人权事务委员会审议斯洛文尼亚的报告（部分翻译）

人权事务委员会

162016年3月16日

人权事务委员会今天结束了对斯洛文尼亚关于其如何落实《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》条款的第三次定期报告的审议。

司法部副部长蒂娜·布瑞斯丽杰（Tina Brecelj）介绍了报告，她表示，斯洛文尼亚在促进和保护人权方面已启动的部分倡议包括批准《欧洲理事会防止和反对针对妇女的暴力和家庭暴力公约（Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence）》；修订《刑法》以纳入改善对刑事犯罪受害者的保护的条款；修订《刑事制裁执行法》以确保在监狱过分拥挤的情况下对被定罪者法律救济的效率；引入统一工作和居住许可的《外国人就业和工作法案》；以及宪法法院所做出的一些重大决定。报告提交后开展的活动包括通过关于斯洛文尼亚罗马人社群的第四份报告；关于2015－2020年男女机会平等国家方案的新决议；通过关于工作人员识别、协助和保护人口贩运受害者的原则。

在互动对话中，委员会专家对寻求庇护者在当前移民危机背景下的权利问题以及在该领域所采取的一些法律、政治和机构措施表示关切，包括在边境设立铁丝网和调用军队。他们强调称他们对曾是人口贩运受害者的寻求庇护者以及无人陪伴的未成年人的保护、家庭团聚的权利和对不驱回原则的尊重等问题的关切。专家们还对罗姆社群的包容问题，他们的政治代表性，罗姆儿童的文盲率以及童婚问题表示关切。一些委员会成员提出了对来自前南斯拉夫的1万3000名“被擦除者”及其赔偿问题的关切。其他被提及的问题包括与体罚儿童相关的法律、诽谤、歧视以及与男女同性恋、双性恋和跨性别者的婚姻。

布瑞斯丽杰女士在总结发言中感谢了委员会，对委员会和缔约国在斯洛文尼亚在人权领域将要面临的挑战和已经作出的改进表示称赞。斯洛文尼亚致力于权利的保护和促进。斯洛文尼亚无法独自解决移民危机，但它仍将继续遵循1951年《难民公约》的原则。

委员会主席费边·奥马尔·萨尔维奥利（Fabian Omar Salvioli）在总结发言中表示，在国家人权机构和打击暴力侵害妇女的立法倡议方面取得了进展。重要的是法律的执行。委员会提出的两大关键点为歧视和外国人的脆弱性问题，特别是在欧洲难民危机的背景下。

斯洛文尼亚代表团包括来自司法部，外交部，内政部，教育、科学和体育部，劳动、家庭、社会事务和平等机会部，基础建设和空间部，文化部以及斯洛文尼亚常驻联合国日内瓦办事处的代表。

委员会将于今天下午3点举行下一场公开会议，讨论哥斯达黎加的第六次定期报告（CCPR/C/CRI/6）。

报告

斯洛文尼亚的第三次定期报告请见：CCPR/C/SVN/3。

Presentation of the Report

TINA BRECELJ, Deputy Minister of Justice, expressed her regret that Slovenia had submitted the report rather late. In 2014, Slovenia had fulfilled a series of reporting obligations towards treaty bodies, including reports pursuant to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The third periodic report of Slovenia, under consideration today, covered the period from the review of the preceding report in 2005 until May 2014. During the previous two years, following the submission of the report, several significant political, legislative and other changes had occurred in Slovenia with regard to the protection and implementation of rights pursuant to the Covenant. The 2014 parliamentary election had substantially improved the representation of women in politics. Today, the percentage of women in the National Assembly was 35.6, while 50 percent of ministerial posts were occupied by women.

After the years of economic and financial crisis, which had severely affected Slovenia, 2014 had shown the first signs of an economic recovery. Growth continued in the following year and, at the proposal of the Government, at the end of 2015, the National Assembly had adopted a set of laws that had entirely abolished austerity measures relating to cash social assistance and partly discontinued those relating to child benefits and state scholarships. Furthermore, in 2015, Slovenia faced a massive influx of migrants, most of them in transit towards the north. Since mid-October 2015, around 480,000 migrants had crossed the country, and Slovenia was doing its best, in cooperation with European partners and countries in the region, to find proper solutions for the management of that situation.

Some of the initiatives Slovenia had started in the promotion and protection of human rights included the ratification of the Council of Europe’s Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence; the amendment of the Criminal Code to include provisions that improved the protection of victims of criminal offences; the amendment of the Enforcement of Penal Sanctions Act to guarantee the efficiency of legal remedies of convicted persons in the event of overcrowding of prisons; the Employment and Work of Aliens Act introducing a unified working and residence permit; and a number of important decisions by the Constitutional Court. Activities carried out following the submission of the report included the endorsement of the Fourth Report of the Roma Community in Slovenia; a new Resolution on the National Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2015-2020); and the adoption of guidelines for identification, assistance and protection, intended for staff dealing with victims of trafficking in human beings. Measures being currently prepared included a new Protection against Discrimination Act, which entirely redefined the Advocate of the Principle of Equality; a public debate on the amended Domestic Violence Prevention Act; a regulation which would specifically address the issue of corporal punishment of children, following the referendum of 2012 that had rejected the Family Code; and plans to amend the Human Rights Ombudsman Act.

Questions by Experts

An Expert was concerned that the agreement between Slovenia and four other parties on the refugee crisis and the resulting security measures adopted in that respect could have negative effects on human rights. Slovenia had decided to close its borders with Croatia and would no longer accept refugees arriving by train. That was of particular concern to the Committee.

Could information be shared regarding the direct application of the Covenant in courts? Could more information be provided regarding the claim that judges and lawyers were indeed familiar with the Covenant? Had there been prosecutions of cases invoking the Covenant, asked the Expert. What awareness measures had been taken for judges, police, prosecutors and others, for refugees and asylum seekers? What activities were undertaken in cooperation with civil society on the promotion of the Covenant?

Question was asked on measures undertaken to ensure that the Human Rights Ombudsman had the budget necessary for its effective and independent functioning.

Concerning discrimination of Roma and their social inclusion, the Expert appreciated the straightforward approach of the delegation, who had stated that progress was slow. Could more information be given on the current status of the drafting of the programme? What measures were there in place to combat intolerance and hate speech towards Roma? Apart from plans to amend the Roma Community Act, what else had been undertaken?

Another Expert asked whether there was statistics on discrimination. Investigations by the entire judicial branch, and not just the Ombudsman to act, were needed. The Expert was concerned that the State seemed to be lacking strategic leadership and coordination on antidiscrimination. There were rights on paper, but not in practice. The system was complicated and not victim-friendly, and there was not enough information. Could the delegation give the number of judicial cases on discrimination, broken down by outcome, conviction, reparations awarded by Courts to victims? Could the delegation clarify that? The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance had also observed that the figure, namely the Ombudsman, was only one person, who did not have staff.

More information was sought on the protection of asylum seekers. Could the Law on International Protection afford more free protection to asylum seekers when they first claimed asylum?

What was the State doing to prevent cases of torture and train officials on this matter? The Expert wondered about the lack of statistics on torture. What were the powers of the State to verify documents of alleged complaints and what was being done to gather statistics and to prevent torture?

Regarding Article 297 of the Criminal Code on hate speech, the Expert noted that a lot of progress had been achieved, in addition to legislation related to the media, which also banned hate speech. Why was there no data or statistics on the number of crimes committed within the civil service? Some non-governmental organisations claimed that following the terrorist attacks and the migration crisis, in Slovenia there was an unprecedented rise in xenophobia and racism in media, on social networks, and even within the political sphere. If that was indeed the case, what was the Government planning to do to overcome or deal with the re-emergence of such behaviour?

What had been achieved in terms of female representation in public affairs and in the private sector? Female representation in the executive, legislative and judicial branches had improved with the quota system. Not only had there been a clear improvement of females, but there seemed to be now the exact opposite problem in the judicial sector, where there were over one hundred female judges and only about fifty male judges. In the private sector, however, female representation was low, and only 5 percent among business leaders were women. What measures had been adopted to counter that?

Another Expert asked about the status of the persons who had been “erased” or deleted from the register following the break-up of Yugoslavia. Those “erased” persons had lost their permanent status in 1992 because they had not applied for Slovenian citizenship. As a result, they had become aliens or stateless and their status was not regulated for almost a decade. Roughly 13,000 persons were still affected by the “erasure”. Was it right that over 13,000 of the erased had not been able to restore their permanent residence status in the State party? The Mandate Legal Status Act again provided for a deadline. Why should it be necessary to introduce a three-year deadline to remedy a violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? To what extent did persons who had not yet regulated, which was 50% benefit from the Compensation Act? Was it right that compensation claims had been dismissed by courts for the failure to comply with the time limits, Experts asked.

On violence against women, there was concern that the number was high, and that, in addition, many abuses were not reported. What were the effects of the 2015 programme? What were further areas for action and what were the changes that were adopted or envisaged? Was there a new National Programme for the Prevention for Violence? It seemed that there was no permanent mechanism to coordinate and assess measures to tackle violence against women. How did the State party assure that assistance was accessible to migrant women, disabled women and Roma women? Was it true that restraining orders against perpetrators were insufficiently enforced?

An Expert commended the State Party for all measures taken in an effort to combat trafficking of persons, including shelters, training and other initiatives. More information was asked about the identification of victims of trafficking procedure, which seemed not to have been formalised. Why was the State Party not planning to adopt a comprehensive law on trafficking to suppress that phenomenon? Was the procedure to assist and identify victims, as efficient and effective as before? The Expert opined that, if migrants were not allowed to travel through Slovenia at all, then they were not being protected. What impact did the closing of the border have on the identification of victims of trafficking?

Victims were entitled to 30 days of shelter, intended to protect them from the grasp of trafficking networks. In order to be granted a further 30 days, they reportedly needed to cooperate with the justice system. Was that true? What was the difference between the two legal provisions that provided protection for aliens and Slovenian victims of trafficking?

Statistics showed that there were and fewer people prosecuted for trafficking. The delegation was asked to provide statistics on the number of prosecutions and convictions, and to explain why those numbers were decreasing.

An Expert had several questions regarding the amendments of the Criminal Code in 2015. The criminal offence of threats was a positive development in the protection of women and children. In that respect, was a victim’s request always required or could the prosecutor pursue it ex-officio, regardless of the request? Could the offence of stalking, which included use of the Internet, be prosecuted at the victim’s request only or was there a possibility for an ex-officio prosecution, particularly when the victim was a minor?

Question was asked on the existence of statistics on early and forced marriage among the Roma community in Slovenia.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation concurred that female quotas in the judiciary were no longer needed.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights could be applied directly in Slovenia, said the delegation. In cases when something was not regulated by national legislation, and when there was no compliance by national legislation with the Covenant or other human rights treaties, then the Constitutional Court and other courts had to comply with the Covenant and other human rights treaties.

On the National Human Rights Institution, it was explained that there was a plan to add additional elements in terms of awareness-raising, non-governmental organisations, helping alleged victims of human rights violations on how to appeal. If the Ombudsman was not heard by the Government when requesting an additional budget, he could go directly to the Parliament and request additional means.

Concerning the Roma community, measures from the former Programme would continue to be priorities. Civil society consultations had been conducted and final stages of the drafting of the new Programme had now been reached. The Roma Community Council was financed from the national budget, was consulted on new legislative proposals, and was obliged to give opinions on the law. The new Act would be drafted in 2016. Anti-discriminatory measures were financially supported, and included a number of measures, including raising awareness of civil service, judicial staff. Other measures included awareness-raising on early and forced marriages, the prevention of discrimination and stereotyping, co-financing Roma society projects dealing with Roma women and girls, and empowerment of Roma in terms of health.

Regarding hate speech, the delegation explained that that occurrence normally increased when there was a strong public debate on specific issues. That was the case with the migrant crisis. Public statements of the President of the Republic and of the Prime Minister and a public session of a parliamentary committee had been held on combatting of hate speech, particularly on the migrant crisis. One public official had been convicted for hate speech.

On the issue of the adoption of the Law of Protection against Discrimination, which would regulate the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, two public consultations had been held in the process of drafting. In February 2016 a draft law had been submitted to the Parliament. That Draft Law had been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, giving the chance of all to give comments. The Advocate would be a full autonomous body, nominated by the President and appointed by the Parliament. Its budget would be approved by the Parliament at the proposal of the Government, and the number of employees would increase from one to four. The competences would be broader, and the Advocate would be able to function as some sort of an inspection body, but without the right to impose sanctions. Thus, the Government hoped that the measures encouraging awareness-raising and the new law would increase the number of reporting on discrimination.

Torture statistics was available only from 2010 as the new definition had been adopted in 2008. Therefore, the statistics given in the report was valid as there was no recorded torture. The police used firearms very seldom.

Since 2011, systematic training had taken place of various instructors, trainers and managers, staff from the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, on the topic of violation of dignity by the police force, as per the Istanbul Protocol. There were also trainings on investigating domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, child psychology, the Roma language and the Albanian language as those communities were present in Slovenia.

Statistics on women at the highest, decision-making positions in the private sector showed lower representation than in other areas. However, the data included only the biggest companies on the stock market. The delegation acknowledged that there was still room for improvement, and in that respect, there was a Working Group composed of stakeholders, charged which preparing a draft law to be adopted at the end of 2016.

Regarding permanent residence of the “erased,” the delegation explained that there had been no deletion of the names of the erased, but rather their registration of permanent residence had stopped being. The erasure from registration had no effect on citizenship. In the former Yugoslavia, citizens used to have dual citizenship – one of the Federal Yugoslav Republic of Yugoslavia and the other of the Republic. If a citizen from another Republic did not apply to Slovenian citizenship, then they had to regulate their residence permit. Many had applied on the basis of the Aliens Act of 1991. However, since that process had had deficiencies, in 1999 a new law had been adopted regulating the status of citizens of former Yugoslavia, and it had been subsequently amended in 2010. The Amended Act aimed to finally regulate the legal status of the “erased”. According to it, permanent residence could be granted to those “erased” who had left Slovenia. The deadline of three years was sufficient to become informed and submit registration. Those who had not done so still had the possibility to obtain residence permits on the basis of the Aliens Act.

According the 2013 Compensation Act, those entitled to compensation were those erased who now had a permanent residence status or those who had applied for a residence status, regardless of whether they had been granted it or not.

The Resolution on Domestic Violence 2010-2014 focused on educating public servants and raising awareness. Consequently, civil servants and law enforcement bodies had increasingly identified cases of domestic violence. The setting up of a new Database on Violence Against Women, envisaged by the resolution, had not yet been done, but the centres for social work were carefully monitoring that issue. The new law on domestic violence among other things envisages the possibility for the victim to have a person accompany him/her in all procedures that include dealing with the perpetrator of domestic violence. The base for reporting violence had also been broadened. The police had the power of applying restraining orders, which were 80 to 90 percent successful. Those who violated restraining orders were taken into police custody. An upgrade of the restraining orders was also envisaged.

Regarding the identification of victims of human trafficking, the delegation informed that it had been in place since 2004, when the Government had for the first time systematically introduced plans for victims of human trafficking. Those programmes were overseen by two Ministers and implemented by non-governmental organisations, while procedures were in place to define cooperation. The Interdepartmental Working Group in 2015 had formalised the identification procedure when it had adopted the Manual for Identification and Assistance provided to Victims of Human Trafficking. There were several pieces of legislation dealing with trafficking, however no umbrella law was envisaged to date. Regarding migrants and trafficking, when it came to the registration of migrants on the border, it was explained that police officers were equipped with basic indicators to identify vulnerable groups, including victims of human trafficking.

The effectiveness of the investigation and prosecution of trafficking criminal offences was reflected in the number of convictions of their perpetrators. The number of persons against whom prosecution had commenced was: in 2012, eleven, in 2013 thirteen, 2014 eight, 2015 forty-two. The number of judgments had also increased.

Regarding the 13,000 “erased”, according to Slovenia, the number was a result of lack of interest on behalf of those individuals to regulate their status, despite efforts by the Government and the amendment of the law. Only 1,909 applications had been filed, meaning that the erased had largely not used the opportunity given to them. In the 2012 European Court of Human Rights Judgment of Kurić vs. Slovenia, the actions of the two plaintiffs demonstrated that they had not shown any desire to live in Slovenia and had not used any means available to them. Concerning the compensation scheme, the delegation said that the individuals could file a special claim, in a judicial as well as an administrative procedure.

The delegation stated that the Media Act had been amended with the view of reducing hate speech in the media. A media council was in place, which included representatives of non-governmental organisations. The changed Media Act established additional liability for comments published on websites of media and increases the self-regulatory system of editors.

Concerning stalking as a new criminal offence, the delegation said that it included physical tracking of persons and electronic stalking, which was regulated by the Electronic Communications Act. For minors, stalking and threats were prosecuted ex-officio.

The number of forced or early marriages among the Roma children from Slovenia had been eight in 2013. In the category of Roma children who had moved from other centres to Slovenia there had been three such cases. Awareness raising activities had been initiated with non-governmental organisations regarding children’s rights and discrimination.

Questions by Experts

An Expert said that the main issue regarding the 13,000 “erased” was the remedies which had been provided and were available. Could the delegation provide specific examples of remedies provided under the administrative procedure?

Regarding access to legal counsel for those under criminal arrest, under the current law, the pre-condition for the appointment of a State counsel was not spelled out. What was the legal basis for determining what was in the interest of justice? Were there precise criteria for the police to determine interest of justice? Was it true that a minor could only have a defence council if punished with an offence that was charged with more than three years?

The statistical table on detention provided by State Party was not sufficient, an Expert said. What was needed was data disaggregated by sex, age, pre-trial detention, numbers of convicted detainees per prison, and the official prison capacity. According to information received by the Committee, there were problems of overcrowding in major prisons. What were the steps taken to remedy that situation, as well as the lack of staff?

The removal of free legal assistance for asylum seekers due to a domestic law was of concern to another Expert. Was the State anticipating a review of the International Protection Act with a view of securing free access to legal representation by asylum seekers?

An Expert inquired whether penalties handed down to perpetrators of discrimination were to be less severe in the new Protection against Discrimination Act. Discrimination could not be strengthened only through the Advocate of the Principle of Equality Office. What discrimination plans and policies were there elsewhere, not just in the Advocate’s Office?

The advancement in reducing the backlog of cases before courts was commendable, but there was a concern that there were still backlogs in district courts. What efforts were being undertaken in that regard?

On the rights of the child, in particular abuse, child labour, ill treatment, or early or forced marriage among Roma communities, more recent statistical data was needed for the failure to meet family obligations under the new Criminal Code, and failure to pay child support. With regards to child labour, sufficient data was provided regarding complaints lodged with competent authorities on child labour, number of cases investigations undertaken, and the outcomes of those investigations. What was being done to bring about a cultural change in that regard, which went beyond prohibition?

Had the State Party acted on the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women to adopt a Comprehensive Law on Trafficking?

Turning to the situation of migrants and asylum seekers and treatment of aliens, an Expert inquired about the State Party’s stance on the proposed agreement with Turkey. The Expert emphasized the Committee’s concern on that matter.

The Defence Act had been amended to give the Army additional powers on border control and ensure security in asylum seekers centres. The Army had been deployed in November 2015. Could the delegation provide additional information on the activities of the Army? Had there been a needs assessment before deploying the Army, with the conclusion that the police would not be enough? The constitutionality of the deployment of the armed forces had been questioned by the Ombudsman. What complaint channels were available in the event of abuse by the Armed Forces?

The barbed wire that the State Party had built recently was in violation of the right to freedom of movement. What were the legal bases for preventing asylum seekers from filing an asylum claim? How was the principle of non-refoulement assured, given that the Alien Act provided for that right? Details were asked on the nationality of those seeking to enter the country.

Regarding the legal framework for refugees, was it true that unaccompanied minors who did not seek asylum did not receive assistance? What did “special attention” mean when it came to unaccompanied minors? The right to family reunification had apparently been repealed and an explanation was sought.

Was there no identification of stateless persons? If so, they were denied protection, which was contrary to the protection obligations under the international treaties that the State Party was party to. According to Slovenian legislation, any child born on the territory of Slovenia gained Slovenian citizenship, if the nationality of his father or mother, or both, was unknown. That meant that stateless children had the right to Slovenian citizenship. However, the laws were at odds with each other. Could the delegation clarify?

Had a new Family Code been adopted, asked another Expert. What content did the new Code have? How would the prohibition of the corporal punishment of children be assured?

Had measures been taken to decriminalise defamation in Slovenia? The new Criminal Code imposed a fine and prison sentence for up to two years on defamation.

An Expert expressed concern regarding the situation of non-autochthonous (non-indigenous) minorities, especially non-autochthonous Roma. What minority rights protection was provided for minorities that were “non-indigenous” or not recognized by the Constitution, both in terms of individual and collective rights? Such groups included Serbs, Germans and Croats. There was also concern regarding the Sinti community, which was a small autochthonous community, different from the Roma and with a different Roma language, but was treated as part of the Roma. What measures were undertaken with regard to the rights of that minority? There was a huge illiteracy rate due to the fact that over 60 percent of Roma children were not attending school.

Concerning the rights of lesbian, gay bisexual and transsexual persons, could the delegation give updates on the current legal situation regarding their marriage and inheritance rights? Were there plans to deal with public perceptions on that minority?

On the amendment to the International Protection Act, which established protection procedures for asylum seekers, an Expert requested specific information regarding reforms taken in view of principle of non-refoulement, and how those impacted asylum procedures. Was the concept of the safe country of origin taken into account? How were complex cases regulated? Were there still refugees in refugee camps and if so what were their conditions?

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation explained that an “erased” person decided which procedure he or she would initiate, judicial or administrative. Under the administrative procedure, the individual did not have to prove the causality between erasure and damage caused A person who had suffered more damage could sue in special civil law procedure for higher amount of compensation. On statistical data, until 1 March 2016, 7,273 administrative applications had been lodged. The total amount of awarded compensation was approximately 22 million EUR.

On free legal counselling and fairness, the interest of justice in the Criminal Procedure Act had the purpose of not being restrictive, so that the police had a broader margin to apply it for specific circumstances. The threshold of five years of prescribed sentence was not mandatory. If the police did not appoint a legal counsel, the suspect could still have free legal aid under general legal provisions. Obligatory defence of minors - the criteria of three years of imprisonment was not strictly regarded. Even with a minimum sentence, an ex-officio legal counsel had to be appointed if this was in the interest of the child.

The State Party had disaggregated statistics on prisoners. The total number of minors detained in custody was less than ten for each of the past three years. Prison conditions were most problematic in the Ljubljana Prison. Funds had been earmarked and a new location had been provided to build a new prison, which was a priority. Amendments to the Act on the Execution of Penal Sanctions had been made. The effective legal remedy in the area of violations of prisoner’s rights, including crowding, were defined in that law. Only one case had been filed in that respect, and the verdict had been in favour of the complainant.

The new General Law for the Protection against Discrimination specified that inspection services could impose fines when they detected discrimination. At the moment, no such cases had been reported to the inspection services. General platform for discussing discrimination issues had been inactive for several years also due to the preparation of the new act, however several different platforms have been established for each personal circumstance (gender, Roma, disabled).

Regarding the protection of children and the statistics of criminal offences of neglect and maltreatment, in 2011, 644 cases had been reported; 677 in 2012; 624 in 2013; 525 in 2014; and 424 in 2015. In terms of sexual assault committed by the family or caretakers, 182 cases had been reported in 2012; 198 in 2013; 113 in 2014; and 93 in 2015.

With regard to the umbrella law regulating trafficking of persons, the delegation said that a discussion was ongoing and experts had different opinions, as some believed that the issue was sufficiently covered by other laws.

The Army and the police had the necessary tools to identify victims of trafficking. After the period of 30 days of recovery in centres, victims of trafficking could be placed in another safe accommodation. Victims who were illegal aliens were regulated by the Aliens Act and had the right to stay for three months, including the thirty days of reflection and recovery period. However, if a victim obtained a permit for a temporary stay, cooperation with the law as in accordance with criminal proceedings was required, and gave the victim the right to stay for one year.

Regarding the closing of border, a delegate stated that common solutions were being looked at within the European Union and in cooperation with Turkey. A plan for relocation and resettlement from Greece and Italy and from third countries had been adopted by the Government. After the recent meeting of the European Union leaders, the flow of migrants into Slovenia had decreased. The delegation asked the Committee to take into account restrictions imposed by north European countries, which limited the number of migrants they could receive. Regarding the joint statement of the police chiefs of five countries on the Western Balkans route and concerns expressed by three commissioners, the official response from the Government was still being formulated.
On the temporary technical barriers along the Croatian-Slovenian border, it was explained that the aim was not to close, but to direct the migration flow to the entry points, which would ensure the safety and security of migrants. Those technical barriers were temporary and the Ombudsman had stated that they did not represent a violation of human rights.

The Slovenian Armed Forces had been engaged after the first migration flow to provide logistical support to migrants and to the police. A needs assessment had indeed been conducted. The Army carried out orders with police officers and not on their own, and the civilian police had supremacy. Strict restrictions were applied on the possibility to use force. The inclusion of the Army in migration management was a temporary measure.

Since 2008 Slovenia had been implementing Standard Operating Measures to prevent violence based on gender, which defined all different cases of violence. The Working Group had met five times and examined six cases. All victims who put forward a claim for international protection were informed on their rights and entitled to legal assistance at administrative courts and the Supreme Court.

The right to join family members was defined by the Alien Act. Stateless persons also had the right to apply and be granted international protection in Slovenia.

The delegation said that the prohibition of corporal punishment would not be in family relations legislation, but rather in the Family Violence Prevention Act, which would lessen the likelihood of the provision being challenged at the referendum.

On the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual community, the Government and the Parliament were of the view that a decision on that topic could not be a subject to referendum. The rights of same-sex unions had been granted the same status in many pieces of legalisation. A Law on Partnership Union would cover the entire field of the rights for the sexual minorities. A two-year project between three partners – Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, University of Ljubljana and non-governmental organisations to combat stereotypes had been initiated.

Regarding defamation, the decision of the Constitutional Court of 1999, when the former Chief of Intelligence Service had sued a journalist, had been in favour of the journalist. A similar ruling had occurred in 2015, which emphasised the overall position in favour of freedom of the press.

Backlog in courts was no longer an issue as witnessed by the Ombudsman. Slovenia had a population of approximately two million people, while one million cases were filed per year, which was a proof that Slovenians used their legal rights and had wide legal access to courts.

Children found on the territory of Slovenia whose parents were not known were entitled for citizenship. That was also true for children whose parents did not have citizenship or whose citizenship was unknown, and thus for stateless children.

Cultural rights of everyone, including minorities from former Yugoslavia, were provided for in the Constitution. A declaration had been adopted in that regard, with a council that dealt with all initiatives by those communities. The active functioning of that Council enabled the preservation of identity of the former Yugoslav nations and communities.

Regarding the political representation on the local level of autochthonous Roma communities, no amendments of the legislation were planned. Their rights were ensured by the Constitution. Regarding the Grosuplje municipality, issues had been resolved through amendments to the Local Self-government Act that stipulated that if a designated municipality did not ensure a Roma representative on the local level, then the State Election Commission could carry out an election. One member of electoral committee was proposed by the Roma Community Council of Slovenia. There were plans to change the Roma Community Council and its composition. Participation of Roma in decision making was extremely important and none were excluded based on their autochthonous or non-autochthonous status. There was no exclusion of the Sinti, and the fact that they were not expressly represented in the Roma Community Council was not an obstacle, as they could participate in all tenders for the Roma community.

Since 2004, Slovenia had systematically provided the necessary environment for the inclusion of members of the Roma community in the educational system. There was no division between Roma and non-Roma children, and assistance was provided for Roma children, helping them overcome emotional and linguistic barriers. At the moment, there were 22 trained Roma teaching assistants. Slovenia made it possible for Roma children to go to kindergarten free of charge, depending on the economic situation of the family. The drop-out rates mentioned by the delegation were being targeted through a long-term approach.

Applicants for international protection were still entitled to judicial protection, and victims could complain against a decision of an administrative court through extraordinary legal remedies all the way up to the Constitutional Court. Persons that moved from asylum centres to private housing were still eligible for financial and social support. The new legislation included the safe third country concept and procedure. It also specified the procedures to be carried out at the border, which could be accelerated only in four cases, namely if there was a third safe country, a third European country, a country of safe asylum or a responsible country. Procedures were carried out by persons that were trained to that end.

Follow-Up Questions

An Expert requested a copy of the new International Protection Act.

Another Expert asked for a clarification on the view of the State Party on the Draft Agreement with Turkey. That was important, as the Agreement ran contrary to the Covenant.

Was legal assistance provided in the initial phase of the asylum process? Was family reunification still possible for persons accorded international protection status?
The Expert also wanted to know whether assistance was provided to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.
Replies by the Delegation

The International Protection Act contained 150 articles, and its translation was still ongoing. The Act would be provided to the Committee in Slovenian for the moment.

The European Union-Turkey Agreement was beyond the competences of the delegation and the delegation could not provide a response.

Regarding legal assistance in the initial phase of the asylum process, on first instance, protection was provided by international organisations; on the second instance, legal aid was provided. Family reunification was possible. Free legal assistance to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers was also provided by a non-governmental organization, informed the delegation.


Concluding Remarks

TINA BRECELJ, Deputy Minister of Justice, thanked the Committee and was very pleased that in many aspects, there had been agreement between the Committee and the delegation on progress made, as well as on areas for improvement. Slovenia would strengthen the Advocate of the Principle of Equal Opportunities, the Ombudsman, as well as protection of victims of criminal offences, including with guarantees for assistance to the victims and programs for rehabilitation of perpetrators. Measures for an explicit prohibition of corporal punishment were also planned. The Government was fully aware that the social inclusion of the Roma community was not satisfactory, and it was for that reason that close cooperation with the community had been established. The principle of integration in primary education had to be further improved for Roma community members, as well as for children with disabilities. Slovenia regretted the violation of human rights of the “erased” persons and the Government was committed to regulating their status and repairing the injustices. Appropriate legislation, including reparations, had been adopted in that regard, but could only be fully implemented with the cooperation of the people affected. Slovenia alone could not resolve the migration crisis and had been working with regional partners, international organisations and civil society. Temporary tchnical measures and the use of the Armed Forces were not meant to close the borders, but rather to manage the flow of migrants. Slovenia abided by the principles of the 1951 Refugee Convention, concluded Ms. Brecelj.

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Committee, agreed that there was agreement between the Committee and the delegation on the challenges and improvements. The Committee believed that there had been progress regarding the National Human Rights Institution. It had also taken note of the legislative initiatives taken to counter violence against women. What was important was that laws be enforced. On the laws on defamation, Mr. Salvioli indicated that the Committee’s General Comment 34 might be useful in that respect. Two key points raised by the Committee had been discrimination and vulnerability of aliens, especially in the context of the European refugee crisis. Effective assistance to asylum seekers was crucial, as was the registration of minorities. Steps taken by the State Party to fight against hatred were commendable.

__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr