The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) considered an initiative alleging that a child had been subjected to violence at school by a teacher who had "grabbed the pupil by the arm and neck from behind and pushed him down the stairs towards the headmaster's office." The initiative stated that the incident had been recorded on the school's CCTV cameras, but the school did not allow the parents to view the recording. The parents were later informed that the video recordings are only stored until the memory is full, which is around 21 days. The parents reported the incident to the police on the same day and later also filed a report with the Slovenian Education Inspectorate (IRSŠ).

The Ombudsman asked the school for an explanation and received a response that the school had immediately launched its own investigation and cooperated fully with the police officers investigating the matter and later with the IRSŠ inspector. All investigations showed that the allegations were not supported by the facts. Neither the police nor the IRSŠ viewed the video recording, and it was no longer available at the time of the IRSŠ visit. Despite repeated explicit questions, the school did not provide an explanation as to whether the content of the video recording had been taken into account in its own investigation.

The Ombudsman was unable to determine whether the teacher had been violent towards the pupil. He does not have the authority or the appropriate tools to do so. The Ombudsman does not interfere in the decisions of individual bodies on how they perform their tasks, but it seems unusual that, when faced with allegations of violence, he did not view the video recording of the alleged violence, as such a recording can be much more objective than witness statements, which included children, and at the same time much faster than conducting interviews with witnesses and less or no more stressful for those same witnesses.

Given that the school was unable to explain the incident in question other than to say that there had been no violence, or even that the incident had not taken place, and at the same time the school did not provide an explanation of what was evident from the relevant recording and what the findings were regarding the actual events, the Ombudsman had serious doubts about the appropriateness of the school's response. After reviewing the extensive documentation, the Ombudsman assessed that the child's behavior could have posed a significant problem in the teaching process, and ultimately, the child was transferred to another school because of his behavior. At the same time, the Ombudsman also believes that the content of the video could show potentially controversial behavior on the part of the teacher, which did not necessarily constitute a misdemeanor or criminal offense and did not necessarily require disciplinary action, but would probably require that the incident be constructively examined and lessons learned from it. Given how the school responded to the Ombudsman's questions and, in the Ombudsman's opinion, tried to avoid providing explanations, except for stating that the allegations of violence were unfounded, without providing any additional arguments, the Ombudsman also questions the veracity of the allegations in the initiative that the school principal immediately after the incident and after viewing the recording recognized certain problems in the teacher's behavior, which the principal indirectly confirmed later when, in a telephone conversation, despite completely changing his position that nothing was wrong, nevertheless adding that the child's behavior had caused the teacher to "lose his temper."

The Ombudsman is aware of the exceptional demands of teaching, which, in addition to various other challenges, sometimes involves dealing with particularly difficult children. Certainly, there is no person who would always respond in the best possible way in all circumstances, and often it is not even possible to define the best possible way completely unambiguously after the fact. However, in the Ombudsman's opinion, transparency and fair treatment are essential in all borderline situations, not so much with the aim of finding and punishing the "culprits" but primarily with the aim of finding opportunities for different courses of action in the future. In the Ombudsman's opinion, such transparent and fair treatment is also the best guarantee that, on the one hand, all those responsible can perform their work competently, and, on the other hand, especially in schools, it is certainly one of the contributions to ensuring the personal development of students in accordance with their abilities and interests, including the development of their positive self-image; education and training for sustainable development and active participation in a democratic society, which includes a deeper understanding of and responsible attitude towards oneself, one's health, other people, one's own and other cultures, the natural and social environment, future generations, and education for respect and cooperation, for the acceptance of diversity and mutual tolerance, for respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, all of which are objectives of primary education.

With his inquiries at the school, the Ombudsman expected to receive an explanation that, after viewing the video recording, it had been determined that the allegations in the initiative were unfounded, since, for example, the teacher accompanied the student to the principal's office without any physical contact, or the student did not leave the classroom at all, or perhaps the teacher accompanied the student by holding his hand or in some other way, and the school would explain why this happened and why it concluded that there were no grounds for responding to the incident, or that the school's explanations would demonstrate its commitment to constructive problem-solving, but the Ombudsman did not receive any of the above from the school.

In the Ombudsman's opinion, the least the school should have done in such circumstances was to secure the video recording in question, which would undoubtedly have dispelled any suspicions of possible inappropriate behavior by the teacher in any subsequent proceedings. This is especially true since the school was aware that the parents had filed a report with the police on the same day and that the school principal had verbally assured the parents that the recording would be handed over to the police or the court if requested. In the opinion of the Ombudsman, all of the above is, of course, reasonable if the recording showed that the allegations were unfounded.

Only the child, the teacher, and, at least in part, the person at the school who viewed the video recording after the incident know what actually happened. Given that the recording no longer exists, this will remain a mystery to everyone else.

The Ombudsman was therefore unable to establish that the child's rights had been violated, but at the same time he was unable to conclude that the initiative was unfounded. The Ombudsman also informed the school of his opinion, from which he did not expect a response, but he did not rule out the possibility that there might be room for improvement, which could help to provide a clear answer to any similar allegations in the future. The school responded by filing a complaint with the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption against the professional who had dealt with the initiative. 19.1-8/2025