natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The six applicants who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber remained in their view &amp; quot;victims &amp; quot; of the human rights violations caused by the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; since they had not received any proper redress for the breaches of the Convention.
Šest pritožnikov, ki so jim bila med trajanjem postopka pred velikim senatom izdana dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), še vedno sami sebe štejejo za žrtve kršitve človekovih pravic, ki jih je povzročil izbris, ker niso prejeli nobenega ustreznega zadoščenja za kršitve konvencije.
Although it followed from the earlier case-law and also some later decisions that an applicant could cease to be a &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; if a remedy was provided in the course of the proceedings (they cited, inter alia, Maaouia v..France (dec.), no. 39652/98, ECHR 1999-II; Panèenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; and Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no..50029/99, 12 September 2002), the recent case-law under Article 8 of the Convention clearly indicated that the recognition of a violation was not sufficient in this respect; &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; redress, including the reparation of adverse consequences suffered by the applicants over a long period of time, was also required (they cited Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, § 79; Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland, no. 24404/05, §§ 41-49, 29 July 2010; and Agraw v. Switzerland, no. 3295/06, §§ 27-34, 29 July 2010).
Čeprav iz zgodnejše sodne prakse in tudi nekaterih poznejših sodb izhaja, da lahko pritožnik preneha biti žrtev, če je med trajanjem postopka kršitev odpravljena (med drugim so se sklicevali na zadeve Maaouia proti Franciji (dec.), št. 39652/98, ESČP 1999 II; Pančenko proti Latviji (dec.), št. oktober 1999 in Mikheyeva proti Latviji (dec.), št. september 2002), pa je nedavna sodna praksa po 8. členu konvencije jasno pokazala, da priznanje kršitve ni dovolj; potrebno je bilo tudi primerno zadoščenje, vključno s povrnitvijo škode zaradi hudih posledic, ki so jih utrpeli pritožniki v daljšem obdobju (sklicevali so se na zadeve Aristimuńo Mendizabal, 79. odstavek; Mengesha Kimfe proti Švici, št. odstavek, 29. julij 2010; in Agraw proti Švici, št. odstavek, 29. julij 2010).
The Court had also made a distinction between cases involving deportation of non-nationals, and those concerning the failure to regulate the applicant &amp; apos;s legal status over a long period.
Sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da je razlika med zadevami, ki vključujejo izgon nedržavljanov, in zadevami, ki se nanašajo na neureditev pravnega statusa pritožnika v daljšem obdobju.
In the first category of cases, an applicant could no longer claim to be a &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; if the deportation measure was not enforceable or if he or she had been issued with a residence permit (the applicants referred to Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 100, and Kaftailova, cited above, §§ 52-54).
V prvi skupini zadev pritožnik ni mogel več trditi, da je žrtev, če ukrep izgona ni bil izveden ali če mu je bilo izdano dovoljenje za prebivanje (pritožniki so se sklicevali na Sisojeva in drugi, 100. odstavek, in na Kaftailova, 52.-54. odstavek).
For that reason, the permits were &amp; quot;just a piece of paper &amp; quot;.
Zaradi tega so bila dovoljenja zgolj &amp; quot;list papirja &amp; quot;.
As to Mr the State should regulate their legal status ex proprio motu by issuing a retroactive permanent residence permit in compliance with the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions.
Pravni status iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) bi morala država urediti z izdajo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj v skladu z odločbami ustavnega sodišča.
In addition, eight of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had brought claims directly before the courts.
Poleg tega je osem izbrisanih vložilo zahtevke neposredno pri sodiščih.
The domestic courts had so far deemed that the latter date was 12 March 1999, when the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s first leading decision had been published in the Official Gazette.
Domača sodišča so do zdaj štela, da je 12. marec 1999 datum, ko je bila v uradnem listu objavljena prva temeljna odločba ustavnega sodišča.
In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, inter alia, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III).
Zato je vprašanje, ali pritožnik lahko trdi, da je žrtev zatrjevane kršitve, v skladu s konvencijo pomembno na vseh stopnjah postopka (glej med drugim Burdov proti Rusiji, št. odstavek, ESČP 2002-III).
A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 69 et seq., Series A no. 51; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 179-180, ECHR 2006-V; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010).
Odločba ali ukrep v korist pritožnika načeloma še ni dovolj, da se pritožnik reši statusa žrtve v smislu 34. a konvencije, če državni organi niso izrecno ali vsebinsko priznali kršitve konvencije in tudi ponudili zadoščenja (glej na primer Eckle proti Nemčiji, 15. julij 1982, 69. in naslednji odstavek, serija A št. 51; Dalban proti Romuniji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 1999-VI; Scordino proti Italiji (št. 1) [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2006 V; in Gäfgen proti Nemčiji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2010).
As to the redress which is &amp; quot;appropriate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; quot; in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right at national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, § 116).
Glede tega, kakšen je &amp; quot;primeren &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;zadosten ukrep &amp; quot; za popravo kršitve pravice iz konvencije na ravni države, je sodišče že večkrat ugotovilo, da je to odvisno od vseh okoliščin zadeve, predvsem ob upoštevanju narave kršitve konvencije (glej na primer Gäfgen, 116. odstavek).
The Court has held in a number of cases under Article 8 of the Convention relating to the deportation or extradition of non-nationals that the regularisation of an applicant &amp; apos;s stay or the fact that the applicant was no longer under the threat of being deported or extradited - even if the case was still pending before the Court - was &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; quot; in principle to remedy a complaint under Article 8 (see Panèenko, cited above; Yang Chun Jin alias Yang Xiaolin v. Hungary (striking out), no. 58073/00, §§ 20-23, 8.March 2001; Mikheyeva, cited above; Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006; Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§.102-104; Shevanova, cited above, §§ 48-50; and Kaftailova, cited above, §§ 52-54).
Sodišče je pri več zadevah na podlagi 8. člena konvencije v zvezi z izgonom ali izročitvijo nedržavljanov razsodilo, da je ureditev pritožnikovega prebivanja ali to, da pritožnik ni bil več ogrožen z izgonom ali izročitvijo, tudi če zadeva še vedno poteka pred sodiščem, načeloma &amp; quot;dovolj &amp; quot; za popravo pritožbe po 8. u (glej Pančenko; Yang Chun Jin, drugače Yang Xiaolin proti Madžarski (izbris), št. odstavek, 8. marec 2001; Mikheyeva; Fjodorova in drugi proti Latviji (dec.), št. april 2006; Sisojeva in drugi, 102.-104. odstavek; Shevanova, 48.-50. odstavek; in Kaftailova, 52.-54. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to indicate in the context of different Convention Articles that an applicant &amp; apos;s &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; status may also depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level, where appropriate, or at least on the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained, having regard to the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, § 118, in respect of a complaint under Article 3; Normann v..Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001, and Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 202, in respect of a complaint under Article 6; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003, in respect of a complaint under Article 11).
Poleg tega je imelo sodišče na podlagi različnih členov konvencije že priložnost navesti, da je pritožnikov status &amp; quot;žrtve &amp; quot; lahko odvisen tudi od višine nadomestila, dodeljenega na državni ravni, kadar je primerno ali vsaj mogoče zahtevati in prejeti nadomestilo za nastalo škodo, ob upoštevanju dejstev, glede katerih se pritožuje pred Sodiščem (glej na primer, Gäfgen, 118. odstavek, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 3. a; Normann proti Danski (sklep), št. junij 2001, in Scordino (št. odstavek, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 6. a, Jensen in Rasmussen proti Danski (sklep), št. marec 2003, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 11. a).
Such a result is, however, an unavoidable consequence of the restricted scope of the Grand Chamber &amp; apos;s jurisdiction (see paragraph 235 above).
Taka ugotovitev je neizogibna posledica omejenega obsega pristojnosti velikega senata (glej 235. odstavek).
The administrative authorities granted permanent residence permits to the six applicants following the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions finding the existing legislation unconstitutional and after the amendments to the Legal Status Act had been enacted.
Upravni organi so po odločbi ustavnega sodišča, ki je ugotovilo, da je veljavna zakonodaja neustavna, ter po uveljavitvi sprememb in dopolnil ZUSDDD izdali dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje šestim prosilcem.
In addition, in June 2010, there was also an official acknowledgment of a violation of the applicants &amp; apos; rights on the part of the Government and Parliament.
Poleg tega sta junija 2010 vlada in Državni zbor javno priznala kršitve pravic pritožnikov.
Furthermore, the Grand Chamber notes that in several other cases concerning the regularisation of the status of aliens, including cases involving comparable circumstances of the break-up of a predecessor State, the Court has held that the applicants were no longer victims of the alleged violations of the Convention after the issuing of a permit and has declared their applications inadmissible or found that the regularisation arrangements made available to the applicants constituted an &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; quot; remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and has thus decided to strike the cases out of its list.
Veliki senat poleg tega ugotavlja, da je Sodišče v številnih drugih primerih, ki se nanašajo na urejanje statusa tujcev, vključno s primeri v primerljivih okoliščinah po razpadu prejšnje države, menilo, da pritožniki po izdaji dovoljenja niso več žrtve domnevnih kršitev konvencije in je njihove pritožbe razglasilo za nesprejemljive oziroma je ugotovilo, da so dogovori za ureditev statusa, ki so bili dani na voljo pritožnikom, učinkovito in zadostno pravno sredstvo za njihove pritožbe po 8. u konvencije ter se je zato odločilo, da te primere črta s svojega seznama.
However, whereas those cases related to specific problems, the Grand Chamber finds that one of the characteristics of the present case is the widespread human-rights concern created by the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
Čeprav se ti primeri nanašajo na konkretne probleme, veliki senat ugotavlja, da je ena od značilnosti sedanjega primera splošna zaskrbljenost glede človekovih pravic, ki jo je povzročil izbris.
Furthermore, this situation lasted nearly twenty years for the majority of the applicants, in spite of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading decisions, which were themselves not complied with for more than a decade (see Makuc and Others, cited above, § 168).
Poleg tega je to stanje pri večini pritožnikov trajalo skoraj dvajset let kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča, ki se več kot desetletje niso upoštevale (glej Makuc in drugi, 168. odstavek).
Having regard to this lengthy period in which the applicants experienced insecurity and legal uncertainty and to the gravity of the consequences of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; for them, the Grand Chamber, unlike the Chamber, considers that the acknowledgment of the human rights violations and the issuance of permanent residence permits to Mr Kuriæ, Ms Mezga, Mr.Ristanoviæ, Mr Berisha, Mr Ademi and Mr Miniæ did not constitute &amp; quot;appropriate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; quot; redress at the national level (see, mutatis mutandis, Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, §§ 67-69 and 70-72; Mengesha Kimfe, cited above, §§ 41-47 and 67-72; and Agraw, cited above, §§ 30-32 and 50-55).
Ob upoštevanju dolgega obdobja, v katerem so pritožniki trpeli zaradi ogroženosti in pravne negotovosti ter resnosti posledic, ki jih je imel zanje izbris, veliki senat v nasprotju s senatom meni, da priznanje kršitev človekovih pravic in izdaja dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje pritožnikom Mustafu Kuriću, Ani Mezga, Tripunu Ristanoviću, Aliju Berishi, Ilfanu Sadiku Ademiju in Zoranu Miniću nista primerna in zadostna poprava krivic na državni ravni (smiselno glej Aristimuńo Mendizabal, 67.-69. odstavek in 70.-72. odstavek; Mengesha Kimfe, 41.-47. in 67.-72. odstavek ter Agraw, 30.-32. in 50.-55. odstavek).
As to the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation at the domestic level (see paragraphs 250-252 and 257 above), the Court observes that none of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; have so far been awarded compensation in a final and binding judgment for the damage sustained, although several sets of proceedings are currently pending (see paragraph 83 above).
Glede možnosti, da zahtevajo in dobijo odškodnino na državni ravni, Sodišče ugotavlja, da nihče od izbrisanih do zdaj ni prejel zadoščenja za utrpelo škodo v obliki končne in zavezujoče sodbe, čeprav več postopkov čaka na rešitev (glej 83. odstavek).
In addition, none of the applicants have so far been successful before the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office in their claims for compensation.
Poleg tega državno pravobranilstvo nobenemu pritožniku ni ugodno rešilo zahtevka za odškodnino.
In conclusion, the Court holds that the six applicants who were awarded both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber may still claim to be &amp; quot;victims &amp; quot; of the alleged violations.
Za konec Sodišče ugotavlja, da šest pritožnikov, ki jim je bilo izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) med trajanjem postopka pred velikim senatom, še vedno lahko trdi, da so žrtve zatrjevanih kršitev.
The Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection in this respect should accordingly be dismissed.
Predhodni ugovor vlade v zvezi s tem je torej treba zavreči.
Lastly, as to the Government &amp; apos;s plea of lack of &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; status in respect of the remaining applicants (Mr Dabetiæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ), who never started proper proceedings in Slovenia with a view to being granted permanent residence permits, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine it since these applicants &amp; apos; complaints are in any event inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 293-294 below).
Končno, glede ugovora vlade, da druga dva pritožnika (Velimir Dabetić in Ljubenka Ristanović), ki nista sprožila ustreznih postopkov za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje v Sloveniji, nimata statusa žrtve, Sodišče ugotavlja, da tega ni treba obravnavati, ker so pritožbe teh pritožnikov v vsakem primeru neutemeljene zaradi neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 293.-294. odstavek).
Further to the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading decisions of 4.February 1999 and 3 April 2003 on the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; (see paragraphs 41-48, 58-60 and 214-215 above), which had the effect of precedents, the applicants could have effectively relied on their right to obtain residence permits before the Constitutional Court, which enjoyed full jurisdiction under section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 204 above).
Ob upoštevanju temeljnih odločb ustavnega sodišča o izbrisanih z dne 4. februarja 1999 in 3. aprila 2003 (glej 41.-48., 58.-60. in 214.-215. odstavek) s precedenčnim učinkom bi lahko pritožniki uspešno zavarovali svoje pravice do dovoljenja za prebivanje pred ustavnim sodiščem, ki ima na podlagi 60. a Zakona o ustavnem sodišču polno jurisdikcijo (glej 204. odstavek).
In a number of cases brought by other &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons, the Constitutional Court had ordered the re-entry of their names in the Register pending the enactment of the new law, thus filling the legal vacuum arising from the legislature &amp; apos;s failure to enforce its decisions.
Ustavno sodišče je v številnih zadevah, ki so jih sprožili izbrisani, odredilo ponovni vnos njihovih imen v register do sprejetja novega zakona in tako zapolnilo pravno praznino, nastalo zaradi opustitve zakonodajalca, da bi izvršil odločbo ustavnega sodišča.
The Constitutional Court had also remitted some cases to the Supreme Court or quashed the lower courts &amp; apos; judgments (see paragraphs 52-56 above).
Ustavno sodišče je nekaj primerov tudi vrnilo vrhovnemu sodišču ali pa razveljavilo sodbe nižjih sodišč (glej 52.-56. odstavek).
None of the applicants had lodged such an individual appeal, which was an &amp; quot;accessible &amp; quot;, &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;effective &amp; quot; remedy both in theory and in practice.
Nobeden od pritožnikov ni vložil take posamične pritožbe, ki je bila teoretično in praktično dostopno, ustrezno in učinkovito pravno sredstvo.
The Government also noted that on 8 March 2010, prior to the adoption of the Chamber judgment, the National Assembly had already passed a systemic Act (the amended Legal Status Act) regulating the status of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; both ex nunc and ex tunc, in compliance with the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 2003 (see paragraphs 71, 76-79 and 211 above).
Vlada je tudi opozorila, da je 8. marca 2010, pred sprejetjem sodbe senata, Državni zbor že sprejel sistemski zakon (spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD), ki ureja status izbrisanih z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), v skladu z odločbo ustavnega sodišča iz leta 2003 (glej 71., 76.-79. in 211. odstavek).
In its decision of 10 June 2010 on a referendum, the Constitutional Court had considered that the amended Legal Status Act should provide for a permanent solution of the status of those &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons who had been unable to regularise their status, and had not allowed a referendum to be held (see paragraph 73 above).
Ustavno sodišče je v svoji odločitvi o referendumu 10. junija 2010 upoštevalo, da bi moral spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD omogočati trajno rešitev statusa tistih izbrisanih, ki niso mogli urediti svojega statusa, in ni dovolilo izvedbe referenduma (glej 73. odstavek).
Under both the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act, approximately 12,500 of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had regularised their status (see paragraphs 67, 76 and 80 above).
Tako je na podlagi ZUSDDD ter spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD približno 12.500 izbrisanih uredilo svoj status (glej 67., 76. in 80. odstavek).
In any event, in the Government &amp; apos;s view the applicants had failed to prove the existence of special circumstances which could have dispensed them from having to exhaust domestic legal remedies (the Government cited Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
V vsakem primeru pa po mnenju vlade pritožnikom ni uspelo dokazati obstoja posebnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih jim ne bi bilo treba izčrpati notranjepravnih sredstev (vlada navaja Akdivar in drugi proti Turčiji, 16. september 1996, 69. odstavek, Poročilo o sodbah in sklepih 1996-IV).
The applicants contended that the domestic remedies at their disposal were in general not &amp; quot;accessible &amp; quot;, &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;effective &amp; quot; as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since none of them was capable of addressing the substance of the relevant Convention complaints and of awarding appropriate relief, especially considering the prolonged and systematic refusal of the administrative authorities to comply with the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions and the substantial and unjustified delay of the legislature in passing the new law.
Pritožniki so trdili, da notranjepravna sredstva, ki so jim bila na voljo, na splošno niso bila &amp; quot;dostopna &amp; quot;, &amp; quot;ustrezna &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;učinkovita &amp; quot;, kot zahteva prvi odstavek 35. a konvencije, saj nobeno ni omogočalo obravnave vsebine ustreznih pritožb po konvenciji in določitve ustreznega zadoščenja, posebno še glede na dolgotrajno in sistematično zavračanje upravnih organov, da bi spoštovali odločitev ustavnega sodišča, ter na precejšnje in neupravičene zamude zakonodajalca pri sprejemanju novega zakona.
Accepting the Government &amp; apos;s arguments would imply placing on the Constitutional Court the burden of adjudicating on each single case by repeating its previous findings of general flaws in the relevant legal provisions.
Sprejetje argumentov vlade bi pomenilo, da se ustavnemu sodišču naloži breme razsojanja o vsakem posamičnem primeru, tako da ponavlja svoje prejšnje ugotovitve splošnih pomanjkljivosti v ustreznih pravnih predpisih.
For many of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;, and not just for the applicants, it was objectively impossible to satisfy the requirements of that Act, which in any event had been found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
Za mnoge izbrisane in ne le za pritožnike je bilo objektivno nemogoče izpolniti zahteve ZUSDDD, za katerega je ustavno sodišče v vsakem primeru ugotovilo, da je neustaven.
Even assuming that the remedies relied on by the Government were &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;effective &amp; quot;, three of the applicants - Mr Dabetiæ, Mr.Ristanoviæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ - would still be exempted from having to make use of them in the light of the exceptional circumstances of their cases and their personal situation, and also in view of the general political and social situation in Slovenia and the total passivity of the administrative authorities.
Tudi ob domnevi, da bi bila pravna sredstva, na katera se sklicuje vlada, &amp; quot;ustrezna &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;učinkovita &amp; quot;, jih trem pritožnikom - Velimirju Dabetiću, Tripunu Ristanoviću in Ljubenki Ristanović - glede na izjemne okoliščine njihovih primerov in osebne razmere, pa tudi glede na splošno politično in družbeno stanje v Sloveniji ter popolno pasivnost upravnih organov ne bi bilo treba uporabiti.
Even though he had not submitted a request for a permanent residence permit, he had urged the Ministry of the Interior, after the delivery of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision in 2003, to issue a decision regulating his status and had filed a complaint alleging inaction on the part of the administrative authorities.
Čeprav ni vložil prošnje za stalno prebivanje, je po objavi razsodbe ustavnega sodišča leta 2003 zaprosil ministrstvo, da izda odločbo za ureditev njegovega statusa, in vložil pritožbo zaradi domnevnega neukrepanja upravnih organov.
Moreover, the general climate of social and political adversity encountered by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; should not be overlooked.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati splošno neugodno družbeno in politično ozračje, v katerem so se znašli izbrisani.