According to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, ensuring privacy in toilets should not be used for purposes of disciplining, guiding behaviour, and the like, and unwanted behaviour by individual students should be prevented in such a way that the rights of other students are not encroached upon. The Ministry of Education and the Inspectorate of Education of the Republic of Slovenia agree with this position.

* * *

Representatives of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) immediately visited the school and the claim turned out to be true. The measure was originally supposed to be temporary – it was planned that the doors would be returned to their positions. During his visit to the school, the Ombudsman also received information that similar measures were being taken by some other schools, so the Ombudsman asked the Ministry of Education (MVI) for any information about whether such or similar practices were actually occurring in schools in Slovenia, and above all for its position on resolving problems with the removal of doors to sanitary facilities. The Ombudsman addressed the same request to the Association of Principals and Assistant Principals of Slovenia (ZRPRS). From the latter, he quickly received explanations that opinions are divided among principals and that some principals consider such a practice effective in terms of achieving goals, while at the same time, in cases where it was used, it was taken into account that the urinals behind the wall were about a metre-and-a-half high, with which the students' privacy was adequately guaranteed, therefore differing from the present case. Thus, the ZRPRS explains that they will continue to debate the issue with the membership.

In response to the question, the MVI explained that removing doors in sanitary facilities in schools is a very rare practice. The MVI does not approve of such measures, as similar interventions interfere with children's right to privacy. The Ombudsman also obtained the position of the Chief Inspector of the RS Education Inspectorate, which is comparable to the position of the MVI.

According to the Ombudsman, in this particular case, the removal of the door to the sanitary facilities meant that the boys did not actually have the opportunity to use the urinals in a way that would ensure their privacy. Boys and girls were guaranteed privacy by using toilet cubicles where doors were installed and functional. What's more, in the case of boys possibly defecating at the urinal in a room without a door, one could even consider whether such defecation is in conflict with the provisions of Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Public Order and Peace, which includes indecent behaviour, which may also include urinating in a public place, and even prescribes a fine.

The right to a toilet is undoubtedly a human right, which ensures the prevention of the spread of disease and thus also the right to ensure the highest possible level of health, an appropriate standard of living, and the dignity of the individual.

Regardless of the fact that the right to a urinal cannot be defined as a human right, the Ombudsman considers that it should be taken into account that the exercise of bodily needs should not be used for purposes of disciplining, guiding behaviour, and the like.

Regarding the entrances to rooms where the toilet cubicles and urinals are situated, the Ombudsman believes that they should be closed in order to ensure the privacy of the users.

Circumstances such as the use of tobacco products and illegal audio and video recording in the toilets are, according to the Ombudsman, circumstances that not only allow, but even require the school to take appropriate action, first directed at preventing such phenomena and, if necessary, also directed at dealing with offenders; however, according to the Ombudsman, attention must be paid to the appropriateness of various measures and their proportionality to the desired goal. The Ombudsman is convinced that there are ways to control what happens in school toilet facilities, which do not prevent the use of these rooms for students who do not want to use the rooms for the use of tobacco products or other prohibited activities, but only want to relieve themselves.

The Ombudsman informed the school of his position and expects that the school will no longer use similar measures or will first use other, milder measures to achieve the desired goals. The Ombudsman also expects that the discussion between school principals, which was announced by the ZRPRS, will bring certain benefits. The Ombudsman therefore believes that removing the doors to the sanitary facilities is not a suitable solution19.1-63/2023