons or a close group, but circumstances had to indicate that the purpose of the author was to reach the general public.  An objective possibility and likelihood of a violation had to be present.  The Government had developed positive cooperation with the civil sector, media and other organizations to respond to hate speech and to report it.  Hate speech was prohibited under the Media Act and the Audiovisual Media Services Act.  The prohibition also applied to hate speech by politicians, the only exception being those related to the immunity of National Assembly deputies. 

Questions by Experts
 
FATIMATA-BINTA DAH, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Slovenia, said that the State party was a rich country, with high levels of social protection.  Human rights and fundamental freedoms were highlighted in the State party’s Constitution.  In addition to responding to the concluding observations from 2010, the Committee would have liked to see article-by-article details on the implementation of the Convention.

Figures were missing on the ethnic composition of the country.  A clear disaggregated data system ought to be established, including data on race and language.  While the two main ethnic minorities – Italians and Hungarians – were covered by the law, there were descendants from other republics of the former Yugoslavia and migrants, who were not recognized as minorities.  Estimates of their numbers varied greatly.

Why had Slovenia chosen not to consider the long-standing residents as nationals after the break-up of Yugoslavia?  According to some sources, only 137 permanent residence permits had been granted to such cases in recent years.  How would the State party resolve the problem of families without residence permits who had children in Slovenia?

The Roma community had been given the status of an ethnic minority.  What improvements were such changes expected to bring to the Roma people?  What were the current estimates of their numbers and what was the distinction between “indigenous Roma” and “new Roma”?

In his 2013 annual report, the Ombudsman had informed that the majority of complaints on ethnic and racial discrimination came from the Roma.  The progress made in that regard was deemed as insufficient. 

Over the last several months, Slovenia had been under the spotlight vis-à-vis the migration crisis, said the Expert.  Some legal shortcomings had been identified, which ought to be corrected soon. 

What was the State party planning to do to help reduce statelessness and how many such cases were there in Slovenia?

Some of the criminal legislation seemed to have been improved, including the opening of the website and the introduction of personal circumstances.  Were judges sufficiently trained in that regard?  Racial discrimination could constitute an aggravating factor in crimes, which was welcome.

Slovenia should take steps to allow its Ombudsman to receive “A status”; for that to happen, his mandate should be reviewed and sufficient resources should be granted to the work of the office.  Once the Ombudsman had an “A status”, the Committee would be happy to receive him.

Another Expert noted that Slovenia had ratified Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which meant that any human rights complaints could be submitted to the European Court of Human Rights.  That was praiseworthy, as not many countries had done so.

How often could Roma individuals be found in local government bodies?  How about their employment opportunities in general?  Could Roma  identify themselves as such to employment agencies, said the Expert.  Where could Roma be found in Slovenia?  If they were concentrated in one given area, they should be offered particular education and job opportunities, which was why data was needed.  Was the Roma language used in official communication?

Concerning “the erased”, how many of them had come forward and submitted applications during the three-year period?  Could those who had failed to apply still receive reparations?

How could the Advocate of the Principle of Equality address cases of discrimination in the public and private sectors in practical terms, the Expert inquired.  That one-person office, which functioned as a part of a Ministry, was widely criticized as inadequate.  The Advocate had not established a single case of racial discrimination, which did not mean that such instances did not exist.   What was the State party doing to remedy the situation?

An Expert emphasized the need of a thorough analysis and evaluation of the programmes promoting the rights of Roma.

Combatting racist discourse in the political arena was very important, because if the most important leaders were acting in one way, it was difficult to convince the population to do otherwise.  Could an update be provided on racism in public political discourse?  How about the activities of the xenophobic parties?

Several Experts praised the short and informative report of Slovenia, which included several examples of good practices.

Another Expert brought up the issue of “the erased” and wanted to know what kind of discrimination they were currently facing.

Details were sought on the education of Roma children, who seemed not be schooled separately.

What was the number of migrants that Slovenia was assigned to accept, in line with the European Union’s decision on redistribution?

Was racial motivation considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder cases?

The Expert wanted to hear about steps being taken to address racial profiling.

More information was sought on the distinction between autochthonous and non-autochthonous Roma.

An Expert asked about the application of the non-refoulement rules and keeping families together.  Were the best interests of children taken into consideration?

If, as a result of a racist offence, there was a disruption of public order, that should be considered as an aggravating circumstance, suggested another Expert.

He also brought up the issue of “the erased”, who had been more than 25,000 in 1992.  There were still some 12,000 of them, which was worrisome.  The Expert said that the persisting problem had to be solved, of which the State party was also acutely aware.  Another Expert stressed that the problem needed to be resolved and those people had to be given a chance to choose the citizenship of which country they wished to have.

Was the current report a first step in Slovenia’s opting for simplified reporting procedures?

Did the State party plan to introduce safeguards against forced evictions of Roma in informal settlements?  Some families did not have access to water, a basic human right, and sanitation.  What was the distinction between the Roma and the Italian and Hungarian minorities? 

The question of the anti-discrimination framework was raised by an Expert, who asked how it worked in practical terms to address racial discrimination. 

What was the State party doing to mark the Decade of People of African Descent?

Replies by the Delegation
 
The delegation said that Slovenia did not collect ethnic data on the population as the Constitution provided for the protection of personal and sensitive data.  When strategies of programmes were drafted, dialogue was held with relevant stakeholders.  For example, the existing programme on Roma had been prepared in conjunction with the representatives of the Roma community.  The composition of the government body monitoring the  implementation of the programme was well balanced.  In August 2014, the fourth implementation report had been adopted and a new strategy would again be drafted with Roma representatives.

Autochthonous Roma had the right to have their political representatives in local councils. That right was given to local communities with the view of protecting their ethnic characteristics, and not on an individual basis.  Twenty municipalities were listed in the law as including Roma communities.  The Roma Community Council included representatives of both autochthonous and non-autochthonous Roma.

The living conditions of Roma would remain a priority in the drafting of the new national programme.  Education and health would be particularly considered. 

The Italian and Hungarian minorities enjoyed their status for historic reasons and on the basis of the treaties concluded after the Second World War.

Children of foreigners residing in Slovenia had the right to be enrolled in elementary and secondary schools under the same conditions as Slovenian children, explained a delegate. A possibility to learn the Slovenian language was also provided.  The Ministry of Education provided opportunities for foreign children to learn different languages in schools based on the interest expressed, including Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, Dutch, English, Finish, German, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian, Russian, Serbian and Ukrainian.

In schools, Roma assistants were employed wherever there was interest expressed by the schools and members of the Roma community. Efforts were made to involve the parents of Roma pupils in the process.  Data was not kept on the number of Roma enrolled in higher education, which was free of charge.  No special measures were in place in that regard.  A Roma academic club was operating.

In the field of health, the Government had made an effort to treat the Roma population in a special manner, with a focus on the areas with more permanent Roma settlements.  Numerous conferences had been held on the inequalities in health, as well as on health rights of Roma women and children.  Awareness about healthy lifestyles needed to  be continuously raised.  Health of the Roma could be significantly and permanently improved only with their active engagement.  The Ministry of Health would make an effort to pay special attention to those particularly vulnerable within the Roma population, with the view of increasing life expectancy.

The Slovenian Ethnographic Museum, for example, had organized an exhibition on the customs of Roma women.  Workshops were organised to help Roma fill in certain administrative applications, as the experience showed that they had problems in that regard.  Radio and TV programmes for Roma were also in place. 

A delegate informed that the right to express oneself in one’s mother tongue was guaranteed in Slovenia.
 
A delegate stressed that the difference between autochthonous and non-autochthonous Roma was pronounced through the collective right to political representation at the local level.  That right, the delegate reiterated, was exercised in more than 20 municipalities.  The main achievements of the Roma Community Act were presented as well as plans to amend it. There were normally more bidders for projects aimed at Roma than there were available funds, so a mixed committee needed to select the best.

The data on ethnic affiliation was not kept in any register, but an estimate on the number of Roma stood at between 10,000 and 12,000. 

The delegation explained that the situation regarding Roma settlements was not ideal, but the State was doing its best to tackle the issue at various levels.  The Roma had started to settle permanently in the 1970s, and the State had started to tackle in a comprehensive manner the issue in 1993, two years after Slovenia’s independence.  Discussions had been held on whether to move Roma settlements or to let them stay where they were, and the latter had been chosen.  It was necessary, nonetheless, to legalize them in terms of legal planning and infrastructure.  Both local and Roma communities had to be engaged, if a long-lasting and mutually satisfactory solution were to be found.  The main objective of the new legislation was to ease the legalization of the unlawfully constructed buildings.

It was emphasized that no decisions had been made to demolish illegal buildings and conduct forced evictions.  There were many safeguards in place, which was why such practices would be impossible to implement.  There had not been a single forced eviction in Slovenia; in a small number of cases, Roma families had moved, but in close cooperation and with their consent.  

The regulation in Slovenia was such that it provided equal access to drinking water to all of its citizens; 88.6 per cent of the population was connected to the public water supply; many Roma communities were connected to the public water supply; others were provided with water tanks where drinking water was supplied on a regular basis; 67.9 per cent of the population of Slovenia was connected to the public sewage system; there were many dispersed settlements and houses, which was the reason that that percentage was not higher. 

A delegate stated that a project on the empowerment of Roma women had been conducted by the beneficiaries themselves; a documentary on the project was available on YouTube.  Another event – “From Childhood to Adulthood” – had also taken place with an active participation of young Roma women.  The event had addressed, inter alia, the issue of early marriages. 

Citizens of the republics of the former Yugoslavia who had been registered as permanent residents in 1990 had been provided with an opportunity to receive citizenship; more than 170,000 had done so, obtaining Slovenian citizenship.  For those who had not applied for it, provisions of the Alien Act had become applicable in 1992.  Not a single “erased” person had become a stateless person, a delegate stressed: if an “erased” person had not had the citizenship of Slovenia, he had had a citizenship of another former Yugoslav republic. 

In 1999, the Constitutional Court had established that the Alien Act had not suitably regulated the procedure for suitably regulating the situation in question.  A law had then been adopted regulating the status of nationals of other former Yugoslav republics, and had been amended in 2010, in order to finally tackle the issue of the “erased”.  According to the Act, a residence permit could be obtained by those “erased” living or not living in Slovenia for justified reasons.  Between 2010 and 2013, the application period had been open, and the information was widely available in Slovenia, around the world and on the internet.

The number of applications submitted had been much lower than expected, as not many “erased” had shown an interest to have their legal status in Slovenia regulated. Between 2010 and 2015, administrative units had issued 246 permits, out of which 204 to the erased persons, and more than 1,300 applications had been rejected, which mostly related to those who had left the territory of Slovenia before being erased and their departure could just not be related to the erasure.  In 2015, the Constitutional Court had stated that permanent residence permits would be available to those outside of the country who intended to return to Slovenia.  The decision had been adopted to provide that status retroactively. 

In June 2014, an act had entered into force on providing financial and other remedies for the human rights violations made on the basis of erasure.  Entitled persons, for example, had the right to have their contributions to health care paid and to be treated as a priority in social security and integration programmes.  In addition to the “erased”, those whose applications had been rejected and were victims of alleged violations were also provided remedies, in line with the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Kurić and Others vs. Slovenia.  Until November 2015, administrative units had received 7,070 requests for financial compensation, out of which 6,856 had been processed.  The total amount of compensation exceeded 21 million euros and was being paid on a regular basis.

The delegation informed that a new law on the protection against discrimination was being prepared.  An Advocate of the Principle of Equality would be available as an independent organ, with direct involvement in the preparation of the State budget and monitoring the implementation of its tasks, in addition to inspection powers, and the authority to issue executive decisions and represent discriminated persons in front of courts. 

On the Ombudsman, it was said that Slovenia had accepted several of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations on establishing a national body for the protection of human rights, in order to obtain “A status” in line with the Paris Principles.

The right to the reunification of families was possible under the Alien Act.  Registered partners and children of age with the need of support were included.  They had the same treatment as the citizens of Slovenia when it came to social and health care and education.

The non-refoulement obligations applied only when a person was residing in Slovenia illegally.  While awaiting a decision on asylum protection, the person could not be removed from the territory of Slovenia.  The content of this principle of non-refoulement was the basis of the National Protection Act. Two integration homes had been established for persons with international protection.  The Convention on Statelessness had not yet been ratified as the Citizenship Act included its provisions.

Regarding human trafficking, an Inter-ministerial working group set up in 2003 conducted monitoring and prepared annual reports considered by the Government.  For the fifth year the Government was co-financing projects related to awareness-raising of elementary and secondary school students about the dangers of human trafficking and methods of recruitment.  The Criminal Code amended in 2015 defined forced marriages as a criminal offence.

The practice of projects promoting persons of African descent would continue, especially so within the Decade of People of African Descent.  A number of other measures were being taken to promote diversity and the status of foreigners.  In front of courts, for example, every person had the right to an interpreter if he did not speak Slovenian. 

Hate speech in the media was explicitly prohibited.  Self-regulation principles were endorsed; for example, editors of online media deleted hateful and offensive comments.  Spreading of prejudice and racial or ethnic hatred was in contradiction with the Constitution and was considered a criminal offence if it took shape in concrete ways.

The Slovenian police were subject to various types of internal and external monitoring.  The National Assembly monitored the police’s work through a specialized commission; the police were also monitored by the Government, through the Ministry of the Interior, and by the State Prosecutor.  The Constitutional Court was in charge of complaints on human rights violations by police agents.  The Ombudsman could enter the premises of any police station or prison, demand explanations and issue recommendations.  A complaints procedure was well established within the police.

Follow-up Questions
 
Were there no violations of the Roma people in Slovenia, or were Roma not aware that their country had made a statement under Article 14 of the Convention, asked an Expert.  Perhaps there was a need to disseminate the Convention among the public.

A question was asked about the social status of Roma in Slovenia. Did they hold high-level posts in the Government, work in schools and universities, or were they hired by the police?

An Expert suggested that the delegation prepare a brief written overview of the history and the current situation of the “erased”.

Another Expert said that Slovenia’s report had been prepared in the simplified reporting format, which had not yet been decided on by the Committee.

The Expert commented that the Convention should not be strictly related to public order.

What was the national body tasked with following up on questions regarding Article 14?  Efforts underway to acquire “A status” for the Ombudsman were praised.

The Expert said that the more the Committee heard about the “erased”, the less it understood what was indeed happening.  Thus, a brief written overview would indeed be welcome.  Those who had left before independence and wished to return afterwards seemed to be one of the remaining stumbling blocks. 

Had Slovenia ratified the Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, another Expert inquired.

What was the status of the draft law on the Advocate of the Principle of Equality?

Apart from murder, were there other crimes where racist motivation was considered as an aggravating circumstance?

Slovenia reportedly did not provide protection to unaccompanied migrant children as there were no legal ways to establish the child’s best interest.  Was that correct?

“Positive discrimination” should not be used as a term, several Experts commented, while another Expert believed that it was rightly used as a synonym for “affirmative action”.

Ethnic origin made and should make a difference when the State party considered special measures to eliminate racial discrimination.

Social determinants of health ought to be considered when talking about Roma rather than referring to lifestyle choices.

The Expert encouraged the delegation to more actively engage non-governmental organizations in the preparation of the next periodic report.

Replies by the Delegation
 
The delegation said that drafts of Slovenia’s reports to international human rights treaty bodies were published online so that the public could read and comment on them.  Information on possibilities of complaints to international bodies were also widely available.

The Government Office for National Minorities followed the issue of Roma in Slovenia and cooperated closely with the Ombudsman, non-governmental organizations and all other stakeholders, but there was still room for improvement.  Roma enjoyed the same conditions of social security as other citizens.  Many Roma had high education and were active in that field; some Roma were active poets and writers.  There were also Roma employed by the police; as other candidates, they had to meet certain physical and psycho-social criteria.  In 2007 Slovenian employed the first female Roma police officer in Europe.

Information on the “erased” was available and would be distributed to the Committee Experts in an easily comprehensible manner.

The delegation explained that the war in Slovenia had been very brief and absence of up to one year had not constituted an obstacle to obtaining permanent residence.  The delegation would take into consideration the comments by the Committee regarding the format of the report.

It was reiterated that the Ombudsman had a very wide range of responsibilities when it came to the broad spectrum of human rights. It was reiterated that the State party was indeed looking forward to establishing a national human rights institution that would fulfil conditions for an “A status” according to the Paris Principles.

The erasure had not led to statelessness, the delegation emphasized.  Slovenia had not ratified the international treaties on statelessness because domestic laws already included all necessary provisions.  Nonetheless, a procedure was underway to ratify the relevant treaties.

The delegation stated that Slovenia was not resettling Roma in special camps or forcefully evicting them.  Prior to the 1970s Roma used to live primarily in tents, after which they had resettled in more solid settlements. 

The new law on anti-discrimination was expected to be adopted in spring 2016. The Advocate would cover a very wide range of discrimination and would be able to act when public interest was put at risk.

Racial discrimination and hatred could be considered as an aggravating circumstance for any crimes, the delegation said.

Significant progress had been made regarding the treatment of children asylum seekers; for example, 22 guardians had been trained in 2014.  It had never happened that a child had not been assigned a suitable guardian.

The delegation agreed that it might indeed seem contradictory to use “positive discrimination”, the term which was never used in Slovenia’s official documents.  

The State party was intensively working to raise awareness on health issues of both health workers and the Roma population.  Legalisation of Roma settlements had seen significant progress; several related acts had been put forward for public discussion.  While some special measures were in place to help Roma, they were treated equally with other citizens.

Slovenian non-governmental organizations rarely took up the opportunity to attend presentations of national reports in Geneva, but had in recent years taken up the practice of publishing shadow reports.  The civil sector was fully aware of the timelines, dates of consideration and was given an opportunity to comment on draft reports.

Concluding Remarks
 
FATIMATA-BINTA DAH, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Slovenia, said that a great deal of information had been provided, in addition to a very detailed core document and a strong report.  The dialogue was interactive and interesting, and it covered the most important issues.  Some substantive changes had taken place in the implementation of the Convention since the 2010 report.  On the basis of all of that information, the Committee would provide a set of recommendations.  It was hoped that the draft bills mentioned during the dialogue would soon be translated into reality.  Slovenia had shown that it was resolving the most important matters, such as the problem of the “erased” people and the Roma.

VOJISLAV ŠUC, Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Committee for the open and honest exchange of views.  The discussion was informative and it was hoped that the delegation had managed to clarify most, if not all, of the questions raised.  Slovenia would continue to strive to promote a free and open society, and would stand ready to continue its cooperation with the human rights treaty bodies.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr