A. Vulnerable groups
B. Substantive fields discussed
A. Vulnerable groups
2.1 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
2.1.1 General findings and assessment of the situation
As evident from the table above, only one complaint was discussed in the rele- vant field in 2019. But it must be added that religious matters frequently involve matters that are classified under the freedom of expression while observing oth- er factors.
We also add that the session of the Council of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Dialogue on Religious Freedom was not convened in 2018 nor in 2019. At the end of November 2018, its then president submitted a message that not a single request for discussion from qualified proposers had been received since the last session (23 October 2017), but he still anticipated that the next session would be convened no later than by the end of March 2019. The new president then convened the fourth session only within the last four months of the year, which was then also cancelled (since “the representative of the Islamic Community in the Republic of Slovenia in the Council of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Dialogue on Religious Freedom withdrew from further dialogue on the issues of religious freedom which refer to his religious commu-
CASES CONSIDERED RESOLVED AND JUSTIFIED
FIELD OF WORK 2018 2019 INDEX 19/18 NO. OF RESOLVED NO. OF JUSTIFIED SHARE OF JUSTIFIED AMONG RESOLVED
3. FREEDOM OF CON- SCIENCE AND RELI-
GIOUS COMMUNITIES 5 1 20.00 1 0 0.0
3.1 FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE 4 1 25.00 1 0 0.0
3.2 RELIGIOUS
COMMUNITIES 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0
3.0 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES – OTHER
1 0 0.00 0 0 0.0
2.1 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
nity in his letters to the Council of 2 and 8 October 2019”4). We determined that since the last session of the Council of the Government of the Republic of Slove- nia for Dialogue on Religious Freedom, which was convened in 2017, not a single representative of religious communities has filed a proposal for discussion in this forum. Not to be misunderstood, we add that we do not wish to criticise any of the parties involved, but we merely want to highlight certain facts that are in our opinion important for producing an overall assessment of the situation in this field. It is imperative for the Ombudsman that it is clear that religious commu- nities or their individual members are not prevented from making any contact with the authorities if they so desire.
To summarise, a small number of complaints and a general (public) lack of en- gagement in dialogue by religious communities on the one hand denote a lack of actual serious problems in the religious field with regard to the state, while on the other hand, the seldom detected content in this field is usually quite emo- tionally intense, which shows that freedom of conscience or the functioning of religious communities also remain topical in modern society and can be sources of altercation – in this regard, the Ombudsman is frequently the target of crit- icism, as we have previously reported5. The same was noted in this reporting year; below, we describe in more detail the claims regarding the Ombudsman’s assumed discrimination against Christians in one of the cases. It is significant that we have witnessed similar, and just as easily refutable, claims in the past, e.g. from a representative of the Islamic Community in the Republic of Slovenia6. Such sensitivity, blindly focused only on one’s religious identity, in the face of nu- merous easily verifiable facts compiled from the Ombudsman’s practice, there- fore says more about these critics than it does about the Ombudsman.
2.1.2 Realisation of the Ombudsman’s past recommendations
In recommendation no. 12 (2018)7, the Ombudsman recommends that the Na- tional Assembly deputies decide whether to exploit the possibility provided in Article 88 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia stipulating that deputies may propose acts and file a proposal to amend indent three of paragraph four of Article 72 of the Organisation and Financing of Education Act (ZOFVI) with a clear definition of organised religious ceremonies (with at least an exhaustive list) not permitted in public kindergartens and schools, or propose to amend penal pro- visions with a fine for a minor offence when encroaching upon the autonomy of a school space by organising an unauthorised religious ceremony, or propose to amend the currently applicable text by deleting the prohibition of organised re- ligious ceremonies in public kindergartens and schools or their explicit approval.
The recommendation remains unrealised, but we are not repeating it again.
With more than a two third majority of all deputies, the National Assembly ac-
2.1 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
4 Letter no. 013-16/2018/27 of 8 October 2019.
5 Previously on p. 75 of the Annual Report for 2017.
6 See the Annual Report for 2017, p. 76.
7 Annual Report for 2018, p. 100.
cepted the recommendation intended for8 “all institutions and high officials at all levels to observe the recommendations of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia stated in the 24th Annual Report of the Human Rights Om- budsman of the Republic of Slovenia for 2018”, but not even one deputy actually proposed the relevant amendment to the act, which suggests a lack of political will among the elected representatives of the people. After several years of sub- mitting proposals to the ministry and with regard to the unrealised proposal after its submission directly to the legislator, we assess that it is not realistic to expect that repeating this recommendation would achieve its purpose.
2.1.3 The Ombudsman’s activities
The Ombudsman’s activity with substantive explanations about freedom of conscience and religious communities is addressed in more detail in the fol- lowing chapters of the Annual Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia for 2019 available on the Ombudsman’s website <www.
varuh-rs.si> in the online edition of the report: