1. UVOD

Glede na vsebino poročila, ki ga je nevladna organizacija Amnesty International (AI) poslala Odboru OZN proti mučenju (Odbor), posredujemo dodatne informacije, ki bodo pripomogle k bolj objektivni oceni v poročilu obravnavanih zadev.

V Ženevi je od 5. do 6. maja 2003 potekal zagovor poročila na osnovi Konvencije Združenih narodov proti mučenju (Konvencija), katere podpisnica je med 133 državami tudi Slovenija. Zagovor je potekal pred Odborom proti mučenju (Odbor), ki ga sestavlja 10 neodvisnih izvedencev. Iz Slovenije se ga je udeležila delegacija, v kateri so bili: veleposlanik Aljaž Gosnar (vodja delegacije), doc. dr. Damjan Korošec (avtor poročila in strokovni vodja delegacije), mag. Goran Klemenčič (neodvisni izvedenec), mag. Janez Mekinc (predstavnik Ministrstva za notranje zadeve RS), Peter Pavlin (predstavnik Ministrstva za pravosodje RS) in Andraž Zidar (predstavnik Misije RS pri OZN v Ženevi). Vprašanja članov Odbora so se nanašala predvsem na prekoračitve policijskih pooblastil in v zvezi z njimi izvedene disciplinske in kazenske postopke, ureditev instituta pripora, nasilje v priporih in zaporih, vrste represivnih ukrepov nad Romi, izobraževanje policistov in drugih delavcev policije itd. Sklepne ugotovitve in priporočila je Odbor objavil 14. maja 2003.

2. PREDSTAVITEV SISTEMA DELOVANJA ODBORA OZN PROTI MUČENJU

Za lažje razumevanje predstavljamo sistem dela Odbora OZN proti mučenju.

Sistem dela Odbora temelji na periodičnih poročilih posameznih držav, ki jih praviloma oblikujejo vsaka štiri leta. Države pripravijo poročilo na podlagi posebej pripravljenega vprašalnika in ga pošljejo Odboru. V Sloveniji sta med prvim in drugim periodičnim poročilom minili le dve leti, saj je Slovenija zamujala s prvim poročilom in se je šele sedaj, z drugim poročilom, vključila v redni ciklus štirih let. To pomeni, da lahko pričakujemo zahtevo za novo (tokrat tretje) periodično poročilo čez štiri leta.

Periodično poročilo bo objavljeno:

• na spletnem naslovu http://193.194.138.190/html/menu2/6/cat/cats30.htm#30th
• in na spletni strani MZZ RS (Odbor objavi poročilo 3-4 tedne po zagovoru).

Poročilo se oblikuje tako, da nacionalni koordinator za pripravo poročila (dr. Damjan Korošec , Pravna fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani) zbira odgovore na vprašanja, ki jih postavi Odbor. Odgovore pripravijo različna ministrstva, organi v sestavi, Uradi Vlade RS in drugi. Odgovore na drugo periodično poročilo so pripravili:

• Ministrstvo za pravosodje
• Ministrstvo za zdravje
• Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve
• Ministrstvo za obrambo
• Ministrstvo za delo družino in socialne zadeve
• Policija
• Carina
• Slovenska vojska

Koordinator oblikuje posredovane odgovore v periodično poročilo in ga pošlje Odboru, ki imenuje poročevalca in soporočevalca. Njuna naloga je, da pregledata in analizirata periodično poročilo (glavni poročevalec za drugo slovensko periodično poročilo je bil gospod Yakovlev iz Ruske federacije; soporočevalec pa gospod Yu iz Ljudske Republike Kitajske). Odbor nato določi datum zasedanja, ki traja približno tri tedne. (Tokrat je bilo 30. zasedanje Odbora.) V tem času obravnava poročila desetih do petnajstih držav. Odbor tudi določi datum zagovora za vsako državo. Periodično poročilo zagovarja delegacija države, ki jo imenuje njena vlada.

Odbor pridobi za obravnavo tudi druge informacije, in sicer od posameznikov, nevladnih organizacij (Amnesty International, Helsinški monitor), Urada varuha človekovih pravic, Evropskega odbora proti mučenju Sveta Evrope (CPT), idr.

Poročevalca pripravita analizo poročila in na zagovoru postavita vprašanja, enako storijo tudi drugi člani Odbora. Slovensko poročilo je predstavil poročevalec Yakovlev in ga ocenil kot zelo dobro. Pohvalil je dejstvo, da poročilo vsebuje tudi kritične pripombe varuha človekovih pravic, in poudaril, da prav to kaže na odprtost in samokritičnost države pri pripravi poročila. Podobno je menil tudi soporočevalec Yu. V nadaljevanju so člani Odbora (Mavrommatis, Marino ter predsedujoči Burns) ter oba poročevalca izpostavili naslednje probleme¹: uporabo strelnega orožja pri policijskih postopkih; možnost pritožbe državljanov v primeru, ko policisti prekoračijo pooblastila; ureditev disciplinskega postopka v policiji; konkretno število disciplinskih in kazenskih postopkov proti policistom, ki so prekoračili pooblastila; obstoj in vrste represivnih ukrepov nad Romi; ureditev odvzema prostosti in zaslišanj; število umrlih oseb med policijskimi postopki; število samomorov med priporniki in zaporniki; možnost in ureditev dostopa zdravnika do priprte osebe; dosojene odškodnine za žrtve mučenja; vprašanje sodnih zaostankov; vprašanje vključitve kaznivega dejanja mučenja v KZ; prenapolnjenost zaporov; nasilje med zaporniki; postopek pri izgonu tujca in prošnji za azil; izobraževanje policistov in drugih delavcev policije; stališča slovenskih vladnih organov do trditev nevladnih organizacij in varuha človekovih pravic, da zlorabljajo policijska pooblastila; vprašanje objave poročil na osnovi Konvencije in priporočil Odbora; problematiko sklepanja dvostranskih sporazumov o neizročitvi državljanov nepogodbenic MKS itd.

Delegacija ima po postavljenih vprašanjih 1 dan časa, da pripravi odgovore nanje. Naslednjega dne jih na zaslišanju predstavi. Člani imajo pravico postaviti še dodatna vprašanja, na katere pa mora delegacija odgovarjati neposredno na zaslišanju.

Na podlagi periodičnega poročila in odgovorov delegacije na zagovoru pripravi Odbor dokument z naslovom: Sklepi in priporočila Odbora OZN proti mučenju. Sestavljen je iz štirih poglavij:

• Uvod
• Pozitivni vidiki
• Skrb zbujajoča dejstva
• Priporočila

V poglavju Priporočila Odbor natančno navede svoje zahteve v zvezi z reševanjem posameznega problema. Rezultate izvedbe oziroma upoštevanja priporočil preveri na naslednjem zasedanju, država pa jih predstavi tudi v periodičnem poročilu.

3. PRIPOROČILA ODBORA OZN PROTI MUČENJU, KI SE NEPOSREDNO NANAŠAJO NA DELO POLICIJE

Odbor je v dokumentu Sklepi in priporočila Odbora OZN proti mučenju naslovil svoja priporočila v točkah C, D in E neposredno na policijo, ki naj:

• (C) Ustanovi učinkovit, zanesljiv in neodvisen sistem za pritožbe, ki se bo takoj in nepristransko lotil preiskovanja navedb o grdem ravnanju ali mučenju, ki ga izvajajo policisti in drugi javni delavci, in kaznuje storilce.

Obrazložitev:

Na zagovoru so bili Odboru proti mučenju OZN pojasnjeni predlogi sprememb celotnega sistema in postopka pri reševanju pritožb. Obenem so bili natančno predstavljeni veljavni sistem reševanja pritožb, način pritožbe občana nad delom policije ter predvidene spremembe (tudi zakonodajne) pritožbenega postopka.

Priporočilo se uresničuje, saj so zakonodajne spremembe sistema pritožb že v proceduralnem postopku.

• (D) Okrepi prizadevanja za zmanjšanje pojavnosti grdega ravnanja - še zlasti tistega, ki je etnično motivirano - policistov in drugih javnih delavcev, ter za zagotavljanje zaščite posameznikove zasebnosti vzpostavi zbiranje podatkov in spremljanje pojavnosti takšnih dejanj, da bi se lahko s to problematiko spopadla bolj učinkovito. Državo spodbujamo, da takšne podatke vključi v svoje tretje redno poročilo.

Obrazložitev:

V tej točki Odbor priporoča, da bi začeli v vseh postopkih zbirati tudi podatke o narodnostni in etnični pripadnosti posamezne osebe. Na podlagi tako zbranih podatkov bi lahko statistično ovrednotili različne dejavnosti policije (npr. koliko Romov, Srbov, Hrvatov je bilo ustavljenih pri kontroli cestnega prometa in koliko se jih je pritožilo na policijski postopek). 4. poglavje Zakona o policiji (ZPol) z naslovom Zbiranje, varstvo in zavarovanje podatkov v 60. členu natančno predvideva, katere podatke sme zbirati policija. V 61. členu ZPol določa, da vsebuje evidenca ovadenih oseb in kaznivih dejanj tudi podatke o narodnostni pripadnosti (ne pa tudi o etnični pripadnosti - Romi). V drugih evidencah iz 61. člena ZPol oziroma za druge kategorije oseb, kot so storilci prekrškov; osebe, ki podajo pritožbe na postopek policije; osebe, pri katerih se ugotavlja identiteta, se ne zbira podatkov o narodnostni in etnični pripadnosti.

Za priporočilo pod točko D bi bilo treba spremeniti zakonodajo v 4. poglavju Zpol, obenem pa tudi določila Zakona o varstvu osebnih podatkov. Tovrstne podatke smo pred leti zbirali, pa smo jih nato zaradi pritiskov strokovne javnosti, civilne družbe, nevladnih organizacij in mednarodnih organizacij izključili iz evidenc. Praktično bi to pomenilo vrnitev k prejšnjemu sistemu zbiranja podatkov.

• (E) Poveča zaščito, ki jo določa Zakon o kazenskem postopku, proti grdemu ravnanju in mučenju, in zagotovi, da imajo vse osebe, ki jim je bila odvzeta prostost, po zakonu in v praksi, pravico do neodvisnega zdravnika.Poleg tega mora biti zagotovljena zasebnost zdravniškega pregleda.

Obrazložitev:

V policiji smo pripravili obrazec za pridržanje, v katerem smo navedli, da ima pridržana oseba pravico, da si sama izbere zdravnika, z izjemo v primerih, ko je potrebna nujna medicinska pomoč. Poleg tega smo s to problematiko seznanili tudi pristojno ministrstvo, saj so v njihovi pristojnosti organizacija zdravstvene službe, obračun stroškov za opravljeno delo zdravnika in druge obveznosti pri opravljanju zdravstvenih storitev.

V zvezi s pravno ureditvijo pravice do zdravnika je policija upoštevala priporočila Odbora in v letu 2000 sprejetem Pravilniku o policijskih pooblastilih (objavljen v Uradnem listu RS, št. 51, dne 9. 6. 2000) vnesla določbo 74. člena:

"Bolna ali poškodovana oseba, za katero je očitno, da potrebuje zdravniško pomoč, ali oseba, ki kaže znake hujše zastrupitve z alkoholom ali kakšnim drugim sredstvom, se ne sme pridržati v prostorih za pridržanje. Taki osebi mora policist, ki izvaja pridržanje, takoj priskrbeti prevoz v zdravstveno ustanovo, da se ji zagotovi zdravniška pomoč.

Kadar pridržana oseba sama zahteva zdravniško pomoč, ji policist omogoči ustrezno zdravniško pomoč v prostorih za pridržanje ali zagotovi prevoz v najbližjo zdravstveno ustanovo.

Policist mora ukreniti vse potrebno, da pridržani osebi med prevozom v zdravstveno ustanovo ali v zdravstveni ustanovi prepreči pobeg."

Navedena določba zahteva od policista zagotovitev zdravniške pomoči, dejansko pa ne upošteva priporočila, ki ga je Odbor opredelil v zadnjem poročilu (vsi zdravniški pregledi morajo biti opravljeni zunaj dosega slišnosti in vidnega polja policistov, razen če zdravnik ne zahteva drugače; zdravnik mora rezultate vsakega pregleda, sleherno izjavo pridržane osebe zdravniku in svoje ugotovitve uradno zapisati in jih dati na voljo pridržani osebi in njenemu odvetniku).

Navedena priporočila bomo proučili skupaj z Ministrstvom za zdravje in jih na ustrezen način pravno opredelili.

OCENA PRIPOROČIL ODBORA

Ugotovitve Odbora v dokumentu CAT/C/CR/30/4 Sklepi in priporočila Odbora proti mučenju v policiji ocenjujemo kot izredno pozitivne, saj pomenijo izboljšanje stanja v primerjavi s priporočili iz prvega periodičnega poročila. To pomeni, da se zvišuje standard spoštovanja človekovih pravic in svoboščin.

Našteta priporočila odbora OZN proti mučenju so dobra za delo policije, saj predstavljajo zunanji pogled strokovnjakov na občutljivo področje spoštovanja človekovih pravic in svoboščin, obenem pa pospešijo reševanje konkretnih primerov.

4. STALIŠČE DO DELA ODBORA OZN PROTI MUČENJU

Ponovno bi želeli poudariti, da si člani Odbora ustvarijo sliko o spoštovanju človekovih pravic in svoboščin iz Konvencije OZN na podlagi periodičnega poročila države ter na podlagi drugih virov, kot so: poročila posameznikov, nevladnih organizacij (Amnesty International, Helsinški monitor), Urada varuha človekovih pravic, Evropskega odbora proti mučenju Sveta Evrope (CPT), idr.

Člani Odbora OZN proti mučenju se v svojih vprašanjih o konkretnem delu policije niso oprli na ugotovitve iz poročila AI. Tako ni bilo postavljeno nobeno vprašanje, ki bi se neposredno nanašalo na konkretne primere iz poglavij poročila AI št. 3., 4. in 5. Zato pa so člani Odbora postavili vprašanja o konkretnih primerih, ki jih je policija sama vključila v drugo periodično poročilo (30. stran, primeri, opisani pod točkami A., D. in I.)²

Na drugi strani pa velja priznati, da so člani odbora vključili v svoja vprašanja ugotovitve AI o potrebi po uvedbi posebnega kaznivega dejanja ťmučenjaŤ in nekatere druge ugotovitve o delu MNZ in drugih ministrstev ter organov v sestavi.

Po mnenju predsedujočega, gospoda Burnsa, glavnega poročevalca gospoda Yakovleva, so-poročevalca gospoda Yuja in drugih članov Odbora, so bili odgovori na vprašanja tako izčrpni in konkretni, da niso spodbudili dodatnih vprašanj. To se v procesu zagovora posamezne države zgodi zgolj izjemoma. Člani odbora so delegacijo Slovenije pohvalili za nastop.

Ocenjujemo, da je bila predstavitev poročila Slovenije pred Odborom proti mučenju zelo uspešna. Menimo, da je to zasluga kompetentne delegacije, ki je vključevala predstavnike ustreznih ministrstev in stroke. To je omogočilo, da je delegacija v kratkem času pripravila primerne odgovore.

5. ODGOVORI SLOVENSKE DELEGACIJE NA NEPOSREDNA VPRAŠANJA O POLICIJSKEM ELU

Posamezni člani Odbora so postavljali vprašanja, ki so se velikokrat vsebinsko tudi prekrivala, zato je delegacija strnila odgovore v vsebinske sklope. Pred vsakim vsebinskim sklopom oziroma konkretnim odgovorom so bili navedeni priimki članov odbora, ki so postavili konkretna vprašanja.

1. Question by Mr. Yakovlev - Contents of protection and promotion of human dignity and human rights in training and education programs in Slovenian police

In the process of evaluation we included the contents of protection and promotion of human dignity and human rights in several training and education programmes. Generally we have two training programmes:

1. Officer advanced training programme - basic programme and
2. Training and advanced training programmes for police employees.

In the basic police training programme, these contents are included in the following subjects:

• INTRODUCTION TO LAW
• CRIMINAL LAW
• POLICE POWERS
• INFORMATICS
• TRAFFIC SAFETY
• POLICE ETHICS
• PSYCHOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Contents with references to human dignity and human rights in those subjects are:

• Basic principles on the rule of law and definition of the social function of criminal law
• Criminal offences against human rights and freedoms
• Personal data protection and the use of these data in police files according to the Police Act and the Data Protection Act
• Recognising one's own personality characteristics, respecting human individuality, tolerance towards difference, humane conduct towards offenders

We are aware that training on human rights for police officers who already perform police duties is even more important. We give special attention to this group in the following training courses:

• a course in criminology,
• training on exercising police authority,
• a programme for community policing officers,
• a course in traffic matters,
• training for border control,
• training for work in international peacekeeping operations, which is carried out as prescribed by the UN.

Additionally, we give special attention to matters concerning protection and promotion of human rights in more advanced courses and general programmes such as "Communication and conflict management for police officers" and "Conflict management for police officers". At the end of the programme, police officers:

• understand their own behaviour and that of others when interacting with each other;
• are able to manage conflicts; and
• are able to choose behaviour that is appropriate to the situation and improve their communication skills and effectiveness of their work.

Most importantly, police officers who already perform police duties are being taught at theoretical and practical level during their regular monthly courses in self-defence and police procedures. These courses upgrade systematic education in the field of human rights through case study work. All education and training programmes give special attention to dealing with complaints against police officers and to elimination of reasons for such complaints.

2. Question by Mr. Yakovlev: Access to doctor for persons in police custody

The right of persons deprived of liberty to request medical examination by a doctor of his or her choice has been strengthened in the past three years in Slovenia. In October 2001 explicit notification of this right was been included in the official detention form that each detainee reads (and signs). Article 74 of the Regulation onPolice Powers,which entered into force in 2000, stipulates that "Ill or injured persons which are in obvious need of medical assistance or persons demonstrating signs of acute alcohol poisoning must not be kept in detention facilities. Police officers participating in the detainment procedure must immediately arrange for transportation of such persons to a medical institution. Upon request of a detainee, police officer must also arrange for him or her to receive medical assistance in detention facilities or to be taken to the nearest medical facility".

It is a strict provision that does not give any discretion to the police officer. Nevertheless, in cases of no visible injuries or illness, delays in providing medical examinations requested by the detainee can occur - as a result of discretion - or availability at a specific time - of the selected doctor, who estimates the urgency of the request.

As for privacy of medical examinations, there are no explicit legal provisions requiring that examinations be conducted out of the hearing and sight of police officers. However, in practice this is the rule - unless for security reasons (sometimes requested by the doctor himself/herself). It can be added that all medical examinations of people in police custody in Slovenia are carried out by independent medical personnel – Slovenian law enforcement authorities, namely, do not employ special "official/police" medical personnel.

3. Question by Mr. Yakovlev: Interrogations

It was rightfully pointed out by the members of the Committee that no single, uniformed, regulation exists in Slovenia governing the procedure of police interrogations. That is, however, not to say that there are no safeguards in place for persons subject to police questioning. Apart from the common set of rights - right to a lawyer, right to silence etc. - which are regulated in detail by the Slovenian Criminal Procedure Act and the Police Act, there are further relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act. Those regulate that every questioning has to be conducted with respect of the dignity and person of the suspect and in full absence of any force, threats or similar means of extorting statements. Misleading and suggestive questions are also prohibited by the same provisions. The police regulations also stipulate that anybody subject to custodial interrogations by the police has to be allowed a minimum of 8 hours of uninterrupted rests as well as provided appropriate meals and drinks.

Following the recommendation of the CPT and pending amendments of the Criminal Procedure Act, which will give more attention to the interrogation and evidentiary use of statements given to the police, the General Police Directorate has in April this year set up a Working Group with the specific task to draft Regulations on Police Interrogations. We can expect that those will be adopted by the end of the year.

4. Question by Mr. Burns (Chairman): Review of police custody / Habeas Corpus procedures

A clarification was asked on the explanation and statistical data provided in the report regarding the review of police detentions. The report in this part refers to a special procedure of judicial review of police custody, which in Slovenia exists in addition to a "normal" habeas corpus procedure. Under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act every person held in police custody has to be given within 6 hours of the arrest a written decision, issued by a senior police officer, explaining the grounds for detention. The decision includes the notification of the right that the detainee can file an appeal against police custody. If he/she exercises this right, a special panel of three District Court Judges has to review his appeal and issue a decision within 48 hours.

Notwithstanding this special procedure, there is a legal and constitutional requirement that police can only hold a suspect in custody up to a max. 48 hours after which the person has to be brought before the judge. Consequently, if the panel of the District Court rejects the appeal of the suspect or if no appeal is filed, the police will be obliged to bring the suspect within 48 hours of the arrest to the investigation judge to rule on the lawfulness of police custody and order release, detention, or alternative measures.

5. Question by Mr. Marinio: Use of firearms by the police, and Mr. Yu: number of police repressive measures

Use of firearms by police officers is regulated by the Police Act of 1998 and Regulation on Police Powers of 2002. According to Article 52 of the Police Act police officers may use firearms only if there is no other way to:

• protect human life;
• prevent an escape of a person who has been caught in flagrante delicto for a crime punishable with 8 or more years of imprisonment;
• prevent an escape of a person in custody, detention or imprisonment for a crime punishable by 8 or more years of imprisonment or a person for whom an arrest warrant has been issued for a similar crime and the warrant expressly provides for the use of firearms;
• respond to an attack on the person or object under protection;
• respond to a direct, disproportionate attack on himself/herself which puts his/her life at jeopardy.

Regulation on Police Powers (Art. 141) furthermore requires that every instance of the use of firearms is recorded. In cases where the use of firearms results in bodily injury or death or when firearms were used against more persons, the Director of the Regional Police Directorate has to be notified and must ex officio appoint a three-member commission to examine the legality of the incident.

There are no special provisions or procedures allowing the use of firearms in cases of civil disobedience. General conditions stated above apply.

Finally, looking at the statistic, one could say that the use of firearms by the Slovenian police is extremely rare. In year 2002 firearms were used twice, while in year 2001 there were no instances of the use of firearms by the police officers.

Another related question (Mr. Yu) referred to a high number of repressive measures used by the police as presented in the report. A point of clarification here. The number in the report is actually the total number of instances of the use of any of the police powers (i.e. identification procedures, searches, interrogations etc.), not only coercive measures - use of force. According to the statistic on the use of force those are significantly lower: in year 2002 police officers used force in 7.061 instances (of which 3.800 involve the use of handcuffs, 76 of police truncheons; 29 of police dogs etc.).

6. Question by Mr. Mavrommatis: Deaths occurred in police custody or during the arrest procedures

There were no instances of deaths of people in police custody / detention in the period between 1999 and 2002. In four cases the detainees attempted to commit suicide; which was prevented by police officers. All four received medical treatment and the public prosecutor was informed.

As for other police procedures, seven people died in the course of police action in the last four years - four of them as a result of firearms; two persons committed suicide with their own weapons during the attempt of the arrest; and one as a result of an acute asthma attach while being arrested during the search of his apartment. In all cases internal police investigation was conducted; all cases were also reviewed by the prosecutor - which in some instances instituted further criminal proceedings against the police officer.

In sum: in all cases of deaths that occur in the course of any police action, the prosecutor and the investigation judge are immediately called on the scene of the event; apart from the internal police inquiry which is required in all such cases, the prosecutor has to evaluate the case and decide on how to proceed - e.g. institute criminal prosecution if there is suspicion of the abuse of police powers.

7. Question by Mr. Yakovlev, Yu and, Burns (Chairman): Police complaint procedure

There were a number of different questions from different members of the Committee relating to the procedure of investigating the use of excessive force by the police and the procedure of processing complains against the exercise of police powers.

First, a brief outline of the Slovenian legal framework of different forms of procedures to address the issue of the abuse of police powers:

• Under the Police Act a person who believes that the police violated his/her rights can file a complaint within 30 days of the violation to the police authorities ("police complaint procedure");
• Under the Criminal Procedure Act a person can complain within 3 days of the violation to the public prosecutor against any action taken by the police in the investigation of a crime;
• On the suspicion of violation of a police officer's duties, disciplinary procedures can be initiated by his superiors.
• On the suspicion of a criminal offence committed by a police officer, the police and the public prosecutor are obliged by law to institute criminal investigation; if this does not happen, a victim or anybody else can file a crime report to the police or the public prosecutor (in cases of some minor criminal offences not prosecuted ex officio a person can, instead, directly file a private lawsuit with the court);
• A victim who suffered unjust material or immaterial damages as a result of police action can either file for financial compensation within the criminal procedure or separately start a civil action against the police officer or the Republic of Slovenia.

It has to be underlined that the above mentioned procedures are separate legal remedies and are not mutually exclusive. This also answers the question posed by the members of the Committee, whether the outcome of the police complaint procedure, or disciplinary procedure in any way conditions the criminal prosecution or civil action. The short answer is: no. The victim can either initiate civil proceedings for compensation or initiate criminal proceedings against a police officer. In addition, every complaint to the police which amounts to a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence was committed has to be parallel to the complaint procedure processed as a crime report and a report has to be sent by the police to the public prosecutor. Besides, Slovenian criminal procedure also includes the institution of a subsidiary prosecutor. It allows the injured party of a criminal offence to take over the criminal prosecution if dropped by the public prosecutor for any reasons.

Police Complaint Commissions are not entitled to afford compensation to victims of police abuse; in all cases the victim has to file a separate civil action.

Regretfully, the delegation cannot provide the Committee with precise statistical data on indictments and convictions, or compensations awarded in civil proceedings resulting from abuse of police powers. Such data is at the moment not kept separately by the authorities responsible for collecting this information and cannot be extracted from the general statistics.

Let me turn now to the police complaint procedures which were the subject of a number of questions and criticism in the NGO's reports the Committee received. The delegation cannot deny that some concerns expressed are valid and that there is room for improvement.

Concrete cases (report)- answer No. 9

As statistical data was required by the Committee, we can report that in year 2002 the individuals filed 2.263 complaints against the police, of which 84 (7.8%) were found justified. 124 of those complaints involved the use of coercive measures - use of force (the majority of others were related to the police issuing on-the-spot traffic fines, ordering breathalyser tests and checking identity of persons). Of the 124 complaints that were related to the use of any kind of force, 7 (5.6%) were found justified by the Complaint commissions.

In 2002 there were 236 different measures taken by the police authorities against 209 police officers for any kind of violations (not for excessive or improper use of force). Among the measures, there were 119 admonitions, 14 disciplinary procedures instituted and 2 criminal complaints sent to the prosecutor.
(We also have more precise statistical information regarding complaints and will gladly present them here if the Committee so wishes).

Instead of embarking on detailed descriptions of the current police complaint system - since it is already outlined in the report itself - we would like to point out the commitment of the Republic of Slovenia to improve the present procedure.

The current system of processing complaints on police violations is a product of the Police Act of 1998. At that time it was seen as an important step in the right direction; especially in part where it introduced participation of the public in the proceedings, which was not the case before. After its implementation, however, certain problems occurred, which led to a significant review of the current system. The commitment of Slovenia to improve in this area is demonstrated by the following facts:

• in November 2002 the Parliament issued a special declaration calling for the review of the this system;
• the Ministry of the Interior has in early 2003 prepared amendments to the Police Act;
• the amendments have been confirmed by the Government in April 2003 and are now in Parliament pending adoption;
• in addition, the Ministry of the Interior is drafting a separate regulation for the implementation of the new amendments and has in March 2003 opened communication with the NGO's (including the AI) interested in participating in this process.

The proposed changes are aimed at ensuring moreobjective processing of complaints against police officers and strengthening the participation and influence of external independent representatives of the general public in the process: representatives of the public will be nominated by the Minister of the Interior and not, as is the present case, by the Director General of the Police; special reconciliation procedure involving the police officer concerned and the victim will be introduced for cases not involving a criminal offence or a disciplinary violation; work of the newly formed complaint commissions will be public; all concerned parties will be given an opportunity to attend the sessions of the commission and present evidence, etc; appeal against the decision of the Commission will be introduced - which is currently not the case. The amendments also require that the Minister of the Interior (and a special body in the Ministry - independent from the Police structure) will be informed promptly about all complaints concerning the use of firearms resulting in death or severe injury, massive use of instruments of restraint, cases with a lot of publicity, etc. The Ministry of the Interior (and not, as presently, the General Police Directorate, will supervise the processing of those complaints).

8. Question by Mr. Burns (Chairman): "lapse of time" & disciplinary measures

A clarification was sought in reference to the use of term "lapsed" in the part of the report describing specific instances of police violations. In this part the report refers to the disciplinary procedures and sanction against police officers and the statute of limitations thereof. Under the legislation governing all public servants, including police officers, disciplinary violations are subject to an - admittedly - short statute of limitation, which is 6 months. This, however, does not preclude criminal or civil actions against such police officers.

9. Question by Mr. E. Mavrommatis and Mr. Burns (chairman): Information with reference to concrete cases on page 30 of the report

A - CASE

A POLICE OFFICER IS SAID TO STEP ON THE NECK OF THE PERSON IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE AND KICKED THE PERSON TWICE WHILE THE PERSON WAS HANDCUFFED AND LYING ON THE GROUND

ANSWER: The disciplinary body made an opinion that the police officer did not offend the reputation of the police, because he was out of duty and in he was not in uniform. So the witness could not know that he was a police officer.

A crime report for bodily injuries was filed. There was also a complaint and it was assessed to be justified.

D - CASE

A POLICE OFFICER IS SAID TO HAVE TREATENED A JUVENILE, INSULTED HIM AND BEAT HIM WITH A TRUNCHEON AND HANDS (disciplinary procedure was stopped since it lapsed)

ANSWER: Disciplinary proceedings were time-barred (lapsed) due to procedural inaction of the complainant (not presenting himself for disciplinary hearing).

There was a complaint and it was assessed to be justified.

I - CASE

A POLICE OFFICER UNJUSTIFIABLY DEPRIVED FIVE PERSONS OF LIBERTY, DROVE THEM APPROXIMATELY 8 KM AWAY IN A SERVICE CAR AND THEN RELEASED THEM.

ANSWER: The result of disciplinary procedure: disciplinary measure of suspension of 3 months was passed.

There was not any complaint.

Miran Koren
Predstavnik policije za stike z javnostmi