Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

117th session

Summary record of the 3202nd meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Thursday, 16 April 2026, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Mr. Kut

Contents

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States Parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Combined twelfth to fourteenth periodic reports of Slovenia (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States Parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Combined twelfth to fourteenth periodic reports of Slovenia (continued) (CERD/C/SVN/12-14; CERD/C/SVN/Q/12-14)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Slovenia joined the meeting.

A representative of Slovenia, responding to questions raised at the previous meeting (CERD/C/SR.3201), said that the office of the Human Rights Ombudsman was not present at the meeting because it had not participated in the preparations for the constructive dialogue and had decided, as an independent institution, not to attend.

Mr. Balcerzak (Country Rapporteur) said that, it would be interesting to know whether the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions relating to hate speech had risen in the wake of the 2019 Supreme Court judgment confirming that it was not necessary for hate speech to involve a threat to public order in order for it to constitute a criminal offence. He wondered why relatively few cases of hate speech were brought before the courts, whether any more recent judicial pronouncements relating to the prosecution of hate crimes and hate speech had been issued and why the number of complaints, prosecutions and convictions relating to hate speech had fallen in recent years. He would appreciate information on the threshold that must be reached for a case of hate speech to be brought before the courts and on the cases that had reached that threshold in recent years. He wondered why it no longer appeared to be possible to report acts of hate speech through the spletno-oko.si (Web Eye) website and how the State Party dealt with hateful content in the media, including online platforms. He wished to know what safeguards were in place to ensure that complaints of hate speech or hate crimes were dealt with effectively and what action victims of hate speech should take to bring their situation to the attention of the authorities. Lastly, it would be useful to know how the State Party evaluated the impact of publicly funded media programmes for promoting tolerance and whether any independent assessments had demonstrated the effectiveness of such programmes in reducing hate speech and discriminatory attitudes.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Ministry of Digital Transformation funded the Safer Internet Centre, which was operated by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana, the Academic and Research Network of Slovenia, the Slovenian Association of Friends of Youth and a number of other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Centre ran the safe.si website to raise awareness of the safe use of the Internet and technology and organized a number of related workshops and programmes for children, parents, teachers and experts. The Centre also operated a free hotline and the spletno-oko.si website, which received anonymous reports of child sexual abuse and gathered information on racist and xenophobic content.

A representative of Slovenia said that hate speech was not established as an offence under national law. However, public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance, including on online platforms, constituted an offence under article 297 of the Criminal Code. Between 2019 and 2025, 292 complaints of acts punishable under article 297 had been received and eight convictions and two acquittals had been handed down. In September 2025, all regional public prosecutor’s offices and the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office had been instructed to prosecute incitement to hatred under article 297.

Over the reporting period, the migration crisis, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and other factors had brought about an increase in the number of complaints of hate speech and the number of cases disposed of. The Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office had issued a decision stating that, in tackling cases of hate speech and hate crime, criminal prosecution should be a last resort and that priority should be given to other mechanisms, such as awareness-raising. Cases that did not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution were treated as minor offences and were punishable by fines.

A representative of Slovenia said that police officers and civil servants received training in the prevention of hate speech. Police officers participated in multidisciplinary teams and cooperated with NGOs in their efforts to combat the phenomenon. In addressing peer-to-peer violence among young people, the police focused on preventing discrimination and identifying hate speech. The police cooperated with schools, social work centres, healthcare institutions and other bodies to raise awareness of hate speech. Roma police officers played an essential role in establishing links between the police and Roma communities. Police officers who worked with Roma communities were taught the Romani language.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Strategic Council for the Prevention of Hate Speech had issued more than 50 recommendations relating to the work of all ministries. In recent years, significant efforts had been made to combat online hate speech, including the establishment of self-regulatory mechanisms such as the codes of ethics adopted by the Association of Journalists and related groups. Media outlets were regulated by a number of different laws in addition to the Media Act. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive of the European Union had been incorporated into national law in the form of the Audiovisual Media Services Act. Platforms such as YouTube were now defined as media and could be held accountable for disseminating hate speech.

In response to a recommendation issued by the Strategic Council for the Prevention of Hate Speech, the Media Act had been amended to establish that the dissemination of hate speech in the media was punishable by a fine. Six complaints of hate speech had been submitted to the Culture and Media Inspectorate in 2025 and one complaint had been submitted thus far in 2026. According to the Inspectorate, one of the complaints it had received involved libel rather than hate speech while another concerned the expression of an opinion about the genocide in Palestine that had not constituted hate speech. In another case, concerning comments made about online articles published by the national broadcasting corporation, acts of hate speech were deemed to have been committed and the editor had deleted the inappropriate comments and blocked the author. Another case, involving an election poster containing racist speech, had been referred to the police and was currently being investigated.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Office for Youth had published a monograph entitled “Compassionate Language among Young People” that addressed the problem of hate speech. The original title of the monograph had included the term “hate speech”, but the Office had changed it in recognition of the need to promote positive speech everywhere, including in online settings. The publication of the monograph had been accompanied by workshops and seminars for young persons, youth counsellors and experts who dealt with the prevention of hate speech. The website antigypsyism.si had been launched to encourage respect for the Roma community. The Association for Non-Violent Communication, which was co-funded by the Government, worked to promote good practices in the area of communication.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport was implementing a large-scale campaign to train teachers in digital competencies, including safe use of the Internet and dealing with online hate speech. The campaign was intended to train around 20,000 teachers, who would then be able to transfer their knowledge to their students.

Mr. Balcerzak said that he wished to know whether the strategy to combat antisemitism mentioned in the previous meeting had been published in document form and, if so, whether the delegation might provide the Committee with a copy of the document. He would welcome further examples of the activities undertaken by the Culture and Media Inspectorate.

Ms. Tlakula said that she wished to know whether the State Party had adopted a code of conduct for members of the National Assembly that included provisions stressing the importance of avoiding and condemning racist and xenophobic discourse, in line with the recommendation made by the Committee following its previous constructive dialogue with the State Party (CERD/C/SVN/CO/8-11, para. 9 (c)).

A representative of Slovenia said that the strategy to combat antisemitism had been adopted in cooperation with representatives of Jewish communities, organizations and societies in Slovenia and had been made publicly available in document form.

A representative of Slovenia said that information on the activities of the Culture and Media Inspectorate would be submitted to the Committee in writing.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport had recently presented its first national report on the quality of the education system. According to the report, the proportion of Roma children who failed to complete the school year successfully had fallen between 2020 and 2025.

A representative of Slovenia said that a code of ethics for members of the National Assembly, dating from 2020, established that all members were required to act in a non‑discriminatory manner. The code set out the criteria governing parliamentary discourse.

A representative of Slovenia said that the code of ethics was a self-regulatory instrument that took into account the right to freedom of expression of members of the National Assembly, who could not be held criminally liable for any statement made in the performance of their duties.

Ms. Ali Al-Misnad (Country Task Force) noted that the term “Semite”, according to its true definition, referred to all speakers of the Semitic languages of the Middle East and North Africa. It was incorrect to use the term “antisemitism” to refer only to discrimination against Jews.

Mr. Balcerzak said that he would welcome information on any follow-up measures taken to investigate an incident in which a black child was sprayed with tear gas while walking with his mother in Maribor in late 2025. He would welcome, too, details of any measures taken in response to reports of an unprovoked physical attack on an Indian student by a group of young persons in Ljubljana in September 2025 and a series of coordinated physical attacks against foreign nationals in Ljubljana, including migrant workers and international students of non-European origin.

Ms. Tlakula said that she would be grateful for more detailed statistics on the school dropout rate for Roma children, including the dropout rate for girls. She wondered whether the code of ethics for members of the National Assembly was enforced and, if so, whether any sanctions had been imposed on members who had violated the code.

A representative of Slovenia said that, in Slovenia, the term “antisemitism” was used to refer to hatred of Jewish people. Although the Government was aware that the term could have a broader meaning, its strategy was focused on preserving the memory and culture of Jews in Slovenia and combating hatred against Jews. The Government did not accept that criticism of Israel constituted antisemitism.

A representative of Slovenia said that statistical data on the education of Roma children would be provided to the Committee subsequently, in writing.

A representative of Slovenia said that medical care had been provided to the black child who had been assaulted in late 2025 in Maribor. The case had been referred to a court as a criminal offence was believed to have been committed, but no information on the status of the case was currently available. The case involving the assault on the Indian student had likewise been referred to a court. Information on the status of the case could be provided to the Committee in writing. The police were conducting an investigation into the coordinated attacks on foreign nationals in March 2026. Once the investigation was complete, the case would be referred to a court.

A representative of Slovenia said that a warning would be issued to any member of the National Assembly who violated the code of ethics and the discussion would be suspended.

The meeting was suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.

Ms. Ali Al-Misnad said that, even when education was free, the costs of items such as school supplies and school uniforms could be prohibitive for poorer families. She wished to know whether the Government would consider providing some kind of financial support to encourage parents to send their children to school.

She would be grateful for information on any changes made to legislation and policy on migration and asylum. She wondered how a human rights-based approach was integrated into the law and practice of migration governance. She would appreciate up-to-date statistical data on the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and regular and irregular migrants in the State Party and the number of migrants who held permanent and temporary residence permits.

The delegation might inform the Committee of any measures taken to ensure the timely processing of applications for refugee status and asylum. In that connection, she would like to know why 80% of asylum-seekers abandoned their applications before processing was complete and what the State Party was doing to address that problem. It would be interesting to learn whether the State Party cooperated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other actors to ensure compliance with protection standards. It would be interesting, too, to learn what measures were being taken to improve living conditions in migrant reception centres and to ensure access to decent accommodation and healthcare for migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers.

She would be grateful for information on any policies or programmes for promoting the integration of migrants, including by ensuring their access to education, employment, healthcare, housing and other services. She would appreciate statistical data on the employment of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers and their access to language classes. She would like to know what was being done to protect the rights of refugee and asylum-seeking children and to learn about any steps being taken to ensure the care, protection and well-being of unaccompanied minors and to facilitate family reunification. In addition, she would welcome information on the legal framework governing access to citizenship for children born in Slovenia to beneficiaries of international protection.

Data on the number of investigations launched, prosecutions brought and convictions secured in connection with trafficking in persons would be appreciated. It would be interesting to know what measures were taken to identify victims of trafficking and ensure their access to remedies, assistance and basic services. She wondered whether the State Party would consider cooperating with neighbouring States to tackle trafficking in persons.

She wished to know how many “erased” persons – citizens of the successor States of the former Yugoslavia who had been removed from the Register of Permanent Residents of Slovenia in 1992 – had had their legal status regularized and what had been done to regularize the status of erased persons residing abroad who had not been able to apply for permanent residency status within the stipulated time frame. Information on the legal status and access to citizenship of children born to erased persons outside the country would be welcome, as would up-to-date statistical data on persons who had received compensation under the legislation regulating the permanent residency status of erased persons. It would be interesting to know whether any other form of redress, aside from financial compensation, had been provided to those persons.

She would appreciate the delegation’s comments on reports that the protection afforded to the 8,000 or so Ukrainian refugees living in Slovenia had ended in March 2026. Information on access to healthcare and employment for Ukrainian refugees would also be welcome.

It would be useful to learn whether human rights education was incorporated into school curricula and teacher training programmes and, if so, whether it addressed racial discrimination directed at members of the Roma community, migrants and refugees. She wondered what measures were being taken to promote intercultural dialogue and whether the State Party had assessed the effectiveness of awareness-raising campaigns in reducing hate speech and discrimination.

A representative of Slovenia said that migration policy in Slovenia was based on two strategies, adopted in 2023 and 2024, which had been drafted in coordination with civil society. The first strategy dealt with integration and the second with migration. The migration strategy, and all related policies, were founded on the principles of solidarity, international equality, freedom and mutual cooperation, among others.

Migration policy was embodied in two laws: the International Protection Act and the Foreigners Act. The International Protection Act regulated the conditions and procedures with respect to the granting of international protection and the rights of applicants and beneficiaries. The Act was fully compliant with European Union legislation in the area of international protection and with the international obligations of Slovenia. The Government had drafted a new bill on international protection that was based on the Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in 2024 by the European Union. The bill addressed areas such as the identification of vulnerable persons, age assessment, legal counselling, free legal representation before the courts and the use of independent supervisory mechanisms in all border proceedings. The bill was expected to become law in the second half of 2026.

The Foreigners Act set out the conditions and procedures for the entry, exit and residence of foreign nationals who did not apply for international protection. The Act had been amended a number of times in recent years with a view to streamlining the procedure for acquiring residency permits and expanding the grounds on which applications for residency could be filed.

The right to acquire a work permit had been extended to asylum-seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, facilitating their integration into society. Residency permits were also granted to victims of trafficking in persons. Applicants’ knowledge of the Slovenian language was taken into account when they applied to extend their residency permits. In April 2025, the Constitutional Court had issued a decision annulling article 10 (b) of the Foreigners Act as it had been deemed to hinder access to fair and effective proceedings for applicants for international protection.

A representative of Slovenia said that the capacity of centres for asylum-seekers had been increased in recent years, along with that of the special accommodation facility for unaccompanied minors, which provided residents with round-the-clock care. In 2025, the latter facility, which had capacity to accommodate up to 70 children, had hosted 22 on average.

Efforts were made to ensure that children had access to all levels of the education system. Child beneficiaries of international protection were provided with school textbooks and subsidized school transport, and procedures for recognizing their educational qualifications had been established. All asylum-seekers who were referred to a healthcare facility could be accompanied by a mediator. Refugees from Ukraine and all other persons on low incomes were entitled to financial support to help them meet the cost of housing.

In 2025, access to Slovenian language programmes had been provided to more than 6,000 migrants from outside the European Union. The programmes consisted of around 100 hours of teaching in addition to supplementary training and included a free initial assessment test. They were implemented in more than 40 towns and cities. In 2025, an information centre had been opened to provide third-party nationals with access to State services and to inform them of their rights, thereby facilitating their integration into society.

A representative of Slovenia said that asylum application proceedings lasting several years were rare and, in the small number of complex cases that had given rise to such lengthy proceedings, the applicants had enjoyed all their rights throughout. The average length of proceedings was 42 days. Given that Slovenia was a transit country, a high proportion of the migrants who filed an application for international protection left the country before processing was complete.

Certain categories of migrant had the right to apply for family reunification under the Foreigners Act. The right to benefit from family reunification also extended to persons who were not immediate family members of the applicant but were connected to him or her in some way. Ukrainian nationals benefited from a temporary protection mechanism activated at the European Union level in March 2022. All Ukrainian nationals granted temporary protection under the mechanism had a recognized status that would be valid until 4 March 2027. The possible extension of that protection was currently being discussed within the European Union. Under Slovenian law, Ukrainian nationals were already entitled to apply to the authorities for another type of residency permit.

In 2025, 26 potential victims of trafficking in persons from 13 countries had come to the attention of the authorities. Twelve investigations relating to forced labour, forced prostitution, slavery and other offences were ongoing, and proceedings had been instituted against a number of perpetrators. A special manual defined the roles of State agencies and NGOs in tackling trafficking and set out guidelines for identifying victims of the offence and providing them with protection. An interministerial group had conducted a review of case law in the area of trafficking and had issued conclusions that would be considered when the relevant legislation next came to be amended. Considerable emphasis was placed on training persons who worked or came into contact with victims of trafficking, including the staff of consular units and the Migration Directorate. A network of practitioners who worked with potential victims of trafficking was being established. At the regional level, the Government of Slovenia played a leading role in efforts to combat trafficking.

A representative of Slovenia said that applicants for international protection and persons under temporary or international protection had access to all levels of the education system and to the healthcare system.

A representative of Slovenia said that, by the end of 2025, more than 12,000 erased persons had regularized their status. The total number who had regularized their status now stood at over 13,000. The persons in question had been granted the right to reparation, including monetary compensation allocated in either administrative or civil proceedings. The President of Slovenia had issued an apology to the erased persons in 2023 and a monument to them had been erected in a park in Ljubljana. The Government acknowledged its responsibility for the situation and had made every possible effort, including through legal amendments, to ensure that as many erased persons as possible could regularize their status. A case involving a number of persons affected by erasure – Ristić and Others v. Slovenia – was currently before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government would respect the decision taken by the Court. Erased persons who had not yet taken any action to restore their rights were still entitled to do so under the Foreigners Act. A number of disadvantaged persons whose residency permits had expired had incorrectly been identified as erased.

A representative of Slovenia said that all Roma children had the right to attend school, but not all of them did so. The cost of school uniforms was not a barrier to school attendance as uniforms were not mandatory in Slovenia. Children living in poor families were able to acquire free textbooks and other materials as well as assistance with their studies. The inclusion of children in preschool education was promoted in order to help parents understand the importance of school for their children. Teachers spoke to parents about their children’s futures in order to gain parents’ trust. Schools provided children with services besides education, such as sanitation facilities, to encourage them to attend school.

Ms. Ali Al-Misnad, noting that some Roma children were reportedly bullied because of their appearance, said that she wondered whether the State Party might consider introducing school uniforms as a way of addressing that problem. It was still not clear whether “non-autochthonous” Roma were treated in the same way as “autochthonous” Roma and whether efforts were made to ensure that both groups enjoyed the same rights.

Mr. Balcerzak said that he would welcome further information on the erased persons whose residency status had not yet been regularized. In particular, it would be useful to know why the relevant procedures had not been completed, exactly how many persons fell into that category, whether they still faced restrictions on the enjoyment of their rights and whether any steps were being taken to regularize their status.

Mr. Diaby said that he wished to know whether the Human Rights Ombudsman submitted recommendations to the Government concerning the treatment of ethnic minorities. Under the Citizenship Act, Slovenian citizenship could be acquired only if the applicant renounced any previous nationality that he or she had. That being the case, he wondered whether applicants for citizenship ran the risk of ending up stateless if their application was denied and whether any measures were taken to prevent that situation from arising. The delegation might inform the Committee how many persons in Slovenia were stateless or at risk of becoming stateless.

Given that Slovenia was a transit country for migrants, it would be interesting to know whether the border police were trained to deal with problems affecting migrants and asylum-seekers, whether their training covered the Convention and, if so, how much training in the Convention they received. It would be interesting to know, too, whether the Government had received any complaints of abuse committed by members of the border police or the armed forces stationed at borders. He would welcome information on the nature of the threats cited by the Slovenian authorities as justification for re-establishing border controls with Croatia and Hungary and how many such threats had been identified since then.

A representative of Slovenia said that her delegation had described a wide range of specific measures taken to encourage Roma children’s school attendance. More broadly, efforts were being made to combat stereotypes in schools. Under national law, teachers were required to promote respect for human rights, tolerance, multilingualism and multiculturalism. The first national report on the quality of the education system, mentioned earlier, included information on how teachers assessed their knowledge of those areas. According to the report, only 9% of educators said that those subjects had been adequately covered in their initial teacher training programmes. Teachers and other educators also received in-service training. A broad range of training courses was offered, with teachers free to decide for themselves which ones they took.

The number of children whose native language was not Slovenian had increased from between 6% and 7% in 2019 to over 10% currently. The majority of those children were of primary school age and their numbers were expected to continue rising. In order to address that situation, the Government had developed a project to promote the integration of foreign children that would be implemented in more than 70 preschools and schools over the next four years. New staff would be recruited to promote the learning of the Slovenian language in coordination with parents and municipalities.

Over the previous three years, the curricula for all levels of the education system had been comprehensively reformed. Under the curriculum for the preschool level, teachers and educators must respect children’s languages and nationalities and help speakers of other languages to learn Slovenian. A number of so-called common objectives had been adopted at the primary and secondary levels prior to the reform of the curriculum. The common objectives related to digital education, sustainable development, language and culture, civil education, and health and well-being. The topics identified in the common objectives must be covered in the curricula for all subjects. Special emphasis was placed on promoting a safe and motivating school environment.

A representative of Slovenia said that the success of integration programmes had not been evaluated in recent years. Owing to the volume of new measures introduced to promote integration, it had not been possible to assess them. However, the success of the measures taken was demonstrated by the fact that 34 persons under international protection had been granted Slovenian citizenship in 2025. All those persons had acquired sufficient knowledge of the Slovenian language and had found employment.

A number of measures had been taken to promote social inclusion. In 2025, legislation had been adopted to make it easier to allocate emergency accommodation to persons who had not previously met institutional criteria for obtaining it, including persons with no official status, among them erased persons. Efforts had been made to prevent the rights of temporary residence permit holders from being extinguished while they were waiting for their permits to be renewed. Child applicants for international or temporary protection were eligible for free school meals.

The staff of social care centres and those implementing social assistance programmes received regular training. An organization known as the Social Chamber provided training to social workers to improve their understanding of the problems facing vulnerable groups, including Roma communities. The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities co-funded social assistance programmes for Roma persons, refugees and migrants that granted them access to a range of State services and promoted their integration. Over the previous two years, incentives had been provided to partner NGOs as part of efforts to expand the programmes’ coverage in different areas of the country.

Plans were in place to increase the number of staff employed by social work centres, including staff who worked exclusively with the Roma community. Additional funding for the training of educators and other experts would also be made available. A draft strategy for the provision of support to homeless persons and other persons facing obstacles to the enjoyment of their rights, including erased persons, had been prepared in cooperation with NGOs.

A representative of Slovenia said that the notion of autochthonous minority communities was defined in the Constitution and applied to communities that had traditionally resided in certain areas of the country. In 2001, a legal amendment had been adopted to designate the Roma minority as an autochthonous community. Over the years, large numbers of Roma from other parts of the former Yugoslavia had entered Slovenia and had mainly settled in cities. Those persons were referred to as urban or non-autochthonous Roma. The only difference in the rights enjoyed by autochthonous and non-autochthonous Roma was that the former had additional voting rights in local and municipal elections.

The rights of the Roma community were regulated by the Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia Act of 2007 and article 65 of the Constitution. The Government acknowledged that, in line with the Constitution, it would be necessary to implement a broader programme of support for Roma that made no distinction between the autochthonous and non-autochthonous communities.

A representative of Slovenia said that there was only one police force in Slovenia that was responsible for all areas of law enforcement. Police officers working in border areas undertook a general two-year training programme followed by a specific programme on the policing of the borders. Police officers were required to apply laws relating to the Schengen area and to cooperate with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).

A partner academy in Slovenia organized training for police officers from across Europe. In 2025, Schengen evaluators had conducted an extensive assessment of the training provided to police officers in Slovenia. Police officers working at border crossings were assisted by external agencies, including NGOs. The Government had re-established inspections at border crossings in response to the heightened terrorist threat that the country faced and to control the entry of firearms.

A representative of Slovenia said that the Government did not underestimate the scale of the problems faced by erased persons. Erased persons had had the opportunity to regularize their status since the late 1990s, the first law to address the problem having been adopted in 1999. Under subsequent legislation regulating the permanent residency status of all citizens of the successor States of the former Yugoslavia, erased persons had been granted three years in which to regularize their status, starting from the date of adoption of the relevant act in 2010. The Ministry of the Interior had carried out a number of campaigns to inform erased persons in Slovenia and abroad of their right to regularize their status. NGOs had participated in the awareness-raising campaigns and relevant information had been posted online. In spite of those campaigns, not all affected persons had taken the opportunity to regularize their status. Although the three-year period for regularizing their status had expired in 2013, erased persons still had the opportunity to apply for a residence permit or for Slovenian nationality under the Foreigners Act or the Citizenship Act.

The Government had held meetings with organizations representing erased persons and had invited those organizations to inform it of any individual cases of which they were aware. Significant efforts had been made to review those cases and propose solutions for the affected persons. National law did not permit the authorities to revoke the nationality of a person who did not have another nationality.

A representative of Slovenia said that a film focusing on the experiences of four young migrants from Albania had been produced and shown in a number of schools in order to raise awareness of the prejudice faced by persons of Albanian origin and to promote discussion of the challenges faced by migrants.

A representative of Slovenia said that she wished to thank the Committee for its rigorous scrutiny, insightful questions and constructive comments. The dialogue had constituted an important external assessment and had provided valuable guidance for the future work of the Government. The delegation eagerly awaited the Committee’s concluding observations, which would be translated, disseminated among all relevant national and local authorities and used as a strategic tool to shape future policies and actions.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.