natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
«eldworkwiththeinvolvementofthebene«ciaries,particularlychildrenandyouth,in all phases of project design, implementation and evaluation;
‡ rozvoj a implementècia programov lieｲby a podpory obetó a ﾋudó v ohrozenó, vrètane detó a mlad̅ch ﾋudó, ktoró sÿ svedkami domèceho nèsilia;
Clearly this also overlaps into `adulthood' as generally de#ned.葵isre$ectsthe general confusion about when childhood ends and adulthood begins, and the fact that in most programming worldwide people moving from one into the other ̋ adolescents or young people ̋ are o挨enoverlookedbecause they are too d i L c u l t t o c a t e g o r i s e . 葵 e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe has taken a pragmatic approach to this and, in not imposing de#nitions,has le挨ittotheindividual projects to #nda`comfortableplace' between national needs and international frameworks.
Zjavne sa prekrþva s ‡dospelos╃ouƒ, tak ako je vùeobecne de#novanâ.Vznikajúteda celkovê nejasnosti, kedy kon┘î detstvo a za┘îna dospelos╃, ako aj skuto┘nos╃, Še v mnohþch programoch na celom svete sa ┱udia prechâdzajúci z jednêho obdobia do druhêho « adolescenti, ┘i m l â d e Š « ┘asto opomînajú, ke┛Še je prîliù ╃ a Š k ê ich kategorizova╃. Program Daphne v tejto veci zaujal pragmatickþ postoj a tþm, Še nezavâdza Šiadne de#nîcie,ponechâvanaindividuâlne projekty, aby si naùli ‡vhodnê miestoƒ medzi nârodnþmi potrebami a medzinârodnþmi râmcami.
‡ training and design of educational packages;
‡ rozvoj a implementècia povedomia zvyþujÿcich aktivót zameran̅ch na þpeci«ck̅chpró-jemcov, próprava materièlov na doplnenie u™ existujÿcich podkladov alebo ÿprava a vy-
‡ development and implementation of treatment programmes for perpetrators, whilst ensuring the safety of victims and children;
Struｲnè histùria Daphne u™óvanie u™ existujÿcich materièlov v in̅ch zemepisn̅ch oblastiach alebo v rèmci in̅ch cieﾋov̅ch skupón;
‡ dissemination of the results obtained under the Daphne I and II programmes including their adaptation, transfer and use by other bene«ciariesorinothergeographicalareas;
‡ zverejﾏovanie v̅sledkov zóskan̅ch v rèmci programu Daphne I a II, vrètane ich adaptè-cie, presunu a vyu™itia v prospech in̅ch prójemcov alebo v in̅ch zemepisn̅ch oblas-tiach;
‡ assessment and development of activities contributing to positive treatment for people vulnerable to violence, that is to an approach which encourages respect for them and pro-motes their well-being and self-ful«lment.
‡ hodnotenie a rozvoj aktivót prispievajÿcich k dobrïmu zaobchèdzaniu s ﾋuｵmi bezbran-n̅mi voｲi nèsiliu, ｲo je próstup podporujÿci ich reþpektovanie a tvoró zèklad pre ich dob-ro a sebarealizèciu.
(c) The Commission has also set aside around 15 % of the budget of the programme in order to enable the Commission to improve the programme's impact and to play a more proac-tive rule with a view to the dissemination of good practices.
c) Komisia tie™ vyｲlenila pribli™ne 15 % rozpoｲtu programu, aby mohla sama usmerﾏovaﾝ ÿｲinnosﾝ programu a zohrèvaﾝ aktóvnejþiu ÿlohu s cieﾋom rozþóriﾝ overenï najlepþie postupy. Program by mal zahﾕﾏaﾝ tri okruhy ｲinnostó.
A «rstaxisistodevelopindicatorsonviolence,sothatthequanti«edimpactofpolicies and projects can be measured. In complement to these indicators, it will seek to set up a procedure for regular and sustainable data collection, preferably with the assist-ance of Eurostat, in order to be able to quantify violence in the Union more accurately.
Po prvï, pripraviﾝ ukazovatele nèsilia tak, aby bolo mo™nï meraﾝ a kvanti«kovaﾝdosahstratïgióaprojektov.Poprit̅chtoukazovateﾋochsa program pokÿsi ustanoviﾝ aj postupy pravidelnïho a trvalïho zhroma™ｵovania ÿdajov, najmê v spoluprèci s ÿradom EUROSTAT, aby bolo mo™nï presnejþie kvanti«kovaﾝnèsiliev ànii.
A second axis will be to extract and deduce policy issues, wherever possible, from the work achieved by funded projects, with the aim of suggesting common policies on violence at Community level and reinforcing judicial practice.
Druhou ÿlohou bude pokiaﾋ mo™no extrahovaﾝ a odvodiﾝ politickï otèzky z v̅sled-kov prèce dosiahnut̅ch v rèmci «nancovan̅chprojektovanavrhnÿﾝspoloｲnÿpolitikuproti nèsiliu na ÿrovni Komunity a posilniﾝ sÿdnu prax.
Finally, the third axis would be to dis-seminate, on a Europe-wide scale, good practices stemming from funded projects.
Napokon tretóm pilierom by malo byﾝ rozþórenie overen̅ch najlepþóch postupov zóskan̅ch pri napﾊﾏanó «nancovan̅chpro-jektov do celej Eurùpy.
In the « r s tffy e a r o f t h e D a p h n e i n i t i a t i v e ( 1 9 9 7 ) , t h e c a l l f o r p r o po s a l s w a s f a i r l y s p e c i « cffo n priority actions to be taken:
V prvom roku iniciatóvy Daphne (1997) sa v̅zva na nèvrhy jednoznaｲne þpecializovala na priorit-nï ｲinnosti, ktorï bolo treba uskutoｲniﾝ:
‡ setting up networks or reinforcement of networks at European level to promote and coor-dinate information and actions on measures aimed at protecting, and preventing violence towards children, young people and women, including the promotion of cooperation be-tween NGOs and voluntary organisations and authorities involved in these areas;
‡ zriadenie sietó alebo posilnenie sietó na eurùpskej ÿrovni, ktorï by podporovali a koordino-vali informaｲnï toky a kroky sÿvisiace s opatreniami zameran̅mi na ochranu a prevenciu nèsilia pèchanïho na deﾝoch, mlède™i a ™enèch, vrètane podpory spoluprèce medzi MVO a dobrovoﾋnóckymi zdru™eniami a orgènmi zainteresovan̅mi na t̅chto oblastiach;
‡ promotion of the establishment of a `child helpline' on a similar basis in every Member State;
‡ podpora zavedenia ¶detskej linky pomociƒ na podobnej bèze v ka™dej ｲlenskej krajine;
‡ special measures at European level for the protection of children, young people and wom-en, with primary consideration being given to them in all actions concerning them, their rights being enjoyed without discrimination of any kind;
‡ osobitnï opatrenia na eurùpskej ÿrovni na ochranu detó, mlède™e a ™ien, priｲom by sa im venovala prvoradè pozornosﾝ pri vþetk̅ch ｲinnostiach, ktorï s nimi sÿvisia, a mohli by vy-u™óvaﾝ svoje prèva bez diskriminècie akïhokoﾋvek druhu;
‡ prevention and protection of children, young people and women from all kinds of violence and commercial sexual exploitation, tra/ckingandotherabuse;
‡ prevencia a ochrana detó, mlède™e a ™ien pred ak̅mkoﾋvek druhom nèsilia a pred komerｲ-n̅m pohlavn̅m zneu™óvanóm, nezèkonn̅m obchodovanóm a in̅m zneu™óvanóm;
‡ actions aimed at tackling international paedophile rings;
‡ kroky zameranï na zneþkodnenie medzinèrodn̅ch sietó pedo«lov;
‡ pilot projects and subsidies to NGOs or voluntary organisations working towards these aims, in particular working for the rights and the protection of children, young people and women, in particular regarding sexual abuse.
‡ pilotnï projekty a dotècie pre MVO a dobrovoﾋnócke zdru™enia pracujÿce na dosiahnutó t̅chto cieﾋov, najmê v prospech prèv a ochrany detó, mlède™e a ™ien predovþetk̅m v ob-lasti pohlavnïho zneu™óvania.
The 1997 priorities clearly re‹ectedthepoliticalimpetusbehindtheinitiativeinthewakeofthe `Dutroux a . a i r ' i n B e l g i u m a n d t h e W o r l d Cffo n g r e s s a g a i n s t Cffo m mffe r c i a l S e x u a l E x p l o i t a - t i o n of Children.
Priority v roku 1997 jasne odrè™ali politickï zèujmy v pozadó iniciatóvy prève v ｲase odhalenia ¶própadu Dutrouxƒ v Belgicku a konania Svetovïho kongresu proti pohlavnïmu zneu™óvaniu detó na komerｲnï ÿｲely.
Sexual violence is mentioned in three of the six stated measures and the call for actions `aimed at tackling international paedophile rings' is a clear if unrealistic echo of public and political concerns of the time.
Sexuèlne nèsilie sa spomóna v troch zo þiestich vyhlèsen̅ch opatrenó a v̅zva na podniknutie krokov ¶zameran̅ch na zneþkodnenie medzinèrodn̅ch sietó pedo«-lovƒ predstavuje jednoznaｲnÿ, hoci nerealistickÿ, odozvu vtedajþóch verejn̅ch a politick̅ch zèujmov.
In fact, it was unlikely that NGOs would consider themselves as the appropriate instigators of actions targeting international paedophile rings and indeed it is unlikely that the selection panel formed to review the submissions would have looked favourably on any project that demonstrated ignorance of the limits of NGO actions in what is clearly primarily a police investigation and law-enforcement task.
V skutoｲnosti bolo mèlo pravdepodobnï, aby sa samotnï MVO pova™ovali za vhod-nï na organizovanie opatrenó zameran̅ch proti medzinèrodn̅m sieﾝam pedo«lov.Takistojenepravdepodobnï, aby v̅berovè komisia posudzujÿca nèvrhy priaznivo hodnotila projekt, ktor̅ by ignoroval hranice púsobnosti MVO v oblastiach, ktorï jednoznaｲne podliehajÿ pre-dovþetk̅m policajnïmu vyþetrovaniu a sÿ ÿlohou orgènov ｲinn̅ch v trestnom konanó.
The call for a Community-wide child helpline was also from the political wish-list rather than from «eldexperience.Therehadbeenanumberofsuccessfulnationalchildren'shelplinessetup in Europe (in the UK, for example, and in Italy) in the 1990s, and it is understandable that the Commission might have wished to explore the possibility of extending this experience across the Community.
Po™iadavka o zriadenie spoloｲnej detskej linky pomoci v celom Spoloｲenstve bola viac poli-tick̅m ™elanóm ako v̅sledkom skÿsenostó. V devêﾝdesiatych rokoch sa v Eurùpe (napróklad vo Veﾋkej Britènii alebo v Taliansku) zriadilo mnoho ÿspeþn̅ch detsk̅ch liniek pomoci, je preto pochopiteﾋnï, ™e Komisia mohla maﾝ zèujem preskÿmaﾝ mo™nosﾝ rozþórenia tejto skÿsenosti v celom Spoloｲenstve.
In practice, however, a number of exploratory e . o r t s bo t h i n D a p h n e - f u n d e d projects, and through a working conference supported by EU-wide research and con-vened by the Commission itself in 1998, showed that varied and deeply established technical, u s e r - p r o « l e a n d l o g i s t i c a l i s s u e s i n t h e Mffe m b e r S t a t e s m a d e a s i n g l e Cffo m mstu n i tffy - w i d e h e l - p l i n e service impossible to achieve (at least given realities then current in telephone technol-ogy, structures and use).
Viacero v̅skumn̅ch projektov « n a n c o v a n ̅ c h z o z d r o j o v D a p h n e a l eb o pripraven̅ch pre pracovnÿ konferenciu podporenÿ prieskumom v celej Eà a v roku 1998 zvolanÿ samotnou Komisiou ukèzalo, ™e otèzky rozdielnosti v pou™óvanej technike, u™óvateﾋ-skïho pro«lualogistikyｲlensk̅chþtètovznemo™ﾏujÿzavedeniespoloｲnejlinkypomocivce-lom Spoloｲenstve (aspoﾏ vzhﾋadom na vtedajþó stav telekomunikaｲnej technolùgie, þtruktÿry a pou™óvania).
The selection criteria for projects were much more grounded in reality, deriving from a judi-cious coming-together of the modalities outlined in the Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action and the Commission's encouragement of European added value.
V̅berovï kritïriè na projekty vychèdzali do znaｲnej miery z reality a boli odvodenï z rozum-nïho spojenia mo™nostó naｲrtnut̅ch v þtokholmskom vyhlèsenó a akｲnom plène. Komisia podporovala projekty, ktorï zdúrazﾏovali element Eurùpy. Nèvrhy mali spﾊﾏaﾝ nasledujÿce kritïriè:
‡ ability to present added value at European Union level ̌ projects focusing not only on the immediate (local, regional or national) situation but seeking to contribute to development at a European level;
‡ schopnosﾝ zabezpeｲiﾝ pridanÿ hodnotu na ÿrovni Eurùpskej ÿnie › projekty, ktorï sa ne-sÿstreｵovali len na okam™itï (miestne, regionèlne alebo nèrodnï) podmienky, ale usilova-li sa prispieﾝ k rozvoju na eurùpskej ÿrovni;
‡ innovation in terms of content and organisation;
‡ inovècia nèplne a organizècie;
‡ aims to promote best practice in the area(s) concerned;
‡ ciele na podporu najlepþej praxe v prósluþnej oblasti/oblastiach;
‡ ability to permit transnational exchanges;
‡ umo™ﾏovaﾝ medziþtètnu v̅menu;
‡ a target of transferable results, containing result indicators related to the objectives, with detailed provisions for monitoring against these indicators.
‡ dosiahnutie prevoditeﾋn̅ch v̅sledkov; ktorï by obsahovali v̅slednï ukazovatele prepo-jenï s dan̅mi cieﾋmi, s mo™nosﾝou podrobnïho monitoringu na pozadó t̅chto ukazovate-ﾋov.
The Commission believed that the thematic and programmatic aims outlined in the call for proposals were most likely to be achieved through projects that included the following ac-tivities:
Podﾋa Komisie tematickï a programovï ciele uvedenï vo V̅zve na podèvanie projektov bolo mo™nï najlepþie dosiahnuﾝ v t̅ch projektoch, ktorï zahﾕﾏali nasledujÿce aktivity:
‡ training and exchanges, primarily for personnel of NGOs and private associations;
‡ þkolenia a v̅meny najmê pre zamestnancov MVO a sÿkromn̅ch asocièció;
‡ pilot projects demonstrating clear European interest and value added;
‡ pilotnï projekty vyjadrujÿce jasn̅ eurùpsky zèujem a pridanÿ hodnotu;
‡ the setting-up or reinforcement of European networks, particularly for the promotion and coordination of information and focused on protection and prevention;
‡ zriadenie alebo posilnenie eurùpskych sietó, predovþetk̅m na podporu a koordinèciu tokov informèció a zameran̅ch na ochranu a prevenciu;
‡ dissemination of information including through campaigns, brochures, newsletters, media presentations, etc. to raise awareness of the problems and to encourage non-violence;
‡ þórenie informèció prostrednóctvom kampanó, próruｲiek, bulletinov, prezentèció v mïdièch atｵ., s cieﾋom zv̅þiﾝ povedomie o problïmoch a podporiﾝ nenèsilie;
‡ promotion of cooperation between NGOs and public authorities, including law-enforce-ment and judicial bodies.
‡ podpora spoluprèce medzi MVO a þtètnymi orgènmi, vrètane zèkonodarn̅ch orgènov a sÿ-dov.
Although these criteria, aims and priorities presented a formidable challenge to the planning capacity of NGOs, many of whom had worked broadly in child protection but not speci«callyon violence and rarely at pan-European level, the 47 projects selected in 1997 were well fo-cused and succeeded in `tuning in' to the Commission's multi-faceted guidelines.
Tieto kritïriè, ciele a priority predstavovali veﾋkÿ v̅zvu pre plènovacie mo™nosti MVO, napriek tomu, ™e mnohï sóce pracovali v oblasti ochrany detó, nie vþak konkrïtne s nèsilóm a len mini-mèlne na celoeurùpskej ÿrovni. Nakoniec bolo v roku 1997 vybran̅ch 47 projektov, ktorï boli dobre pripravenï a splnili mnohostrannï usmernenia Komisie.
Since the Daphne initiative and programme comprise projects submitted rather than projects commissioned, the eventual focus of the projects depends entirely on what the proposing organisations wish to work on (within the general guidelines provided).
Keｵ™e iniciatóva (a Program) Daphne pozostèva skúr z predkladan̅ch ako objednan̅ch pro-jektov, koneｲnï zameranie projektov zèvisó v̅luｲne na tom, v akej oblasti chce predkladajÿca organizècia pracovaﾝ (v rèmci poskytnut̅ch vþeobecn̅ch usmernenó).
Consequently, by the second call for proposals in March 1998, there were already `gaps' in the range of project ac-tivity being undertaken, so the 1998 call listed these areas and stated that priority would be given to «llingthem.
V þkèle uskutoｲnen̅ch projektov sa zistili medzery v urｲit̅ch oblastiach, ktorï boli zohﾋadnenï pri druhej v̅zve na prekladanie projektov v roku 1998. V̅zva v roku 1998 tieto oblasti zahﾕﾏala a klèdla za priori-tu ich naplnenie.
The lessons of 1997 had been well learned and the call for proposals to set up an EU-wide helpline was not repeated in the general call (9).
Rok 1997 bol veﾋmi pouｲn̅, preto sa vo vþeobecnej v̅zve nezopakovala ™iadosﾝ o nèvrhy na
Instead, the general measures included:
9 zriadenie celoeurùpskej linky pomoci
) In fact, a separate call for a project in which this issue could be researched thoroughly was issued in 1999 and preceded by a meeting of all European helpline operators, and some from the candidate countries, jointly hosted by the Commission and Unicef. 葵emeetingcon#rmedthedivergence of opinions and structures, and the subsequent round of project submissions proved to be inadequate, focusing more on extending current national experience rather than fully exploring the divergences and potential noted in the conference.
Samostatnâ vþzva na projekt, ktorþ by túto oblas╃ dôsledne preskúmal, vùak bola ohlâsenâ v roku 1999 a predchâdzalo jej stretnutie vùetkþch európskych operâtorov liniek pomoci, ako aj niektorþch operâtorov z kandidâtskych krajîn, ktorê spolo┘ne zorganizovala Komisia a UNICEF. Stretnutie potvrdilo rozdielnos╃ nâzorov a ùtruktúr, pri┘om sa nasledujúce kolo predkladania projektov ukâzalo by╃ neadekvâtnym, projekty sa zameriavali viac na rozùîrenie existujúcich nârodnþch skúsenostî, ako na úplnê preskúmanie rozdielov a potenciâlu uvedenêho na konferencii.
No projects were recommended as a result and the issue disappeared altogether from the Daphne radar screen.
Preto neboli odporu┘enê Šiadne projekty a z â l e Š i t o s ╃ sa n a v Š d y stratila z po┱a zâujmu Daphne.
‡ promoting the introduction of instruments designed to encourage the reporting of vio-lence against children, young people and women, and forms of tra/ckinginwomenforthe purpose of sexual exploitation in accordance with arrangements which are similar in all Member States.
‡ zavèdzanie nèstrojov na podporenie ohlasovania nèsilia voｲi deﾝom, mlède™i a ™enèm a foriem nezèkonnïho obchodovania so ™enami na ÿｲely pohlavnïho zneu™óvania, v sÿla-de s ÿpravou, ktorè je podobnè vo vþetk̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch.
This left the possibilities open for broader exploration of reporting mechanisms beyond telephone helplines (for example drop-in centres, police help-desks, etc.).
Otvèral sa tak þirþó priestor na rozsiahlejþie vyu™óvanie spúsobov ohlasovania, inï ako telefo-nickï linky pomoci (napróklad ohlasovacie centrè, asistenｲnï miesta na polócii atｵ.).
The unrealistic call for projects `to tackle international paedophile rings' was removed from the priority areas and r e d e « n e d i n m o r e a p p r op r i a t e N G O t e r m s i n t h e l i s t o f ` a r e a s w h i c h h a v e nffo t yet been adequately covered' as:
Nerealistickè v̅zva na projekty ¶rieþiace medzinèrodnï siete pedo«lovƒbolavyﾏatèzpriorit-n̅ch oblastó a v zozname ¶oblastó, ktorï doposiaﾋ neboli dostatoｲne vyｲerpanïƒ bola zade«-novanè primeranejþie pre MVO, ako:
‡ protecting children from paedophile activity by increasing understanding of the nature of paedophile behaviour, recidivism and the role of paedophile networking and use of pornography, thus becoming a research/understanding action rather than direct `tackling'.
‡ ochrana detó pred aktivitami pedo«lovvｵakazvyþovaniavedomostóopovahepedo«lnïhosprèvania sa, recidóve a o ÿlohe siete pedo«lovavyu™óvanópornogra«e;
In an annex entitled `Summary of the areas of activity covered by the programme in 1997 and of certain areas not yet covered', «rstattemptsweremadetoencourageorganisationstoavoidduplicating actions that had already been taken and to either diversify or develop ways to build on previous experience, ideally by broadening the application of existing experiences, lessons or materials to other Member States. Gaps identi«edwere:
Próloha s nèzvom ¶Sÿhrn oblastó ｲinnostó v programe na rok 1997 a niektor̅ch eþte nepokry-t̅ch oblastóƒ predstavovala prvï pokusy podnietiﾝ organizècie, aby sa vyhli opakovaniu ｲin-nostó, ktorï sa u™ vykonali a buｵ rozþórili, alebo vyvinuli spúsob, ako stavaﾝ na predchèdzajÿ-cich skÿsenostiach, najlepþie formou rozþórenïho uplatnenia existujÿcich skÿsenostó, poznat-kov alebo materièlov v ostatn̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch. Identi«kovalisanasledujÿcemedzery:
‡ the identi«cationofvulnerabilityfactorsandgroupsandthedevelopmentofprotectionmechanisms based on these ̌ again an attempt to prompt understanding as a basis for action;
‡ identi«kovaniefaktorovzraniteﾋnostiazraniteﾋn̅chskupónnavytvorenieochrann̅chme-chanizmov › opêtovn̅ pokus podnietiﾝ pochopenie ako zèklad pre konanie;
‡ abuse within the extended family group, within male groupings (e.g. armed forces, closed male society) and the abuse pro«leofsuchgroupingšade-emphasisonsexualexploi-tation and a broadening to wider issues of abuse and gendered violence, re‹ectingemerg-ing trends in international debate on these issues;
‡ zneu™óvanie v rèmci þirþej rodiny, v mu™sk̅ch zoskupeniach (napr. v ozbrojen̅ch silèch, uzavretej mu™skej spoloｲnosti) a pro«lzneu™óvaniavtak̅chtozoskupeniach›znó™eniedú-razu na pohlavnï zneu™óvanie a rozþórenie na þirþie otèzky zneu™óvania a pohlavne diferen-covanïho nèsilia, odzrkadﾋujÿc novï trendy v medzinèrodnej debate o t̅chto otèzkach;
‡ the role of teachers, carers, siblings, family, society and other potential protectors and how to maximise their impact to protect women and children from abuse ̌ a concise attempt to «ndwaystomobiliseandempowercivilsocietyprotectionagents;
‡ ÿloha uｲiteﾋov, opatrovateﾋov, sÿrodencov, rodiny, spoloｲnosti a ostatn̅ch potencièlnych ochrancov a ako maximalizovaﾝ ich vplyv pri ochrane ™ien a detó pred zneu™óvanóm › struｲ-n̅ pokus nèjsﾝ spúsoby mobilizècie a posilnenia ｲiniteﾋov ochrany v rèmci obｲianskej spo-loｲnosti;
‡ the signs of abuse and how to recognise and report them with a view to intervening during abuse ̌ an important, targeted version of `awareness-raising' which aimed to provide tools so that those who are in a position to protect from abuse can recognise when they should act to stop the abuse and support the victim;
‡ znaky zneu™óvania a ako ich rozoznaﾝ a hlèsiﾝ s cieﾋom zasiahnuﾝ v priebehu zneu™óvania › dúle™itï, cielenï ¶zvyþovanie povedomiaƒ, ktorïho cieﾋom bolo poskytnÿﾝ nèstroje, aby tó, ktoró mú™u chrèniﾝ pred zneu™óvanóm, vedeli rozoznaﾝ, kedy majÿ zastaviﾝ zneu™óvanie a po-mohli obeti;
‡ juvenile justice and protecting the victim from being re-victimised ̌ an emerging issue at international level and in Europe in particular in relation to the criminalisation of tra/ck-ing victims;
‡ prèvny systïm pre mladistv̅ch a ochrana obetó pred opêtovn̅m zneu™itóm › novï otèzky na medzinèrodnej ÿrovni aj v Eurùpe, najmê vo vzﾝahu ku kriminalizovaniu obetó nezèkon-nïho obchodovania;
‡ behaviour patterns of abusers and methods of criminal cooperation ̌ an important «rststep in intervening in the area of the perpetrator and an important statement of the need to understand how they work;
‡ vzorce sprèvania sa nèsilnókov a metùdy zloｲineckej spoluprèce › dúle™it̅ prv̅ krok ako preniknÿﾝ do poﾋa púsobnosti pèchateﾋa a dúle™itï vyjadrenie potreby porozumieﾝ spúso-bu jeho prèce;
‡ support mechanisms for women and children being abused and e.ectivereportingandintervention ̌ « r s t mffe n t i o nffo f s p e c i « c d i r e c t s up po r t a c t i o n , w h i c h l e d t o D a p h n e b e i n g cffo n s i d e r e d in NGO circles as a `victim-based' programme;
‡ mechanizmy pomoci zneu™óvan̅m ™enèm a deﾝom a ÿｲinnï ohlasovanie a zèsah › prv̅ raz spomenutè konkrïtna priama pomoc, ｲo viedlo k tomu, ™e sa Daphne v kruhoch MVO za-ｲala pova™ovaﾝ za program ¶orientovan̅ na obeteƒ;
‡ self-help mechanisms for victims of violence ̌ a suggestion to promote full participation of victims and their empowerment, a theme that continued throughout the initiative and programme;
‡ svojpomocnï mechanizmy obetó nèsilia › nèvrh podporujÿci ÿplnÿ ÿｲasﾝ obetó a ich posil-nenie, pokraｲujÿca tïma v rèmci iniciatóvy aj programu;
‡ statistical overviews of patterns of abuse, demographic trends, vulnerable groups, etc. ̌ recognition of the dire paucity of statistical mapping of the problem of violence in Europe, a recurring theme in subsequent years;
‡ þtatistickï prehﾋady vzorcov zneu™óvania, demogra«ck̅chtrendov,zraniteﾋn̅chskupónatｵ.› i d e n t i « k o v a n i e z è v a ™ n ̅ c h n e d o s t a t k o v v þ t a t i s t i c k o m m a p o v a n ó p r ob l ï m u n è s i l i a v E u - r ù pe , tïma opakujÿca sa v nasledovn̅ch rokoch;
‡ role of privacy and disclosure ̌ a response to analysis of the «rstyear'sproposals,wheremany projects demonstrated poor understanding of the rights of con«dentialityofbothvictims and perpetrators, and a prerequisite for any work on data collection and storage;
‡ ÿloha sÿkromia a zverejnenia › reakcia na anal̅zu nèvrhov z prvïho roka, z ktorej vyply-nulo, ™e mnoho projektov nedostatoｲne chèpe prèva na zachovanie dúvernosti ÿdajov v própade obetó aj pèchateﾋov; a zèroveﾏ nevyhnutnè podmienka pre akÿkoﾋvek prècu v ob-lasti zbierania a uchovèvania ÿdajov;