4293rd Meeting, 146th Session, Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

Dear members of the Committee, distinguished delegation, good morning. I hope you had a good rest. This morning, this is the meeting number 4292. It is a public meeting and on webcast. We will continue the constructive dialogue with the delegation of Austria. The delegation wants to have some time this morning before the second round of questions to respond to the questions related to the first part of the list of issues prior to reporting yesterday. So I will give 15 minutes to the delegation to respond. So I'll give the floor, Madam Handelswetz.

Thank you. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. We would like to take up the questions we left open yesterday. And I would like to first touch on the issue of women's part-time work. While the employment quota of women in Austria is quite high in the EU average, also the part-time quota of women is still high, as pointed out yesterday. Numerous factors contribute to this, for example, care responsibilities, but also the fact that some sectors where women are often employed mainly offer only part-time jobs. The further expansion of childcare and the promotion of a more equal sharing of care work between parents that my colleague from the Federal Chancellery mentioned yesterday, will contribute to the possibility of women to increase their working hours. Since 2018, Employers have to inform part-time employees about new full-time positions within the company. Also, the share of women in leadership positions, from employees in management functions to supervisory board members, rises continuously. Economic independence for women is very important for us. To this end, we will continue to inform about the financial consequences of part-time and opportunities to guarantee financial independence, also in old age. And we will also continue to work towards better employment opportunities for women, as mentioned yesterday. I would like now to pass on to Ms. Vacek from the Federal Chancellery.

Thank you very much, dear Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee. I would like to add some information about prostitution, as asked yesterday. Sex work is a particularly precarious field of work that is prone to exploitation. Nevertheless, there are women who consciously choose to work in the sex services industry. Every woman has the right to make her own informed and autonomous decision about whether to engage in sex work, free from coercion, discrimination and external pressure, and deserves to have her choice, dignity and rights respected and protected. The regulatory framework on sexual services in Austria enables authorities to influence working conditions and provide counseling, support and preventive health care for sex workers. The resulting low threshold access to sex workers facilitates the identification of potential victims of human trafficking and violence through counseling services and inspections. Funded with altogether 755,000 euros, there are eight specific counseling centers in seven federal states. In Austria, the comprehensive regulatory system for sexual services is part of the national strategy to combat human trafficking as effectively as possible, and this thus enshrined also in the National Action Plan on Human Trafficking. A working group on sexual services was created in 2009, which comprises of 30 experts who meet twice a year for two days. The working group pursues a broad range of goals, guaranteeing an exchange of opinions among experts, encouraging cooperation and networking, addressing current developments, drawing up recommendations on how to improve the living and employment situation of sex workers in order to combat exploitation, which remains still a frequent problem, supporting the implementation of these recommendations and evaluating steps already taken. The results are summarized in reports approximately each three years. The working group on sexual services produced a brochure on the rights, obligations and support options for sex workers, which is used nationwide by counseling centers and public health departments. It is available in nine languages. Thank you.

Thank you. I would now like to pass on to Ms. Feldbacher from the Ministry of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I'd now like to answer to an additional question asked by Ms. Rocholl yesterday concerning the sterilization set out in section 255 of the Austrian Civil Code. She asked for numbers. of court authorizations since the year 2018. I can report as follows. The authorization for a sterilization pursuant to section 255 of the Austrian General Civil Code must be documented using a special step code in internal judicial registers. This happens in line with all the other authorization procedures outlined in sections 253 to 257 of the Austrian Civil Code. So there is no special step code exclusively concerning sterilizations. Consequently, it is not possible to provide statistics or numbers regarding the authorization of sterilizations. Thank you.

Thank you. I would now like to pass on to Mr. Heisenberger from the Ministry of Health.

Thank you. Dear Mr. Chairman and the distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Helfer, in regard to your question from yesterday concerning the treatment of intersex children, we may supply additional information. As stated in previous UN treaty reports, it is safe to say that medically unnecessary procedures are still carried out in Austria, as unfortunately is the case in the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. A quantification is difficult as the definition of the, of the affected population differs widely. And between the human rights based term variations of sex characteristics, we see or intersex is understood more broadly than a medical term disorders or differences in sex development, DSD. However, some estimates from the international, from international studies and reports by the Austrian civil society and academica place estimate between a few hundred and over a thousand surgical procedures a year. Moreover, the current government program from 2025 to 2030 29, includes the implementation of clear regulations to protect intersex minors from medically unnecessary interventions in consultation with advocacy groups, as well as the expansion of awareness-raising measures for healthcare professionals to better educate them about intersex conditions. In addition, the programme envisions the collection and monitoring of data, quantitative and qualitative, and the status quo regarding treatments, as well as the conduct of long-term studies for minors with gender incongruence.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker will be Ms. Putz from the Ministry of Labour.

Good morning, everyone. From my side, I would like to give a more precise answer to a question raised yesterday on intersectional discrimination by Ms. Abdul-Rahjo, where one of the intersecting grounds of discrimination falls outside the scope of the Equal Treatment Act. the examination of intersectional discrimination is legally constrained. The assessment can only be based on a characteristic protected by the Equal Treatment Act, while an unprotected characteristic cannot be taken into account as a ground of discrimination. The claimant must seek to demonstrate that discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic has occurred. From the perspective of the Ministry of Labor, it is important to enshrine protection against discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion and belief, and disability beyond the sphere of employment. It will therefore continue to advocate for the extension of protection against discrimination at national and EU level. I hope that answers the question sufficiently, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide this answer today. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Ms. Kiermayer from the Ministry of Health.

Thank you, and good morning, dear Chair, dear Committee. I will provide some additional answers regarding the questions how Austria can protect vulnerable groups from heat. First of all, Austria has a national heat protection plan. Heat protection measures are primarily implemented at the regional and local levels. Therefore, the federal and state heat protection plans are designed in particular to support regional stakeholders such as municipalities, social service organizations, associations in implementing specific measures. In addition, the national government and lander provide tips through numerous sources on the best ways to protect oneself from heat. Heat action plans of the land and cities, for example, encourage direct personal outreach by local authorities and social organizations such as through home visits, telephone chains, or local events. Further more information about dangers of extreme heat and protective measures should be provided in an easy to understand format such through flyers, radio, and TV. Another approach is the climate resilience check health 2050 provided by the Austrian National Public Health Institute, the GAK, which supports regional decision makers in assessing climate related health risk, identifying vulnerable population groups and analyzing existing healthcare and long term care capacities. It can help local stakeholders to identify gaps in heat protection and develop targeted adaptation measures in response to the needs of the vulnerable groups. Furthermore, there is the so-called heat hotline, a heat set telephone operated on behalf of the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Health, which offers free personalized advice on heat protection measures, especially for vulnerable population group. General heat tips during heat waves are also summarized in a brochure published by the Ministry of Health and on the websites of the Ministry and the lender. Another project is the heat shelters for many vulnerable groups. The most important protective factor is access to air-conditioned rooms or cool places of refuge. Older adults and people with chronic illnesses in particular often lack access to air-conditioned homes, which is why public facilities such as libraries, shopping centers, churches, municipal facilities can serve as heat shelters. Also providing drinking water in public places or setting up mobile water stations can play a crucial role in providing the support. At the local level, such services and initiatives are continually being developed and expanded to improve access to cooling facilities and other forms of support during periods of extreme heat. Each city of Vienna is continuously expanding its range of heat protection services and cooling facilities for vulnerable groups. In many cases, neighbors, friends, volunteers can make an important contribution by regularly checking in on vulnerable individuals, providing them with water, helping stay cool, such social cohesion plays a key role there. It is therefore important for communities and local networks to establish or strengthen such support structures. The initiative of Gesunde Nachbarschaft, launched by the Austrian Health Promotion Fund, the Fonds Gesundes Osterreich, promotes social participation, community engagement and health promoting neighborhood works. These structures can also provide a valuable foundation for strengthening community-based heat protection, particularly for older people, people with chronic illnesses and others who may be socially isolated or dependent on support in their daily lives. Where community nursing services are available, community nurses can also contribute to heat protection by providing preventive health advice, identifying individuals who may require additional support, and connecting them with healthcare and social services. Their role is particularly relevant for older people, people with chronic illnesses, and individuals who have difficulty accessing support independently. In Austria, there are already also regional initiatives to support people who are particularly at risk during the hot summer months. These services are provided primarily by volunteers. Then we have a network of so-called heat buddies. This can be established through collaboration between regional management, social organizations, and volunteer organizations or volunteer associations, for example, the senior citizen associations or neighborhood assistance initiatives. These heat buddies are trained staff members at social organizations, for example, the Red Cross, who are available locally to warn vulnerable individuals in a timely manner before heat waves and help them to receive the best possible support. We also have, or Vienna also has a project called Climate Oasis, where churches in Vienna and Lower Austria open cool places to the public. And last but not least, another important aspect is the close collaboration between the health service and the social institutions, especially during heat waves. Emergency teams and first responders should also be able to react quickly to heat-related conditions and provide medical care to affected individuals. Therefore, preventive health counseling and regular education about risk of heat can help these groups particularly identify high-risk groups and prepare them better for the heat waves. This can be achieved through information campaigns as well as through specific counseling provided by doctors and social workers, because this education is especially important from my view. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I would conclude by making a short remark on section 43 of the Federal Civil Service Act. We were asked to provide data on how often this section has already been used. Unfortunately, we don't have any aggregated data because it's up to the respective ministries who have the authority over their employees to enforce this provision. And so we do not have data collected thank you.

Thank you very much for your replies this morning and we will now move to second round of questions to be posed by the members of the committee first I'd like to invite Mr.

I guess you good Morgan My questions for this morning will focus on paragraphs 13 and 14. Going to my questions on paragraph 13, excessive use of force, the Committee notes your reply in regard to the legal framework in place on the use of force by law enforcement officials, which appears to be essentially consistent with the legal standards provided in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Human Rights guidance on less lethal weapons in law enforcement. However, reports before the Committee indicate that there were instances of disproportionate or excessive use of force by law enforcement officials during the May Day demonstrations in 2021, and more recently during a police raid at the Perelman Youth Camp on 27 July 2025, a memorial site honoring civilian victims of the Nazi regime and the Carinthian Slovene minority. Can the State party please provide information of steps taken to conduct investigations into allegations of the use of excessive or disproportionate use of force during these events and the results of the investigations, if any, as well as measures taken to hold those responsible to account and remedies provided to victims? On the second question, I'm raising it in conjunction with one of the questions raised by Mr. Saidov yesterday, is on the independence of the police oversight body. One of the issues raised by the committee is whether the state party has taken steps to establish an independent police oversight body to receive and investigate allegations of excessive use of force by law enforcement and security forces. which was not answered in the report. The Committee notes the establishment of the Investigation and Complaints Office for Allegations of Police Ill-treatment, the EBM, to monitor and investigate police use of force and ill-treatment and abuse of authority, as amended by the 2023 Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption Act. While the establishment of the office marks a major structural change in handling and investigating police misconduct and use of force, Its institutional placement within the Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption, which itself is under the Federal Ministry of Interior, makes its independence questionable, as the Ministry of Interior is the political head of the entire police force and retains the right to instruct public prosecutors in individual cases of police use of force or ill-treatment, which also may result in a lack of public trust of the EBM. Can you therefore please explain what steps the State party has taken or will take to establish a fully independent complaints and investigation body that has no institutional or hierarchical links to the police force in order to address the current perceived lack of independence of the EBM due to its organizational placement within the Ministry of Interior that appears to lead to a conflict of interest as well as weaken public trust as victims of police violence and ill-treatment may not effectively complain against alleged perpetrators of excessive use of force and ill-treatment. Going to my questions on paragraph 14, trafficking in persons, the Committee welcomes the various measures taken by the State Party towards combating trafficking in human beings, which is provided in detail in your periodic report. However, the Committee has also received credible reports of existing gaps that remain to be addressed by the State Party. In the area of labor trafficking, reports indicate that the number of identified cases of alleged unlawful employment of third country nationals has risen in recent years, apparently due to a lack of sufficient staff and resources for labor inspections supervising the working conditions of migrant workers. It is also reported that the State Party does not allow asylum applicants to work, thereby increasing their vulnerability to trafficking. Can the State Party therefore please provide information on what steps it has taken or plans to take to increase its efforts to identify labour trafficking victims, such as through the provisions of additional resources and training to labour inspectors? Can the State Party also inform the Committee what measures it plans to take to provide asylum applicants temporary work permit in order to mitigate their vulnerability to trafficking. The Committee notes the progress made by the State Party to develop a comprehensive national referral mechanism for identifying trafficked persons and referring them to suitable organizations, as well as drawing up of specific guidelines for identifying and dealing with potential victims of child trafficking in 2016 to serve as the national reference mechanism. However, reports indicate that there are still significant gaps in the efforts made by the State Party to design and implement a uniform system for identifying and monitoring potential trafficking victims, and in particular to protect unaccompanied children who are vulnerable to trafficking. In this regard, reports point out a significant number of children who applied for asylum, the State Party could not be located and were highly vulnerable to trafficking, and that the State Party lacked uniform procedures to appoint legal guardians to unaccompanied children, further increasing their vulnerability. Can the State Party therefore please provide information on what steps it has taken or plans to take to strengthen the protection system of migrant children, including ensuring that each unaccompanied child is placed in appropriate accommodations and to expedite the appointment of a guardian from day one of arrival or immediately upon identification to prevent their vulnerability to trafficking? Can the State Party please provide information when the State Party will set up a comprehensive national referral mechanism which follows a multidisciplinary approach to victim identification involving other frontline actors who may come into contact with victims of trafficking? Finally, Reports indicate that although the law of the state party prohibits penalization of trafficking victims, the courts do not consistently apply the non-punishment provision, particularly for less serious crimes committed by victims, such as for administrative offenses relating to commercial sex. Concerns are also expressed that access to compensation and restitution was rare in trafficking cases and that compensation awards are unevenly enforced. as it is the victim's responsibility to enforce the order through a claim with legal authorities. Can the State Party, therefore, please clarify what measures it intends to take to ensure victims are not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts committed by victims as a direct result of being trafficked? Can the State Party also inform the Committee what steps it intends to take to strengthen efforts to guarantee effective access to compensation for victims, including by enforcing compensation orders this ends my question for this morning and I look forward to your replies.

Thank you very much Mr. I guess you now I will give the floor to madam up door sure.

Thank you very much chair and my thanks also to the delegation for for all of the answers to questions. My first question this morning relates to treatment of asylum seekers and refugees under issue 15. We welcome the opening comments by the head of delegation on international protection and the cases covered since 2015, as well as the EU pact on migration and asylum applying since 12 June 2026. We would like to understand, in this context, how many persons, including families with children, have been placed in border procedures and in which procedures. appeals lack automatic suspensive effect. Does the state party intend to review sections 36 to 40 of the Asylum Act, which would allow an emergency decree limiting access to the asylum procedure at the border? The report states that third country models are in principle compatible with the covenant. We note that independent monitoring, access to lawyers and new HCR time limits relate to paragraph 1. How would the State Party ensure its responsibility under article 2, paragraph 1? The Committee notes that returns to Syria and Afghanistan resumed in 2025 and has received information that One person returned to Syria, subsequently went missing. We would like some information on this case. Finally, family reunification for beneficiaries is now subject to a quota, BGB 1/81/2026. According to information received, only 55 family members arrived in the first half of 2026. compared with about 6,000 in the first half of 2024. Could the delegation indicate the level of the quota and the number of pending applications, including those concerning children, and explain how the State party ensures compatibility with articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant? My second question relates to unaccompanied children and statelessness under issue 16. We welcome the information received. According to information received in 2025, there were 572 unaccompanied children who applied for asylum in 2025, and 473 cases the procedure was closed because the child could no longer be located. Could the delegation provide official figures for 2019 to 2025, and the number of children subsequently found and the outcome of the investigations. The committee welcomes the long guardianship from the first day, enforced since 12 June 2026. As we understand it applies to children found in Austria after 11 June 2026, how will guardianship be ensured for children who arrived earlier? We also note the Ombudsman Board's observation that daily rates for unaccompanied refugee children are lower than for other children in care. Are there plans to align them? Could you share information on age assessments under the new law, including referrals to the courts and the use of medical examinations? On statelessness, we welcome the information campaigns conducted in 2024. According to information received, 480 children were registered as born stateless in Austria between 2005 and 2023. While no child appears to have acquired citizenship under the provision for persons born stateless, could the delegation provide the number of applications and grants under section 14 of the Citizenship Act? In light of article 24, paragraph 3, would the State party consider granting citizenship at birth to children who would otherwise be stateless? Finally, is the State party considering a dedicated statelessness determination procedure, and what measures have been taken to register persons not registered at birth? Turning to my next question relating to the detention of children, issue 17. We thank the State Party for the data in table 8 of the report, which shows a small number of children in detention pending deportation. We note, however, that the average length rose from 1.5 days in 2023 to 19 days in 2024. Could the delegation explain the increase and provide figures for 2025 and 2026 disaggregated by accompanied and unaccompanied children, including Dublin detention? The report refers to a maximum detention period of two months for children over 14. The report now refers, in fact, to three months in paragraph 194. Could the delegation clarify whether the maximum has changed? The report also indicates that children under 14 may accompany their parents in detention. Could you provide the number of such children since 2016 and the length of the stay? In line with paragraph 18 of General Comment 35 and the growing international consensus that immigration detention is never in the best interests of the child, could the State Party consider ending the immigration detention of children and families, making alternatives the rule? How many children benefited from alternatives in 2024 and 2025? Of the new board of procedures, including the terminal at Vienna Airport, could the delegation indicate whether children and families may be held there, under what conditions and for how long? We note with appreciation that the Ombudsman Board will monitor these procedures. Finally, the Ombudsman reports an increase in the number of adolescents in criminal detention from 125 in November 2024 to 182 in November 2025, over-crowding in the new youth centre in Vienna, and cases of adolescents placed with adults. How does the State Party ensure separation from adults under Article 10 and expand alternatives to detention? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madame Abdullouchor, and I'll give the floor to Mr. Halfar.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning to the delegation, and thank you for the additional replies. They were extremely helpful on the issues that I asked about yesterday, and I do appreciate your efforts in providing additional information. Today, my focus is on issues 18 and 22 of the list of issues. Let me begin with independence of the judiciary. The European Commission's 2025 Rule of Law report notes limited progress on creating an independent federal prosecution office to address political influence on the judiciary, especially in high-profile cases. The Committee understands that a draft law creating this office was introduced in Parliament in June of this year. Please explain how the proposed law and the office of establishes will protect the independence of judges and prosecutors, and when the legislation is expected to be adopted. The committee is aware of reports of an investigation of members of the Federal Administrative Court, including allegations that the court's former president and vice president improperly influenced how judges are allocated to new cases, including asylum applications. Please explain what steps are being taken to ensure the independence of the Administrative Court. The Committee also has questions relating to an August 2026 report of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption, raising concerns about the independence of lay judges, who we understand are involved in deciding cases relating to commercial law, antitrust, labour and social issues. The committee understands that although a working group has developed training initiatives for lay judges, the state party has not yet adopted a code of conduct for those judges. What steps is the state party taking to address these issues? The 2026 Greco report that I just mentioned also recommends adopting a system of periodic appraisals of judges, and the committee understands that a pilot phase is currently underway. Please explain the next steps toward fully implementing the system of periodic appraisals. The last topic in issue 18 concerns the selection of senior judges. The 2026 European Commission Rule of Law report recommends consistently including members of the judiciary in the selection process and also addressing a lack of transparency in selection criteria. Please explain how the State Party will implement these recommendations. Turning to issue 22, the Committee notes with appreciation Austria's adoption of national legislation to accompany the European Media Freedom Act, a point noted by Head of Delegation yesterday. We have several questions relating to other aspects of freedom of expression. First, the Committee has received reports of restrictions on the speech of individuals who seek to participate in non-violent protests and gatherings. For example, on October 11, 2023, law enforcement officials banned a pro-Palestinian protest in Vienna several hours beforehand, citing the protesters' plans to chant the phrase "from the river to the sea" as a call to violence. The Committee is also aware of court decisions finding fault with restrictions imposed on climate protesters, as well as reports that the police have restricted journalists from reporting on peaceful protests. Would the delegation please comment on these examples, and also clarify how the State Party protects non-violent expressions of political speech and reporting from undue restrictions? The committee is aware of a 20 that a 2025 law not yet in force authorizes the government to install surveillance software on the mobile phones and other devices to monitor encrypted communications. We understand that this law is currently being challenged before the Constitutional Court. My colleague, Mr. Saidov, will have questions about the this law with respect to the right to privacy. As for freedom of expression, the Committee would appreciate clarification on whether Austria intends to apply this law to monitor the encrypted communications of journalists and human rights defenders. The Committee takes note of the very recent political agreement on a draft bill to implement the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive. Yesterday, the head of delegation stated that the draft bill takes into account broader aspects of the recommendations made by the EU and the Council of Europe. Please provide additional details on those broader aspects, in particular how the draft bill protects the free speech of journalists and human rights defenders, and whether Austria will provide effective remedies for individuals that face strategic lawsuits. The state party has indicated that the Freedom of Information Act that was adopted, I believe, last year or in 2024, includes broad grounds for non-disclosure, including privacy protections. Recent federal administrative court decisions have further restricted the scope of this act to exclude preparatory records or personal notes of government employees. Please clarify how these exceptions are applied in practice and explain how the exceptions are compatible with ensuring the right of access to public information guaranteed by the Covenant. Those are my questions for today, and I look forward to your replies. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Halper. Now I'll give the floor to Mr. Seidoff.

Good morning, distinguished members of the Committee. Good morning, the delegation of Austria. Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the distinguished delegation of Austria for its participation in yesterday's dialogue and for the information and responses provided to the Committee. I would like to continue our dialogue by addressing three further areas. the right to privacy, freedom of religion or belief, and issues relating to military service, including conscientious objection and voluntary recruitment at the age of 17. First, on the right to privacy. My question concerns the use of drones and facial recognition technology by the law enforcement authorities, electronic monitoring of persons released from prison under certain conditions, and access to encrypted communications. Could the delegation explain the legal basis and limits of these measures? Who authorize their use and what safeguards ensure that surveillance is necessary and proportionate? What rules govern the collection, retention, and deletion of personal information, and which independent authorities oversee compliance? I would like to raise a specific question concerning the legislation adopted in July 2025, allowing the use of spyware to access encrypted communications, in particular serious cases. Given the possibility that such technology may provide access to information beyond the communications under investigation, how does Austria ensure that its use remains strictly limited to what is necessary and proportionate? What safeguards provide for their judicial authorization, effective independent oversight, and protection against access to unrelated data? Could the delegation also clarify the status of the constitutional review of these surveillance powers? Finally, what effective remedies are available to individuals who believe that they have been subjected to unlawful or disproportionate surveillance? Can they challenge the measures, request deletion of unlawfully collected data and seek compensation were appreciated. My second set of questions concerns freedom of religion or belief. I would first like to return to the Committee's previous recommendations concerning provisions governing Islamic religious communities. What steps has Australia taken to review these provisions and ensure the non-discriminatory enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief under Article 18 and 26 of the Covenant? In particular, could the delegation explain how restrictions on foreign funding under the Islam Act of 2015 and the financial reporting and monitoring requirements introduced in 2025 are applied. What safeguards ensure that Islamic religious communities are not subject to unjustified or discriminatory obligations compared with other religious communities? With regard to the official recognition of religious communities, how many applications are currently pending or have been rejected, and on what grounds. What effective avenues of appeal are available to communities that consider a refusal or a delay unjustified? I would also appreciate clarification on the restrictions concerning the wearing of headscarves by girls under the age of 14 in schools. What is the legal basis and scope of these restrictions? How does Austria ensure that their implementation is consistent with freedom of religion or belief and the principle of non-discrimination and does not result in stigmatization? Finally, I would like to turn to alternative to military service. My questions concern persons who object to military service on the basis of deeply held personal or religious beliefs. In Austria, civilian service is three months longer than military service. How does Austria ensure that this difference does not place conscientious objectors at a disadvantage or have a punitive effect? How is the fairness of both the duration and the duties of civilian service assessed? Would Austria consider reviewing the difference in length between civilian and military service? I would also like to ask about the deadline for declaring an objection to military service. Would Austria consider reviewing this time limit? What happens if a person develops a conscientious objection after beginning military service? Is there a procedure allowing that person to transfer to civilian service? If not, would Austria consider introducing such a procedure? My final question concerns voluntary military recruitment at the age of 17. Would Austria consider raising the minimum age for voluntary recruitment to 18? In the meantime, what measures ensure that 17 years old receive clear information about military service and make an informed decision freely and without pressure? Mr. Chair, Distinguished members, I have also a question and proposal on Austria's national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up, an MIRF. I would like to welcome Austria's approach to coordinating the implementation of its international human rights obligations through a network of coordinators in federal ministries and provinces. This decentralized model offers important opportunities for cooperation. At the same time, it raises a practical question about responsibility and accountability. When a recommendation of the Human Rights Committee requires action by several ministries or both federal and provincial authorities, which institutions take the lead in ensuring its effective implementation? And how are differences in priorities or delays addressed? In this regard, I would like to offer a constructive proposal. Would Austria consider strengthening its existing coordination arrangements through a common follow-up framework that identifies the authority responsible for each recommendation, establishes clear deadlines and measurable indicators, and provides a regular information on progress? Such a framework could also promote closer cooperation with the Austrian Ombudsman Board, other national human rights institutions, and civil society organizations. I believe that the effectiveness of a national mechanism should be measured not only by the quality of reports submitted to international bodies, but above all the real changes achieved in people's life. This approach could help OSRE preserve the advantages of its decentralized system while strengthening accountability, transparency, and the practical implementation of the committee's recommendations. I thank the distinguished delegation of Austria for its attention and look forward to its responses to the questions raised. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Saidov. Now I will invite Madam Leiner.

Good morning and thank you very much for those replies. to my questions, so much appreciated for them. And this morning, I am turning to two other parts, and this is part 23, right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. It seems between 2019-2024, Austria experiences some level of decline in freedom of association and assembly, including an increased surveillance. Just to mention an incident when in March 2023, a man attended a climate protest, in Vienna that has been mentioned by my colleague, where police photographed him and later used facial recognition to compare his image in a central database. The automated match led to a criminal investigation, which later was discontinued. According to the Data Protection Authority, Section 75 of Austrian Security Police Act originally enacted the management of fingerprint records and contains no explicit provisions for facial recognition. Thus, can you please kindly clarify if Austrian Security Police Act provides safeguards to use human intervention in accordance to the EU Directive 2016/680? Are there intentions to end facial recognition practice, which was deployed without actually an adequate legal basis since 2020? Now on limiting the right to peaceful assembly. In July 2025, Austrian police conducted a large-scale intervention at an international youth education camp held at the memorial site in the Carinthian Alps near the Slovenian border. The camp, attended by around 60 young people from Austria, Slovenia, and Italy, was focused on commemoration of the end of the Second World War. After the police raid, several participants were temporarily detained. And the special task force appointed to investigate this incident concluded at the end that the operation was partially unlawful and disproportionate. Could the delegation elaborate on the reason and the legal ground of this raid on the youth camp? Austria also limited expressions of solidarity with Palestinians. Could you please comment on the reason, again, and ground of these specific restrictions? Regarding freedom of association, there are concerns about the government's efforts to scrutinize public funds for civil society. Following the wave of parliamentary inquiries, the Austrian government aims to evaluate whether state funding delivers tangible public benefits. The Austrian Civil Society Network warns that the initiative stigmatizes NGOs, many of which provide essential services in healthcare, education, and environmental protection. NGOs insist that the initiative risks undermining independent civil society and threaten the sector's independence. Could you please provide further development, if any, of the attempt to scrutinize what might be early warning signs of shrinking civic space in the country? Now, questions on part 24, participation in public life. If I am not wrong, under the 2018 Referendum Act, applications for referendums can now be submitted electronically, and it's not a problem for disabled persons to vote anymore. However, representation of disabled persons in political life remains restricted. For example, no Austrian politician with a disability was ever included on any party list for the European Parliament elections. Another issue concerns availability of political education and information in accessible formats for disabled persons. Some comments on those mentioned, accidents would be very welcome. While women's representation in Austria's National Council reached a high 36.7% by 2025, women still remain underrepresented at the entry level of political life. As of March 2025, women served as mayors in 236 of 430, more than 2,000 municipalities, representing approximately 11% of all mayors. Could you please elaborate on time-bound steps to close the municipal level representation gap after the last mayor's elections? Can you please comment why the binding gender quota mechanism applied to state-owned company boards has not been extended to elected political office? The Roma was officially recognized as Autonotia's Austrian ethnic group in 1993, actually. And Austria is the first country in Europe where a Roma group received official national minority status. However, there still remain an immense lack of Roma individuals working with Austrian public offices, municipal administrations, or formal political parties. similar to several other countries with Roma population. How does the government tackle underrepresentation, chronic underrepresentation of this community in public life in Austria? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank all the members of committee who raised questions this morning for their outstanding questions. As agreed, I will suspend the meeting for 15 minutes to allow the delegation to prepare answers. Thank you. Meeting is suspended. Okay, I will... Dear members of the committee and the delegation, we will resume the meeting, and I will give the floor directly to the delegation to reply. I'll give them 16 minutes. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you very much for your questions. We would like to start answering them now. And our first speaker will be Mr. Melicir from the Ministry of the Interior. And he will answer several questions at once. Mr. Melicher, the floor is yours.

Distinguished Chair, distinguished members of the committee, I would like to start with the concerning questions of Mr. Yige Su concerning the EBM. I would like to stay brief. As I already mentioned yesterday, the independence is ensured on the one hand. by the fact that the EBM is located in the anti-corruption agency, which is in a different section than the police. The police is in section two, this is in section three, and it's an independent agency. And it has to be still in the Ministry of Interior, as according to the constitution, criminal investigations can only be conducted by the police. But this body of more than 30 police officers, they're all trained, also intensely trained on human rights, and this is a stable, fixed body. Every day. And also the very important factor is that we have also an advisory board, which is, as I mentioned yesterday, where the head is proposed by the Constitutional Court and also the civil society is part of this advisory board. And also the advisory board can take complaints and also can give recommendations. So far, since 2024 till now, already four recommendations. And if there would be any instruction from the hierarchy, it would have to be in writing. But to stress and underline also here, the criminal investigations in Austria are directed by the prosecution, which is located in the judiciary. So the prosecution, they receive, and there is also in the stipulations, legally, as you mentioned, Actually, there are safeguards that immediately has to be reported from the police side, immediately has to be reported also by the EBM to the prosecutor. And that's how it's safeguarded. These investigations are thorough, are fast, and in all directions, and without any bias and without any affiliation to the affected police officers. So I hope this covers now these questions concerning I would like now to talk about, especially about the manifestation on the Perschmannhof, about the incident last year that Mr. Yeguzo mentioned, but also Mr. Renate. So I would like to cover that. First of all, as you mentioned, took place on 17th of June last year, and the officers checked the identities of all the persons participating on the camp. three arrests and two searched people, of two of the arrested people were researched. Already on the 5th of August last year, there was an expert commission established by the Minister of Interior and in October, on the 23rd of October, there was evaluation report with 13 recommendations. And already in the subsequent report, which was issued in the summer of this year, nine of these 13 recommendations were already put into force, were also in July. we, we, there was especially a decree issued how the police should behave from memorial sites, that there should be, there should be communication with the memorial site beforehand, it should be everything proportionate and also without, without restraint, documented, and the legal, the legal, the, the, the court procedures are still pending against the, the officers leading this operation, but they clearly overstep, overstepped the, the, their responsibilities. It was out of proportion. But I also want to like to stress it was not directed in either way, this event last year, against the Slovenian ethnic group or against the Mlomor side, but it was apparently this leading office wanted to obtain the identity of these students. because it was, yeah, and so they acted without consulting their superiors. And so this will all be part of the disciplinary and also of the court proceedings, which are still pending. But we expect now with end of October a final report and we expected all recommendations will be put into effect. So also concerning, for instance, just to give you an example, the police training, also that more police officers available who speak also the minority language. And the regulation, which was issued now in July, also covers several fields concerning the investigation, concerning the communication with the site holders themselves. So we are confident that we really learn thoroughly from this event. And so I would like to move on to the, to the third point, surveillance. Mr. Saidov, I think, mentioned these questions. To, first of all, I want to point out that this surveillance stipulation find itself is stipulated in the State Protection Intelligence Service Act. So it's only meant really for security police operations in the context of terrorism and extremism. And just to go more into details, so the surveillance measures must be authorized by independent legal protection officers, the legal protection senate, the public prosecution office, the charges, or even a panel of charges, depending on the crime. of the suspects and they stay under ongoing oversight. This is all stipulated in the law. And of course, if there would be an abuse of office, there is a special stipulation in Austrian Criminal Code, Article 302. Moreover, redress mechanisms, the individuals can also file a complaint at the Austrian Data Protection Authority. And as long as they don't have, the affected people don't have a knowledge about this surveillance, their rights are protected by this independent legal protection officer. And also, he can file complaints on the behalf of the individual. So in this respect, and also to mention, there is a special committee in parliament which is overseeing these activities of this security police. And so it says also political oversight of all the parties in the parliament. of and so, but especially, especially as I said, the remedies are in place, criminal remedies, but also data protection remedies. Now I would like to move on to protest, to protests in general, what Mr. Helfer mentioned, yes, and also today, and for Ms. Lenart, again, mentioned. First of all, it's All demonstrations can be surveilled also by the Ombudsman Board, the special committee since 2002, and now also under the special optional protocol of the Convention against Torture since 2012, these committees are surveilling also demonstrations. So we have, for instance, last year in the report, it was issued from the Ombudsman Board, we found 10 that were surveilled. And also the Ombudsman Board in his report didn't mention any mobilizations. But to give you some numbers about the Palestinian demonstrations, what we do have is that from October 2023 to April 2025, 667 of these demonstrations were-- so 911 demonstrations were noticed, 911, and 667 were classified as pro-Palestinian, 151 as pro-Israeli, and 93 as neutral. We can't ascertain for sure how many demonstrations were dissolved because the se- the security authorities, the local ones, don't have to report every incident, um, to the, to the central government, but we know for sure that a wide majority of this demonstration took place and the police has a special procedure, on one hand, in, according to the Assembly Act, but also, um… In agreement with the Ombudsman Board, it's also published online, there's a certain many categories of procedures that the Ombudsman Board actually uses to check all the police behavior during demonstrations. So it has to be announced, the police has to follow a, we call it 3D approach, or dialogue, de-escalation, only as a last enforcement, 3D is according to German words, so enforcement is the very last stage, and even there, the police has to announce if they plan to dissolve, and they have to clearly distinguish between violent peaceful ones, bystanders, and so this would only take place especially when there are demonstration, counter-demonstration at the same place. So also unannounced demonstrations are protected the same way as announced ones. So there is no difference there. It could be, of course, if the demonstrators use a location which is also causing serious traffic issues, so there could be then afterwards some legal administrative law proceedings with the leader and the stewards, especially the assembly leader. But the police always tries to establish a clear communication with the assembly the best beforehand. And also, the police use also communication vehicles, communication devices, also if possible in different target languages for all kinds of demonstration in order to really be able to address the crowd. And also they would use only serious protection only as a last resort, but in order not to appear imposing from the start and aggressive from the start. So we have many, many different aspects in place, also in the trainings of the police to ensure that protests can take place as much as possible. And Violent protests are only restricted as much as necessary as a last resort, as I said. So that's why we are confident that only a small minority of the demonstrations really were dissolved. So I hope this answers your question. And also concerning-- it's also classified in the judicial proceedings with a special offense code, Ms. demonstrations and also, for instance, in regard to climate demonstration made 2019, indictments were brought against five police officers and two were convicted and also others received a fine. So they are followed up in this regard by the judiciary. So I hope this covers this question as well. I don't have any information on the matter of drones, what Mr. Saidov mentioned. I would have to send this in writing. On surveillance drones, I don't have information.

Thank you very much. As regards protests that were mentioned, I would like to pass on to the Ministry of Justice for additional information on that. Thank you.

Thank you and good morning. Well, my colleague has already provided so much information, so all I can add is maybe a clarification on a decree of the Ministry of Justice relating to the slogan from the river to the sea in connection with the criminal offense of condoning terrorist offenses. Said decree stipulates that the chanting or displaying on signs of the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at rallies and thus publicly can constitute an initial suspicion of condoning terrorist offenses in accordance with Section 282A of the Austrian Criminal Code. An initial suspicion, however, means that an investigation is initiated in order to examine the individual case and to determine under consideration of the circumstances of the case and in particular the intention of the person who used the slogan if the prerequisites of Section 282A are fulfilled. That decree elaborates on the vast range of different possible interpretations of the slogan. from a call for Palestinian freedom from Israeli occupation in accordance with international law to an incitement to the destruction of the state of Israel. Due to the widely differing interpretations of the slogan, the decree determines that a case-by-case examination is indicated. The decree, however, does not constitute a blanket ban on the use of said slogan. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We would now like to answer Mr. Zaitsev's questions regarding the freedom of religious belief, and I would like to pass to Ms. Watzek from the Federal Chancellery.

Thank you very much. In cases where suspicion arises, the financial records of religious communities and the associations behind them are subject to administrative oversight. The prohibition of foreign funding from foreign states limiting the autonomy of religious societies has to be seen in context proceedings by immigration authorities, resulting in the non-renewal of resistance permits. For instance, resident permit of ATIB imams were not renewed because of domestic funding could not be guaranteed. And the individuals in question were paid officials of the Turkish religious authority. In this context, the Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the Islamic Act. In principle, the Islam Act applies to religious societies and their constituent entities. The investigative process also examines potential arrangement designed to circumvent these regulations. The prohibition of headscarves in schools provides first for a dialogue before sanctions. The implementation follows a staged procedure, beginning with clarification and information provided by the school, following a mandatory discussion with the school authority in the event of a repeated breach. In the event of a violation, dialogues must be held between the schools and administration, the board of education, the student, the parents, and if necessary, teachers or other appropriate persons. If parents do not attend the meetings or further violations of the prohibition occurs, an administrative penalty will be imposed. These recently enacted legal provisions are currently reviewed by the Constitutional Court as to whether this measure is consistent with the right to freedom of religion, the general prohibition against discrimination, and the best interests of the child. Thank you.

I would like to add on this issue that the conditions for the legal recognition of a church or religious society or for the acquisition of legal personality as a religious community are laid down in specific laws and are addressed in an administrative procedure in accordance with the principles of rule of law. Against these decisions, it is possible to lodge an appeal with the relevant administrative court and subsequently with the Supreme Administrative Court as well as the Constitutional Court. As regards applications pending at the moment, I can report that there are two applications pending. One application is pending for recognition as a legally recognized church pursuant to the Recognition Act of 1874 by the registered religious community Pentecostal Church of God in Austria, which already acquired legal personality on October 13 in 2001. The second application for recognition as a legally recognized religious society pursuant to the Recognition Act of 1874 was brought in by the registered religious community, Free Alevi Faith Community, which already acquired legal personality on April 15 in 2022. Both applications are still pending and the fulfilment of the requirements is being assessed. I would now like to pass on to Ms. Feldbacher regarding the Federal Prosecution Office and the selection of judges. Ms. Feldbacher, the floor is yours.

You very much. Concerning the questions of Mr. Helfer about the Bundesstaatsanwaltschaft, so the independent federal prosecution office, I can tell as follows. Discussions on a reform of the current system of the public prosecution service and the establishment of an independent federal prosecution office exempt from instructions, taking into account European standards on the independence and autonomy of the prosecution have been going on for many years in Austria. In recent months, significant progress has been made. As was already mentioned by Mr. Helfer, a draft proposal for the establishment of an independent federal prosecution office, the so-called Bundesstaatsanwaltschaft, was presented to Parliament in late June 2026 and subsequently underwent a nine-week parliamentary review process. The consultation generated a large number of comments and position papers from stakeholders, which are currently being reviewed. On the basis of these submissions, the proposal is undergoing further examination and refinement in order to address technical and legal issues identified during the consultation process. This applies in particular to the term of office, the selection process and oversight mechanisms. There is broad political support for strengthening the independence and governance of the prosecution service, and the political will to advance the reform remains in place. At the same time, experts have highlighted the need for further adjustments and technical improvements, as already mentioned, to this legislative framework before it can be finalized. Since the establishment of an independent federal public prosecutor's office would require amendments to the constitution, its implementation depends on securing the necessary constitutional majority in parliament. Consequently, the reform requires not only substantive agreement on the final legal design, but also sufficient political support to achieve the required two third majority for constitutional amendments. So I will shortly explain the draft law on the Federal Prosecution Office. The draft foresees the establishment of a Federal Prosecution Office as the supreme prosecution authority of the judiciary. It shall be led by a collegial three-member leadership in panel, and the term of office for all federal prosecutors shall be a non-renewable period of six years. but especially this period is subject to critics from the stakeholders. So probably it would be, or it is currently reviewed. The selection and removal of federal prosecutors should be as follows. The selection process for the federal prosecutors consists of three steps. A committee of experts nominates the candidates and parliament either approves or rejects this proposal. The federal government then forwards the proposal to the federal president for appointment. Several criteria must be met for an appointment, for example, 10 years of experience as a criminal judge or prosecutor, a high degree of personal and professional integrity. And these requirements are strict, but formulated openly. Individuals who are not working in the criminal justice system immediately prior to their appointment may be selected, provided they meet the other criteria. Furthermore, federal prosecutors can be removed from office via two pathways, either through disciplinary proceedings or following the model of impeachment for federal ministers by the Constitutional Court. And the Federal Prosecution Office shall also be subject to parliamentary oversight, but as has been the case up to now, it is ensured that ongoing criminal investigations cannot be compromised by oversight activities. concerning the question of, it was about the promotion of senior judges, I can report as follows. Until a few years ago, so until 2023, it was the case that right to propose candidates for the absolute top positions of the Austrian Supreme Court rested solely with the Ministry of Justice, which was repeatedly criticized as potentially vulnerable to political influence. Following a reform, so by the Civil Service Amendment of 2022, The president and vice president of the Austrian Supreme Court are also now appointed via a transparent process, a specially designed expanded personal senate drafts the nomination proposal, which the Ministry of Justice adheres to. So the law is the section 32 of the Judges and Prosecutor Services Act and says, for the post of vice president and president of the Supreme Court, a special judicial senate shall hear the applicants, submit a proposal for appointment and forward it to the Federal Ministry of Justice. This senate shall be chaired by the president of a higher regional court with the longest period of service in that positions. position, where periods of service are equal, presidents shall be determined by the longer period of service as judge or public prosecutor, and the elected members of the judicial senate and of the external judicial senate at the Supreme Court shall also be members of this special judicial senate. Thank you very much. I will answer the other questions at a later point.

Thank you. As regards the Supreme Administrative Court, I would like to pass on to my colleague, Ms. Watzek.

Thank you very much. With regard to the judges of the Federal Administrative Court who are not members of the Presidium, the Personal Senate has the right to make nominations. The personal Senate forwards its own proposals for appointment to the Federal Ministry of Justice, and the federal government endorses these nominations on which the federal president ultimately decides. The vice president is just one of seven members, five of them elected among all judges. Hence, there is no decisive influence of her. With regard to the post of the president and the vice president, of the Federal Administrative Court. The Vice President is of course not represented on the Commission with the meaning of section 2, paragraph 3 of the Federal Administrative Court Act, which makes recommendations to the Federal Government concerning these posts. Thank you.

Thank you. I would now like to pass on to Ms. Steinbauer from the Ministry of the Interior regarding border procedures, return hubs in third countries, and missing persons.

Dear Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. With regard to asylum border procedures, first of all, I want to point out that these procedures do not exempt the authorities from their obligation to conduct an individual examination of applications for international protection in full compliance with fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement. Applicants benefit from procedural guarantees, including access to legal counseling and assistance, and the right to an effective remedy before an independent court. Particularly, attention is paid to vulnerable applicants and minors. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. Where necessary support for applicants with special procedural or reception needs cannot be provided, the border procedure must not be applied or must be discontinued. Furthermore, the duration of the asylum border procedure is strictly limited, generally to a maximum of 12 weeks. Turning specifically to the question of suspensive effect, it is important to clarify that under the new EU legal framework, appeals against negative asylum decisions in border procedures do not automatically have suspensive effect in all cases. However, this does not mean that applicants are left without effective judicial protection. Applicants have the possibility to request permission to remain pending the outcome of their appeal. Such requests are examined by the independent Federal Administrative Court. Importantly, applicants are generally entitled to remain until the court has decided on a timely request for permission to remain. The principle of non-refoulement remains fully applicable throughout the procedure and any removal must comply with the applicable legal safeguards. Finally, with regard to statistical information on the practical application of the new border procedures, I can inform that at present, six applicants are undergoing the asylum border procedure in Austria. Turning To the concerns expressed about the cooperation with third countries, I would like to point out that Austria aims for the establishment of a fairer and more sustainable international asylum system. Therefore, the implementation of new innovative solutions is crucial to reduce illegal migration. Return hubs in third countries are a policy goal in order to enforce the return of third country nationals who have no right to remain and no need of international protection, the implementation will be in full compliance with international law and protect rights of migrants, generally in a global… globalized world, strong cooperation and partnerships with international partners and third countries are crucial for ensuring an efficient asylum and migration policy that reduces illegal migration and enables better protection already in regions of origin, addressing the root causes of displacement in a sustainable way. The overall goal is to create a fairer asylum system which prevents deaths along migration routes, disrupts the business model of smuggling networks, and provides protection for those who generally need it. New innovative solutions, such as return hubs in third countries, are a policy goal and an essential element in implementing a fairer fairer global asylum system as outlined in the Austrian government program. Austria works together with Denmark, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands to jointly establish a return hub model. There are ongoing discussions with potential partner countries. However, no-- sorry, but the five member states have not yet concluded any agreement or arrangement. The implementation of return hubs would facilitate the transfer of third country nationals who have no right to remain and are subject to an enforceable return decision to a third country. In any case, no person with protection needs would be part of the return hub model, and the implementation will be in full compliance with international law and protect the rights of migrants. Turning to the concerns raised regarding the Syrian national deported in July 2025, I would like to clarify the following. As I already mentioned, all deportations are carried out in accordance with applicable national, EU, and international law, including the principle of non-refoulement. Prior to each deportation, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum conducts an additional assessment to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement is respected and that all legal requirements for carrying out the deportation continue to be met. Regarding the specific case, the Austrian authorities acted in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The European Court of Human Rights initially granted an interim measure, which it subsequently decided not to extend. The proceedings before the court remain pending. The case is also currently pending before the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances. Austria takes the concerns raised regarding the individual's fate and whereabouts very seriously. While within the limits of its jurisdiction and the means available to it, Austria has undertaken extensive diplomatic efforts to obtain information from the Syrian authorities. In January 2026, the Syrian Ministry of the Interior informed Austria that the Syrian National, was being held in pre-trial detention. Following this information, the Austrian Embassy in Damascus repeatedly requested further details concerning his whereabouts, detention conditions, state of health and safety, including through written diplomatic communications and bilateral meetings. Austria remains committed to pursuing these efforts and will continue to cooperate fully with the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to pass the word now to Ms. Reintjes-Wagner from the Federal Chancellery regarding human trafficking questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor, the Chair, the distinguished members of the committee. I'd like to answer on the question of Mr. Yegiazou regarding human trafficking. Thank you very much for your question. The fight against human trafficking is of crucial importance for Austria. A National Referral Mechanism, an NRM, provides a structured framework for effectively combating trafficking in human beings. The Austrian NRM presents a cooperation between authorities victim protection organizations, and other involved institutions. That is already regulated by binding provisions contained in existing law, regulation, decrees, and international administrative instructions, and has been adopted by the federal government on the 30th of September 2026. The NRM sets out responsibilities procedures and cooperation arrangements of all bodies involved in dealing with potential cases of trafficking in human beings, including authorities, victim protection organizations and other governmental and non-governmental institutions. Its purpose is to ensure a coordinated, efficient and victim-centered approach to the identification, and protection of victims of trafficking in human beings, as well as the provision of assistance and support tailored to their individual needs. The Austrian NRM is based on four pillars. First, identification and protection. Second, assistance and access to support services. Third, integration, and fourth, empowerment access to the justice system and compensation, overall following a victim-centered approach. Victim identification is a key priority of the Austrian NRM. The identification process following a detection of potential victims is conducted by law enforcement authorities. The necessary professional support of victims throughout their stay in Austria is a task of specialized victim protection organizations. The initiation and conduct of formal identification of persons affected by trafficking in human beings is carried out in the context of criminal investigations by the competent police authorities, in particular the Criminal Intelligence Service and the criminal police offices in the Länder. The protective measures for potential victims of trafficking in human beings are taken in accordance with applicable national legal provisions. Following their identification as victims of human trafficking, affected persons receive support and counseling from specialized victim protection organizations: LEFHE, IBF for women and girls, MENVIA for men, and the Child and Youth Welfare Service for trafficked minors. The support provided includes safe accommodation, financial assistance, legal advice, psychosocial and healthcare support, as well as assistance with social integration. Cooperation with specialized victim protection facilities is based on a contractual mandate given by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Regarding child victims, the National Action Plan against Human Trafficking strengthens the protection of child victims, notably through the planned establishment of a nationwide protection facility, uniform standards for care and placement, and improved training materials for professionals. The Council of Europe is analyzing the needs and feasibility for such a facility, with the project running until 2027. The Working Group against Child Trafficking has also issued updated guidelines for suspected cases of child trafficking. Minors who are victims of child trafficking or otherwise affected by exploitation are currently accommodated, provided for, and supported by the competent child and youth welfare service in the respective federal provinces. In Vienna, the, a crisis center operated by the city of Vienna, is available for this purpose. This is a crisis center with a specific mandate to accommodate all foreign minors without a permanent place of residence in Vienna. The facility has specialized experience and expertise in supporting victims of child trafficking. Its specialist department maintains contacts and cooperations with the diplomatic and consular authorities of the victims' countries of origin, as well as with authorities and organizations working to combat human trafficking. Girls aged 15 and above who are affected by exploitation can access the Lefe IABF victim protection facility in Vienna, which serves the whole of Austria. Girls aged 15 and above who are affected by forced marriage or violence within the family can be provided with safe accommodation and support by the Orient Express facility in Vienna. Orient Express is a protection facility serving the whole of Austria. offering emergency accommodation and transitional apartment for minors until they reach the age of majority. The Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Combating Child Trafficking has developed a concept for a protection facility accessible nationwide for victims of all forms of child trafficking. The concept is currently under review by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The Directorate General Family and Youth of the Federal Chancellery has received support in the planning and preparation of the setting up of a nationwide protection facility. The Council of Europe will assist the Federal Chancellery with the elaboration of a situation analysis, a feasibility study, a final report, guidelines on interviewing child victims and for the rehabilitation of child victims. the development of training materials for authorities and frontline actors, also online. It will also provide training that will equip Austria with more effective tools for prevention, the protection of victims, and the provision of timely and effective access to justice for child victims. For the purpose of learning from other facilities for child victims of trafficking in Europe, two study visits in two different countries has been taking place, one to the Netherlands and one to France. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to give the floor to Ms. Butz, also regarding human trafficking.

Dear Chair, distinguished members of the committee, I would like to add some information on human trafficking, especially for the purpose of labor exploitation. The For Ain Labor Act significantly reduces the risk of exploitation and gives people affected by human trafficking easier access to the labor market. Through the For Ain Labor Act, victims and also witnesses of human trafficking who have a residence permit, special protection in German, gain easier access to the labor market, easier access to the labor market means that no labor market assessment is necessary. Additionally, the public employment service checks income and working conditions, including social security coverage, when an application for an employment permit for workers who are not EU or EEA citizens is filed. Employers who allow illegal employment under exploitative conditions may face prison sentences and furthermore, such employers may lose their business license and be excluded from public tenders and subsidies. The Public Employment Service, in cooperation with organizations like the Center for Protection Against Violence, LEFU, and others, supports affected persons with varied measures. The Austrian Labor Inspectorate is responsible for occupational safety and health issues. The topics of human trafficking and labor exploitation are part of the general training and of regular continuing education courses for labor inspectors in Austria. These courses teach methods for identifying potential victims of human trafficking. labor inspectors also receive information on which competent authorities suspected cases can be referred to. The Austrian financial police plays also a central role in combating illegal employment, social security fraud, and severe labor exploitation. While human trafficking for labor exploitation is primarily a focus of the Austrian police, the Financial Police often uncovers the structural and financial underpinnings of these schemes through their rigorous on-site inspections. Annual training sessions are held for members of the Financial Police on topics such as indicators of labor exploitation and suspicious financial transactions. The Austrian Labor Inspectorate is not responsible for the prosecution of cases of human trafficking for the purpose of labor exploitation. This responsibility lies with the Austrian police. However, the Austrian Labor Inspectorate is obligated to report suspected cases of human trafficking to the Austrian police. Thus, members of the Austrian Labor Inspectorate and of the Austrian Financial Police receive information on human trafficking and labor exploitation within the framework of their general training. The goals of the training are to identify potential cases of human trafficking and victims of its various forms, as well as to implement appropriate official procedures to improve cooperation with the criminal investigation department and victim protection agencies. We also have a measure for undocumented workers. The UNDOC project is supporting undocumented workers through counseling and network building. This is because even though undocumented workers are treated equally under labor law with their right to wages, bonuses, vacation time, health insurance and pension coverage. The current project runs currently with a budget of 560,000 euros for the two years of 2026 and 2027. We also have a measure for migrants with low language skills. The goal of the ASPAM 2025 to 2027 project is to help people with legal residency status but limited German language skills access their rights under labor and social security law. The project primarily targets workers from Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, North Macedonia, Arab speaking countries, and the Republic of Moldova. The target group often faces precarious working conditions, unclear pay stubs, or a lack of social security coverage. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to give the floor to Ms. Brois for additions to the topic, human trafficking.

With regard to the non-punishment principle and its application in criminal proceedings, I would like to submit the following. The Ministry of Justice issued a decree on refraining from punishing victims of human trafficking who have committed criminal offenses due to due to emergency, in accordance with section 10 of the Criminal Code. This provision regulates that a person who commits an offence to avert an imminent and significant detriment from himself, herself, or another person is excused from criminal liability if the impending harm or damage from that offence is not disproportionately more serious than the detriment that is to be averted. and if a reasonable person in the position of that person could not be expected to act differently. The decree outlines the prerequisites of Section 10 of the Criminal Code with special regard to victims of human trafficking. In addition, there is a corresponding provision in administrative criminal law, which is Section 6 of the Administrative Penal Act. With regards to victim protection, specifically in criminal proceedings, Austria grants victims of slavery and human trafficking comprehensive rights and support measures that are tailored to each individual's needs and the circumstances of the case. This is ensured by the so-called system, which is also known as individual psychosocial and legal court assistance. While psychosocial court assistance comprises preparing affected persons for the proceedings and the related emotional strain, and accompanying them to interviews in preliminary investigations and the trial hearing. Legal court assistance comprises legal advice and representation by a lawyer who may also claim damages in criminal proceedings. Thank you.

Thank you very much. As regards to the Freedom of Information Act, I give the floor to Ms. Vacek.

Thank you very much. The Freedom of Information Act has come into force on 1st September 2025. A new fundamental right to access of information has been adopted. In addition, a new obligation to proactively publish information of general interest has been incorporated. So everyone has the right to access information, not only state citizens. Article 19 of the Covenant, Article 19, paragraph 3 of the Covenant provides that freedom of expression may be restricted if necessary in order to safeguard certain interests, right of reputation of others, the protection of national security, public order, public health or morality. The Freedom of Information Act is in compliance with this article.

Apologies from the interpreters for interrupting. Could we please ask the speaker to move the microphone closer to her mouth? Thank you very much.

Sorry. From the beginning? No, okay. So we think that the Freedom of Information Act is in compliance with Article 19 of the Covenant. Due to the Freedom of Information Act, the state may withhold information in order to ensure the necessary protection of compelling reasons. Of integration of foreign policy, in particular in accordance with provision of the European Union law. or for compliance with obligation under international law, national defense, public order and security, unimpaired preparation of decision making, and in the interest of other persons. Additionally, an assessment of proportionality has to take place to see whether these exceptions are in each individual case necessary and proportionate. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to give the floor to Ms. Brois from the Ministry of Justice regarding anti-SLAPP. Or Ms. Feldbacher, I'm sorry.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor again. Dear Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, regarding Mr. Helfer's questions concerning SLAPP, I want to report as follows. In Austria, the protection of human rights defenders and journalists against strategic lawsuits against public participation, in short SLAPP, is a major priority. Last weekend, the government reached a political agreement on a draft bill to implement the EU directive, which also takes into account broader aspects of the recommendations by the EU and the Council of Europe, as already was mentioned by the head of our delegation in the opening statement. It has to be noted that Austria has so far been far less affected by strategic lawsuits against public participation than other countries. Nevertheless, Austria considers effective safeguards to be particularly important as it is firmly convinced that a modern state must be prepared for this kind of attack on democracy and not only once the problem has already become widespread. Parliament too has addressed the issue of SLAPP on several occasions in recent months across various committees. Austria plans to apply its civil procedural measures against SLAPP lawsuits to domestic cases as stakeholders from the professional groups concerned have reported that cases, insofar as they arise in Austria, are predominantly purely domestic and not cross-border in nature. Although, as previously noted, SLAPP lawsuits are not yet a major problem in Austria, the Austrian government plans to introduce strong measures under the directive. These will provide effective remedies, strict sanctions against abusive litigants, and compensation rights for affected parties. Austria has set itself the aim of bringing the relevant legislative measures into force as soon as possible, but by the end of this year at the very latest. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I would like to pass on to Ms. Rantiss-Wagner regarding conscientious objection and military service.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Dear Chair, dear distinguished members of the committee. Under Austrian law, individuals liable for military service can declare a conscious objection and opt out for civilian service. This declaration can be submitted for at least six months after the initial fitness assessment and subject to legal requirements up until the second day before being called up for active military service. Under section 1 of the Austrian civilian service, individuals liable for military service have the opportunity to submit a declaration of conscious objection on ground of consciousness. The right to submit this declaration is guaranteed for at least six months after completion of the initial military fitness assessment, during which the individual is first found fit for military service. In addition, the declaration may be submitted until the second day before the scheduled call-up for active military service, subject to the applicable legal requirements. This provision enables liable individuals who object to performing armed military service on grounds of conscience to declare their intention to perform civilian service instead. The Austrian Federal Army is organized according to the principles of a militia system. The opportunity for an early release from the military service for reasons of conscience would lead to a personnel reduction within the militia system. Without sufficient personnel in the militia system, the Austrian Federal Army could neither maintain the militia system nor guarantee effective national defense in an armed conflict. Furthermore, the Austrian Federal Army invests a lot of resources in the training of soldiers to secure the defense capabilities. If they were allowed to leave the military service for reasons of conscience, they would no longer be subject to conscription. This, in turn, would result in a loss of well-trained soldiers and would have a negative impact on the constitutional duty to uphold the defense capabilities of Austria. In Austria, it is only possible to join the army at the age of 17 on a voluntary basis, provided certain requirements are met. This means that the volunteer must meet the physical and mental requirements for serving in the Austrian Federal Army. According to Article 9 in the conjunction with Article 57 of the Defense Act 2001, a 17-year-old has to act of his own accord and requires the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to be able to join the army. The Austrian Federal Army, however, does not actively advertise this opportunity and does not promote the recruitment of persons under 18 years in any way. Furthermore, even there is a recruitment of a 17 years old, Article 41 of the Defense Act 201 contains a legal prohibition for persons under the age of 18 to take part in hostilities in the case of an operation for the purpose of National Defense. As part of the conscription process, conscripts must undergo both a mental and a physical examination. During the psychological evaluation, conscripts must complete various concentration tests, fill out a questionnaire regarding their mental state, and participate in a final psychological interview. The focus is on assessing adaptability, such as working in a group or carrying out orders, psychological resilience and cognitive performance. The purpose of this is to assess the general mental state of the conscript and to determine whether they are capable of performing military service and of handling a weapon. In general, conscripts receive sufficient information before and during their enlistment about how to enlist process and basic military service work. They also receive information about career opportunities in the Austrian Armed Forces. Furthermore, there is an own information site for conscripts on the official website of the Austrian Armed Forces. I thank you.

Thank you very much. For the remaining time, I would like to pass on to Miss Steinbauer for statelessness.

First of all, I want to point out that Austrian law provides several, several possibilities for stateless persons to acquire Austrian citizenship, including specific safeguards aimed at preventing childhood statelessness. The Ministry of the Interior maintains an ongoing and constructive dialogue with UNHCR on statelessness. Furthermore, the current government program provides for examining the establishment of an accessible, fair, and efficient statelessness determination procedure in Austria in accordance with international standards. With regard to naturalization, All possibilities of acquiring Austrian citizenship that are open to third country nationals are also available to stateless persons. This includes the possibility of extending Austrian citizenship to minor children when one of their parents acquires Austrian citizenship. In addition, Austrian citizenship law includes specific safeguards against statelessness. Foundlings discovered on Austrian territory under the age of six months are presumed to be Austrian citizens unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, since the 1st of May, 2022, persons born stateless in Austria may apply for Austrian citizenship under simplified requirements within three years of reaching the age of 18 in accordance with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The number of stateless persons acquiring Austrian citizenship in Austria has also increased in recent years. In 2025, 204 stateless persons were naturalized, including 72 minors. In the first half of 2025, At 2026, a further 170 stateless persons, including 66 minors, acquired Austrian citizenship. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to give the floor to Ms. Broiss from the Ministry of Justice, and then to Ms. Feldbacher, also from the Ministry of Justice.

Thank you. Sorry, one second. Okay, I would like to reply to the question relating to the right to privacy. and inform you that the Counter-Terrorism Act 2021 introduced a new provision in section 52B of the Criminal Code regarding judicial supervision of persons who have been convicted for certain serious offences, in particular terrorist offences, subversive associations or war crimes. In this context, upon conditional release of the perpetrator, the court can issue instructions as to the locations the perpetrator may or may not frequent. In case of perpetrators with a penalty exceeding 18 months, the court can order electronic surveillance in order to monitor compliance with these instructions. Such electronic surveillance is, however, subject to a number of legal safeguards stipulated in section 52B, paras 4 to 7. The legal safeguards are the following: electronic monitoring must not extend to the place of residence of the person released; the perpetrator has to consent to the electronic monitoring; Electronic surveillance has to be strictly necessary to ensure the perpetrator's compliance with the instructions issued by the court. As soon as surveillance is no longer strictly necessary, it has to cease immediately. The data can only be used to determine whether the instruction by the court has been breached or to execute measures following such a breach. The data has to be secured against unauthorized access. It has to be deleted after two weeks at the latest, unless they are needed for the determination or follow-up on a breach. The time of access, the person accessing the data, and its extent have to be recorded for each individual access to the data. The perpetrator has to be informed about the access. These records may only be used for an examination of the legality of the access. They have to be deleted after 12 months.

Thank you.

I want to answer a concrete question asked by Madame Rocholl concerning unaccompanied minors. As already was mentioned by the head of our delegation in the opening statement, On 12 June 2026, the Act on Custody for Unaccompanied Minors entered into force in Austria, ensuring that unaccompanied minors in Austria are provided with guardianship from day one, and by this, implementing Article 27 of the EU Reception Conditions Directive. From the moment an unaccompanied minor is found in Austria, the child and youth welfare authority is by law entrusted with their custody. The responsibility for representing the child in the asylum proceedings initially lies with the Federal Agency for Reception and Support Services. Once the child has been referred to care in a particular federal state, a so-called Bundesland, this responsibility is transferred to the locally competent child and youth welfare authority. The Child and Youth Welfare Authority looks after the child's welfare and carries out the duties of care, education, legal representation, and asset management to the extent that other persons with parental responsibility, that means custody, are unable to do so. And regarding the concern that the new law applies only to unaccompanied children arriving in Austria after the 12th of June, 2026, and Consequently, unaccompanied children who arrived before this date should not have, or don't have the right to de jure guardianship, and that Austria should ensure that such guardianship is also extended to children who arrived in Austrian territory before the 12th of June, 2026. I can answer as follows. It is correct that the provision of section 207A of the Civil Code entered into force on the 12th of June, 2026, and applies to minor children who were found within the country after the 11th of June, 2026. For unaccompanied minors already residing in Austria prior to this date, this means that the Child and Youth Welfare Authority has or had to file an application for custody. and was entrusted with custody by order of the district court responsible for guardianship matters. This was the standard procedure before the Act on Custody for Unaccompanied Minors entered into force. Since more than four months have already passed since its entry into force, it can be assumed that the Child and Youth Welfare Authority has meanwhile been entrusted with custody for these children, or that pending custody proceedings will conclude shortly. I don't know. Regarding further questions who were asked by Mr. Helfer, should we answer them as well? Okay. And I think there was also a concrete question concerning unaccompanied minors as well, and regarding the concern that serious disparities exist in the placement of unaccompanied minor refugees. Maybe we should answer this question before by the Minister of the Interior, and then I will go on. Thank you very much.

I would like to give the floor to Ms. Steinbauer from the Ministry of the Interior regarding detention pending deportation of minors and family reunification. Thank you.

Um, first of all, I want to po- point out regarding detention pending deportation of minors, that detention pending deportation of minors is subject to strict legal safeguards and must remain a measure of last resort. Children under the age of 14 may not be placed in detention pending deportation, for minors aged 14 to 17. detention is permitted only in justified exceptional cases following an individual assessment. Less restrictive measures must always be given priority. Generally, detention must be necessary and proportionate, limited to the shortest possible period and subject to judicial review. For minors, the maximum duration is three months. And regarding the Committee's request for updated figures, I can provide the following information. In 2025, two minors were held in detention pending deportation with an average detention period of 28 days. And in 2026, as of the 19th of October, only one minor aged between 16 and 18 had been held in detention pending deportation. for a duration of nine days. Turning now to the issue of family reunification, I want to point out that Austria introduced a temporary suspension of family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection in July 2025 in response to significant pressure on reception and integration capacities. The measure was temporary and subject to exceptions in individual cases, particularly where required under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. and in consideration of the best interest of the child. The suspension has since expired and a new legal framework for family reunification entered into force in August 2026, providing for a quota-based system and individual safeguards. Yeah, thank you.

To come back to the questions of Mr. Helfer regarding the independence of lay judges and the topic of adopting periodic appraisals of judges. Regarding lay judges, in Austria, lay judges are independent in the exercise of their judicial duties, depending on the category of lay judge. This independence is either expressly provided for by law or safeguarded through the arrangements governing the performance of the duties. The compliance guidelines express the general values of the Austrian justice system. So regarding acceptance of gifts, invitations and hospitality, sponsoring impartiality, secondary employment, official and private behavior. To this end, there is also a judiciary specific e-learning program compliance, which since February 2026 also the late judges must complete. In 2025, the Federal Ministry of Justice established a working group composed of members from the courts with the highest number of lay judges, as well as representatives from the Federal Ministry of Justice. The training program for lay judges developed by this working group includes completion of the e-learning module on compliance, as well as two options for participating in an in-person workshop on compliance. The e-learning program compliance has been available to lay judges since February 2026. In February 2026 also, an in-person workshop on compliance with regulations for 200 lay judges took place. And concerning the topic of adapting periodic appraisals for judges, I would like to answer as follows. The topic of periodic evaluation of judges was taken up by a dialogue group of the ENCJ, in which Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium were involved, and discussed at a meeting held in Vienna in February 2024. Valuable insights were gained from this international exchange of experiences. Especially the report from the Netherlands, whose judicial system provides for a very modern and primarily feedback-based type of evaluation, was very interesting. On this basis, the discussions continued. In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice held a meeting with all relevant stakeholders to report on this exchange of experiences and to discuss ideas for an innovative and valuable evaluation system. Representatives from the Netherlands also took part in this event. The meeting, in particular the reports on the Dutch system, was extremely informative and insightful. After further discussions, a consensus was reached among all participants from the Austrian judiciary for further develop the status quo with a focus on regular feedback. In the second-half of 2025, four workshops were held with judges and judges candidates to determine what kind of feedback is important for their professional and personal development and what tools would be useful for this purpose. The workshops were a complete success. Now the results will be evaluated and the feedback tools identified will be tested in practice. Thank you very much.

Thank you. As regards to financing of NGOs, I'd like to pass on to Ms. Watzek.

Thank you very much. As part of the work of the FÖDER task force, significant progress was made towards modernizing Austria's federal subsidy policy. The report establishes a calculation basis for the saving targets set out in a strategic report for 2025 to 2028 and 2026 to 2029, and marks an initial step towards developing an overarching federal subsidy strategy. The strategy is built around nine common guideline principles aimed at ensuring that the public funding is allocated efficiently, transparently, and with a clear focus on results. A standardized checklist has been developed to support the planning and assessment of subsidy programs and coordination within the Federal Ministry of Finance, while improving comparability across ministries and enabling data-driven evaluation. Furthermore, a calculation basis for the envisaged budgetary savings was established using the 2026 federal budget estimate, providing a transparent basis for distributing consolidation targets among the ministries. In parallel, the Legal Framework Working Group developed key proposals to reform the 2014 General Framework Guidelines on Subsidies, which are now to be implemented through legislative amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. As regards the question of women's political participation, I would like to answer the following. Among mayors, we see a continuous rise of women, which is currently at 12%, as stated in the question. We have an annual report to monitor the development of women's representation in politics. And recently, a study was commissioned for further data collection on women in local politics. As regards Roma political participation, we are well aware that empowerment plays a key role here. and the National Roma Inclusion Strategy includes therefore a dedicated chapter on participation with the objective of strengthening Roma participation in particular in public and in political life. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Saidov for his recommendation regarding the implementation of recommendations. Our main mechanism currently is the group of human rights coordinators. which consists of representatives of the federal ministries and also of representatives of the lender governments. And apart from that, in certain areas, there are also certain mechanisms and dialogues in place in order to take care of the implementation of the recommendations on all levels of state administration. But I'm grateful for your suggestions and we will think it over. Thank you. Chairs? Yes, thank you very much for the extra time we were allowed to take in order to answer your very rich questions of this morning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll have a short follow-up questions. So I'll give the floor to Mr. Igezu.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the more or less comprehensive responses that you've made to most or each of the questions raised, that's much appreciated. It shows that you've taken time to do that, and that's also good. My question, because of time constraints, I didn't raise this issue. From information we've received from some stakeholders, it appears that uniformed police officers are not generally required to display a clear visible individual identifier such as name badges or personal identification number rather officers are required to disclose their service number only upon request and the obligation may be waived where disclosure could jeopardize a police operation In this regard, what measures does the State Party plan to take to ensure accountability in cases of alleged misconduct by law enforcement officials, including requirements for proper identification of police officers and law enforcement officials? So, sorry for raising this. This is a new question. You can make the reply in writing. I'm sure you've taken this into account and I'd stop here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Egeju. I will give the floor to Madam Leirazte.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So I have just two remaining questions that have not been answered. This is about facial recognition. as a form of surveillance, and another one about disabled persons' possibilities to be involved in political life. Of course, we have CRPD and other formats to discuss this, but keeping in mind the numerous complaints how disabled persons in Austria particularly, they are ignored being involved in political parties and not being able to receive material on political education in the formats that would be meaning capable for them to read. So maybe a few words about this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madame Leyrate. Now, you have maybe five minutes to respond to these follow-up questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Madame Abturo, sure.

Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to preface my remarks by most sincerely thanking the delegation for all the efforts that it has put into responding to our questions. If you could share additional information that is lacking in writing, that would be welcome, particularly in response to the following questions that I want to put to you now. I would like information on family reunification, whether it is now subject to a quota, which I believe is the case under the Settlement and Residence Act. So I would like some information about the level of the quota and the number of pending applications, particularly those vis-a-vis returns to Syria and Afghanistan. I would also like to ask a question about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly those who arrived in June and who do not have a guardianship, to ask for information about what has been taken to them. A question now to the State Party vis-a-vis the detention of children. I would like to know how many children under the age of 14 years old have accompanied their guardians into detention, which is an option that is referred to by the State Party in its report. In some of the paragraphs, there is mention of the fact that some minor children might end up in detention facilities with their guardian. With regard to the quota standing at 2026 under the Settlement and Residence Act, I would like to ask what follow-up is given to children and to families as a whole, but I have a particular concern of the 16 unaccompanied children who are found at the border between 2019 and 2025, whose fate and whereabouts is unknown. Also to ask a question about the number of unaccompanied children who have arrived in the country between 2009 and 2025. That would be useful. I think I need to circle back and ask my question once again about the number of children, particularly asylum-seeking children, who have ended up in detention facilities with their adult guardians or parents. Thank you very much indeed. And as I say, if you can answer my questions in writing, given the time constraints, that would be appreciated.

Okay. Thank you very much, Madame Abdoulhousso. Now you have four minutes to reply.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Mr. Melicher from the Ministry of the Interior.

Thank you very much, Mr. Igezo, for your additional question. which we are prepared for. So concerning the lack of mandatory visible and individual identification badges or other individual identification measures, first of all, there is no mandatory self-identification of police officers currently, neither enshrined nor foreseen because they already implemented measures, which I will elaborate shortly, for the identification and the traceability of all police actions are deemed sufficient. Since because the police officers are legally obliged to be identifiable by presenting an official ID card, the official service number, and they have to document each action timely, truthfully, and completely. They're completely traceable through electronic service documentation by the widely, densely regulated usage of the body-worn cameras. Given that legitimate human rights interests of police officers have been taken to a consideration ratio as well, the right of data protection, right to privacy, personal safety, the dignity of themselves and their relatives. Um, I will not read out, but I can send you in writing all the legal stipulations that we have in the, in the Public Security Act, also in several, uh, decrees concerning where they have to identify themselves. So just to mention shortly that we had 2018 in part of this permanent dialogue platform with NGOs, we had a working group on this, also together with Amnesty International, for instance, and there were recommendations put forward and the police authorities decided it was not necessary to put into force because we have this legal decrees, but I send them to you in writing within 48 hours. Thank you.

Very much. I would like to give the floor to Ms. Frances Wagner regarding political participation of persons with disabilities.

Thank you very much. I'll try to keep it short and the rest can be submitted in writing. In the past, the Federal Disability Advisory Board advised the Ministry of Social Affairs, now it advises the entire federal government. The legal recognition of the Austrian Disability Council as the umbrella organization for people with disabilities, to ensure that they carry out its work as an umbrella organization representing the interests of people with disabilities, the financial resources have been increased to 817,000 euro. Persons with disabilities and the representing organizations actively participate in the policy-making process. For example, they are involving in monitoring the implementation of the National Action Plan on Disability through their participation in the group of experts accompanying the implementation of the National Action Plan. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we would answer the other questions in writing. Or do you have something?

Okay, yes. Okay, yeah.

Unaccompanied minors, you mentioned again the concern about children arriving in Austria after the 12th of June, am I right? Before. Because, yes. Should we answer this question again in writing? Okay. Good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we will go to the concluding part. So I will give you a floor again for the concluding remarks.

Thank you. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your many questions. Constructive dialogue is crucial to the success of the Covenant. I hope that within the limited time available, we were able to provide sufficient clarification and explanation. Austria will carefully review the Committee's conclusions and recommendations and incorporate them into the national process. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank civil society for the comments submitted for the review of Austria. Their contributions once again proved that civil society is an important stakeholder when it comes to enhancing protection of human rights. And in closing, I would like to thank all delegation members for their efforts in answering the questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madame. It's difficult. On behalf of the Human Rights Committee, I thank the Austrian delegation for presenting its sixth periodic report and for the constructive dialogue over the past two days. We appreciate the delegation's engagement and its effort to address the Committee's questions. We welcome the progress described during our dialogue, including measures to promote women's representation and improve human rights training. We also value the contribution of Austrian Ombudsman Board and Austria's continued engagement with international human rights mechanisms. At the same time, the dialogue has highlighted areas requiring further attention. These include giving full effect to the Covenant and the Committee's views domestically, ensuring a transparent and pluralistic appointment process for the Ombudsman Board, providing comprehensive and effective protection against discrimination, and ensuring that surveillance measures have a clear legal basis and adequate safeguards. Members have raised important concerns about hate speech, including by public figures, racial profiling, restrictions on peaceful assembly and protests, and accountability for ill treatment. Our discussions have also addressed women's economic independence and the unequal sharing of care responsibilities, sexual and reproductive rights, the protection of intersex children, asylum seekers, groups vulnerable to trafficking and unaccompanied children, and respect for free and informed consent to medical interventions. Conditions of detention and access to medical and mental health care also deserve continued attention. We appreciate the delegation's efforts to address our concerns, and we look forward to continuing progress toward a full implementation of the Covenant. Across these issues, what matters is how legislative and institutional measures translate into effective protection in practice. This requires concrete results in preventing violations, ensuring independent investigations and accountability, and providing effective remedies for those affected. Questions remain in particular on guardianship from day one from unaccompanied children, on tracing children whose whereabouts are unknown, on access to nationality for stateless children, and on the compatibility of school headscarf ban for girls under 14 with the freedom of religion and non-discrimination. These are matters on which we still await specific answers, and we will inform our concluding observations. We look forward to receiving detailed written responses within 48 hours, that is, by Friday, 23 October, at 1:00 p.m. on the questions that remain outstanding, particularly the data, case outcomes and practical measures requested by members. These responses will inform our concluding observations. I thank you, Madam Handel-Petz, and all members of the delegation, as well as the Austrian Ombudsman Board and civil society for their valuable contributions. My thanks also goes to my colleagues the Secretariat, the interpreters and technical team. We look forward to continued cooperation and wish the delegation a safe journey home. The meeting is now adjourned.