Page 217 - kdk-sempozyum-3

CHAIR: Thank you very much.
If there is any question by the audience or participants, please introduce
yourself and be precise unlike me
Please.

OMBUDSMAN of Romania - I am the deputy ombudsman in Romania. My
question is for Mr. Benzakour.
We have only one institution working as ombudsman institute. But we
have certain centers working on human rights. We might have some
questionnaires, we might have some questions to be address but this
is not the sole authority. You’ve talked about two institutions one of
them is a traditional ombudsman institute and the other one is specific
in concrete situations. I would like to address my question to you Mr.
Benzakour, about the authority of your institution. If there is a solution
that you can find and you can come up with, if there is no issue of
authority two institutions might have different interpretation on a
single case. What would be the solution?

HAMDİ KEMAL ÖNEN (Expert, Turkish Ombudsman)

As mentioned, the purpose of the establishment of our institution is
fairness and legality. In reference to the last part of the presentation 3 rd INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS
by Mrs. Rautio about the jurists, I have a question: there are pros
and cons of having high level staff and experts at human rights and
Ombudsman institutions and I guess you said that there are some
cons in view of the recommendations. Could Mrs. Rautio and other
Ombudspersons evaluate that?

CHAIR: Mr. Benzakour, please after you.

ABDELAZİZ BENZAKOUR (Ombudsman of Morocco)
Well, no there might be no issue of authority and there might be no
contradiction in the solutions because when you look at the text,
the status of these two institutions the authority is clearly set. I told
you that human rights in general. This is the national human rights
institute, well, about the administration the cases and it is acting as a
mediator and we have tens or hundreds of complaints coming to us.

16 - 17 September 2015, ANKARA | 215