Page 30 - KDK

Mechanism which operates under the authority of the Ombudsman
organised several regional awareness raising round tables with
representatives of places of deprivation of liberty and courts which
allowed to increase understanding its role and mandate, facilitate its
access to such places of detention and enhance engagement by the
authorities in constructive dialogue. The Slovenian National Preventive
Mechanism operating under the authority of the Human Rights
Ombudsman regularly engages in constructive dialogue with the State
authorities concerned and participates in various ministerial bodies,
including an inter-ministerial working group tasked with co-ordinating the
execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. As a
result of such active engagement a significant number of its
recommendations have been implemented.

Strong powers of investigation also feature in most jurisdictions. For
example, in Norway, the Ombudsman’s legislation empowers the
Ombudsman to demand information from State bodies and to enter all
premises within his or her jurisdiction. Often, powers to access premises
relate particularly to places of detention, such as in Austria, where the
Austrian Ombudsman Board is empowered to access all places of
detention and facilities for disabled people. In the Czech Republic, the
Public Defender of Rights is empowered to enter the premises of any
State body without prior notice in order to inspect files, interview
employees, or meet in private with detained persons.

In the Russian Federation, the High Commissioner for Human Rights is
empowered to freely visit all places of detention, remand centres and
other facilities where persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty are
serving their sentences, as well as any State bodies, local self-
government bodies, enterprises, institutions, organisations regardless of
their organisational and legal forms and forms of ownership, military units
and public associations. The High Commissioner for Human Rights is
entitled to have access to criminal, civil and administrative cases,
including both cases in which decisions have been in effect as well as
dismissed cases and files that led to no initiation of a criminal case.

Sufficient and adequate resources

Principle 6

It is common for legislative provisions to outline the mechanism through
which funds are allocated to the Ombudsman institutions, but less
common for these to include explicit provisions in relation to the adequacy
and sufficiency of resources. Examples of legislation which explicitly
refers to the adequacy of resourcing for the Ombudsman include the

29