Year 2005

18.4.2005; Visit to Ljubljana Prison

1.
On 18 April 2005 the Human Rights Ombudsman visited the Ljubljana Facility for the Serving of Prison Sentences (hereinafter: the prison). The visit, which was announced in advance, was made by Deputy Ombudsman Aleš Butala, independent adviser Ivan Šelih and senior expert associate Uroš Kovačič. We were received by the director of the prison, Ms. Irena Križnik, the head of the educational service Mr. Boris Bavčar and head of the guard service Mr. Andrej Kužnik.

2.
The official capacity of the prison is 128 persons, adhering to a 9 m2 surface area in single-bed rooms and 7 m2 in multi-bed rooms. On the day of our visit there were 234 persons detained in the prison, of which 128 were on remand and 106 were convicted prisoners. The official capacity for accommodating remand detainees is 55, for convicts 65 and for persons punished for misdemeanours, 8. In accordance with legal amendments, at the time of our visit there were no persons in the prison that had been punished for misdemeanours.

Overcrowding of the prison with convicts and especially with remand detainees is therefore obvious. At the time of our visit, the prison capacity was exceeded by almost 83 per cent. This kind of situation has been experienced for a long time now, with a daily average of 225 detained persons in 2004. It is also interesting to note the fluctuation of detainees; in 2004 the prison received 851 and released 639 detainees. The prison adapts to the number of detainees – which of course it is bound to take in – by devoting practically all usable space for accommodating them. Only one common space is devoted to remand detainees (a fitness room), which consequently means even greater isolation of these detainees within the cells in which they are accommodated. The prison also deals with the pressure of space, especially in the remand section, by housing remand prisoners in rooms that are not intended for accommodation of those on remand. Despite this redeployment, overcrowding is still most obvious and has the most damaging consequences among remand detainees. From our previous visit we had already levelled the criticism that each smaller remand cell measuring 7.25 m2 housed two, and the larger remand cells measuring 18.25 m2 up to six remand detainees. The smaller cells are suitable for accommodating just one person, and the larger cells for a maximum of four detainees. Unfortunately this particular recommendation has not been observed, with the smaller cells almost without exception housing two persons, and the larger ones five each. Praise may at least be due for the fact that the sixth bed has actually been removed from the cell, which reduces somewhat the impression of the room being crammed full. Of course the remand detainees told us that in the recent past it was common enough for there to be six detainees in the larger cells.

Overcrowding does not just mean pressures on space and poor living conditions. It also affects the general feelings of everyone, including prison staff. An excessive number of detained persons (relative to the prison capacity) also makes it more difficult to ensure security and order. The conditions, especially for remand detainees, could already be assessed as degrading and inhuman, particularly taking into account the other negative circumstances, of which special mention should be made of the inability of the prison to facilitate for those detained, particularly those on remand, work or other organised activities within and, more importantly, outside the remand cells.

3.
Cells do not always have a sufficient number of chairs for the persons accommodated in them. The small table (and its positioning by the wall) frequently does not allow detainees to eat meals seated at the table. There is room at the table for a maximum of three persons, and the other two must eat their food sitting on their bed, or must wait for their turn at the table. The number and size of the cupboards in the cells does not enable detainees to store the things they have with them. We therefore observed as a rule that detainees kept various items in overnight bags, plastic bags, cardboard boxes and similar containers under their beds, and also in the actual space in the cells that serves for the (limited) movement of detainees. Such a situation also gives the impression of disorder and signifies an additional spatial pressure on detainees.

Despite the lack of space, the rooms are clean, but not always properly maintained. However, when we drew attention to the soiled and marked walls we learned that painting of the rooms is in progress, which is of course welcomed. We still have reservations, however, about the upkeep of furniture and supplies. In room 67 we saw a broken chair (the detainees asserted that they had already been requesting its repair for two months), there was a toilet without lid, worn out cleaning equipment (brush and toilet brush), and in the ceiling only one of the two fluorescent lights worked. It is right for the prison to ensure regular repair and maintenance of furnishings and rooms in a serviceable state. Here it may also avail itself of the measure pursuant to Article 96 of the ZIKS-1, since convicts are bound to make good any damage they cause deliberately or through serious negligence. We also regard it as improper treatment that for lunch and dinner, detainees are not provided with knives, but just a fork and spoon. If they even receive knives for breakfast (although not always in sufficient number for all detainees), this should also be the case for the other meals. The point is, with food it is not just quantity and quality that are important, but also the circumstance where it is served in an appropriate manner.

Praise is due for the changing of bedlinen once a week and the changing of towels twice a week for each detainee. Occasionally, but regularly, cleaning of blankets should also be ensured, and the prisoners advised us that this is not always the case. Prisoners are provided with the opportunity to shower every day (in common bathrooms with separated showers). The prison regularly supplies prisoners with cleaning agents (for cleaning cells) and also items for personal hygiene (toilet paper, soap etc).

The cells for accommodating prisoners are equipped with call buttons, but on trying them we noticed that they do not always work. This kind of fault should be corrected as soon as possible, for it is obvious that there are problems with the operation of the call system.

4.
Prisoners praised the attitude of the prison staff, especially the guards, towards them. An appropriate and decent attitude of the prison staff, and the ensuring of human contact with imprisoned persons make an important contribution to the atmosphere and security at the prison. Here particular mention should be made of the obligation of the prison management towards the staff, and especially to the guards, who are most frequently in direct contact with prisoners. Overwork and the general dissatisfaction of the guards (for example on changes to the timetable) can have fairly rapid repercussions in the treatment of prisoners. The proper course is to ensure the number of guards that will match the job schedule, and this should enable only the number of overtime hours permissible in law, given a 40-hour working week.

The remand detainees in particular have pointed out that they desire more contact with the educational service. The representatives of this service do in fact respond regularly to requests from detainees for interviews. Nevertheless our opinion is that the educational service should ensure its presence at the prison also through visits under its own initiative directly with prisoners (in cells), something that would ease personal contact and facilitate more effective work in line with the purpose and aims of the educational service. This also goes for the management, including the actual director of the prison, since it is self-evident that the greatest possible personal contact contributes to the easier resolving of problems that undoubtedly arise in such an overcrowded prison.

5.
Human contact and work with imprisoned persons is a special obligation for prison staff given the Spartan living conditions encountered in particular by remand detainees, involving practically entire days spent in crowded and locked cells. On average the detainees are locked in their cells for more than 21 hours a day. The only regular everyday activity outside their cells is outside exercise twice for one hour at a time. Twice a week for one hour remand detainees have access to the minimally equipped fitness room (two bike machines, a few plastic hand weights and three exercise mats). Detainees can also be outside their cells during visits (one hour a week), while telephoning (twice a week for ten minutes at a time), three times a week for brief periods to make purchases in the canteen (the prisoners unanimously asserted high prices in the prison shop) and during the daily (at most) 10-minute shower in the common bathroom.

Outside exercise for remand detainees is (still) always just in the courtyard, which allows only for limited recreation (walking, running, playing table tennis), since the sports facility is intended only for convicts. But the courtyard still lacks roofing, which would enable detainees to remain outside in bad (rainy) weather. The Ombudsman’s recommendation in this matter, dating back some years, has sadly still not been followed. The situation is similar at the sports facility, where there is no covered space even for the guards, who are thus bound by their official duty to stand outside in the rain and snow, exposed to all the vagaries of the weather.

The situation whereby three expert staff members are appointed to work permanently just with remand detainees (social worker, psychologist and teacher) does not alter the negative impression of the activities available to such detainees. They are left in their cells to their own devices for hours on end, without any kind of organised activity. Detainees who have their own television or radio have at least some entertainment. The prison itself provides nothing of this nature, and many cells have no such entertainment or contact with the outside world. Detainees can borrow from a list of books in the prison library. On this subject we heard comments that the list contains for the most part older books of little interest, and the prison acquires them mainly after they have been discarded from the stock in the city libraries. Detainees told us that the prison provides no newspapers or magazines, but they can order them. Although the prison management told us that one copy of a newspaper is sent also to the prison’s remand section, in other words for more than 100 persons, this paper clearly does not find its way to those for whom it is intended.

6.
This situation arouses even greater concern, because the detainees are also practically without any work. On the day of our visit only four out of 128 detainees were working on jobs in the building. For the other detainees there was no work, either in the accommodation area or in the work room. And many of them assured us that for a long time now they had been requesting in vain for the prison to enable them to work.

The situation is only marginally better for convicts, with the prison providing work for 34 of them, meaning that 32 per cent of the convicts have work. There are 18 convicts working on service jobs (of these 12 in the kitchen and four in the laundry), and just nine work at the JGZ Golovec (eight in the assembly shop, one in the metal shop and no one in the carpentry shop). Thus we can merely repeat the criticism from the previous visit report, that the prison has large spatial capacity for productive work, but clearly this area of prison activity has been unjustifiably pushed to one side. Work has an important role in social rehabilitation, and ultimately it also represents a form of relaxation, employment and strengthening or retaining working habits. We suggest that the prison redoubles its efforts in this area, including providing prisoners with work. During our visit we observed that quite a few detainees had already been in detention for a long time. Without doubt the record holder is a detainee who asserts that he has been detained since 21 March 2000, but there has still been no final judgement in his criminal case.

7.
The situation for the majority of convicts is much better than for remand prisoners. The convicts in the prison regime spend on average more than eight hours a day outside their cells, during which time they are able to participate in various group activities and socialising, as well as recreation and education. The conditions are even more agreeable in the semi-open section, where special praise should be given for the fact that cell doors are unlocked from 5.45 to 22.00, which allows the convicts to mingle and have continuous contact in this section. Praise is also due for the fact that convicts in the closed section also get to enjoy privileges outside the prison (six convicts have the opportunity to visit the park outside the prison walls, and four have the privilege of exeats from the prison). At the time of our visit, 17 convicts were enrolled in various forms of education at all levels, but sadly this did not include any remand prisoners.

8.
The management estimates that 30 per cent of the persons imprisoned at the facility are dependent on prohibited drugs. This subject therefore merits special attention. In this connection we were surprised that the prison still has no drug-free section, something laid down by Article 53 of the PIKZ and intended for convicts that are not addicted to drugs and do not wish to come into contact with drugs. We were given to understand that the prison only has a special room set aside to accommodate such convicts. During our visit there were three convicts in that room.

9.
The prison has no special secure section pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 206 of the ZIKS-1. Nor are there any convicts at the prison ordered to serve their sentence isolated from other convicts (solitary confinement pursuant to Article 98 of the ZIKS-1). At the time of our visit, however, the prison had implemented a stricter regime for three convicts pursuant to paragraph four of Article 206 of the ZIKS. These persons were accommodated in living and other quarters with a stricter regime.

Convicts under the stricter regime are able to exercise in fresh air for two hours every day. They have access to the fitness room several times a week for an hour at a time (they obtained this privilege just a short time prior to our visit). Their contacts with the outside world are restricted to two one-hour visits a week and two 10-minute telephone calls a week. This means that they are locked in their cells for practically 21 to 22 hours a day. Since they also eat and exercise separately, they have no contact with the other convicts. In actual fact they are serving their prison sentences in isolation, since they have contact only amongst themselves. In their cells they are left to their own devices, without any kind of organised useful activity (work, education etc). The main priority is clearly just security considerations (prevention of escape and threat to other convicts).

Even for convicts under the stricter regime the prison should ensure they serve sentences in prison organised in such a way as to facilitate their training for life after release, including encouraging and enabling them to participate actively in the process of treatment. Without organised activities, training, provision of work, greater opportunity for contact with the outside world and human contact with their fellow convicts and prison staff, it is hard to envisage any successful re-socialisation in line with the purpose of serving a prison sentence.

Convicts are housed in the living and other quarters with a stricter regime on the basis of a written order from the prison director. Such placement is for an indefinite period. From the order issued for one of the convicts under the stricter regime we noted that an expert group at the prison is obliged to monitor and verify once a month the existence of reasons for placing the convict in the stricter regime quarters. Where such reasons cease to exist, the group is bound to decide upon the re-deployment of the convict back to the main section.

The order for transfer of convicts to the stricter regime quarters also gives the reasons for such decision, and this should be welcomed. It is right that a convict under the stricter regime is apprised of the reasons for such an order, since this enables him to consider possible changes to his behaviour, and at the same time allows him to pursue avenues of appeal. Without any indication of the reasons, the right to appeal the order is minimised. Unfortunately the prison issues the order only on the actual transfer, and not later, when it monitors and verifies the continued existence of reasons for placement in the stricter regime quarters.

The prison management told us that they verify the reasons for isolation at “monitoring conferences” every 14 days, and the longest period of such transfer is three months. But we learned that the convict whose order we perused had already been under the stricter regime for longer than three months (since 24 January 2005). On a separate form (in the convict’s personal file) we noted records of four “monitoring conferences” (on 7 and 21 February and 7 and 14 March 2005). The text written up for each of the “monitoring conferences” is extremely scanty, with an indication simply that he “remains transferred pursuant to Article 6 of the PIKZ”. The record gives no information as to whether the convict was perhaps familiarised with the decision of the “monitoring conference” and the reasons for extending the isolation.

It is right for convicts to be familiarised to the greatest extent possible with the reasons for transfer and its continuation. This enables convicts to use the process of appeal, and to demand a test of the correctness and legality of the isolation measure. We consider a better arrangement to be the provision by regulation of occasional, but regular, verification of the order, whereby an order that may be subject to appeal is issued to the convict regarding continuation of the stricter regime. Another equally acceptable possibility would be to explicitly grant the right to convicts at certain (reasonable) intervals to request an assessment of whether there are still reasons for the stricter regime, and in such procedure, too, the appeals process would be available. A merely formalistic extension of the measure, as can be discerned from the terse records of the “monitoring conferences”, sooner or later closes the door for the convict to learn the reasons and pursue any right to appeal.

In applying a measure such as isolation or a stricter regime for convicts, an individual approach is essential. The role of the psychologist and psychiatrist (doctor) in this procedure should not be (merely) to evaluate the convict’s capacity for further isolation or placement under a stricter regime, but primarily to evaluate the convict’s danger and propensity to act again in an unacceptable manner. Equally it is less than adequate to impose such measures merely by citing reasons from the past (such as the violent nature of the crime). In each individual case specific reasons need to be demonstrated and to be valid for the time such orders are issued. The order must set out the substantive reasons, and not merely refer to the provision of the regulation.

10.
In conversations with prisoners we discerned that threats, coercion and (possibly even) violence among prisoners are a feature of the prison. Individuals expressed fear of revenge if they reported incidences of violence among prisoners. In this area the prison is bound to take all reasonable steps to prevent any possible form of violence among inmates. This therefore requires the constant presence of staff who with an appropriate degree of watchfulness and care will be able to make early identification of the danger of such behaviour and effectively prevent it. We may speak of safety in the prison when the most vulnerable prisoner feels safe.

11.
In 2004 the disciplinary commission at the prison conducted disciplinary procedures against 19 convicts, nine of whom were given the disciplinary penalty of solitary confinement for seven to 14 days (with or without the right to work). In 2005 (up until our visit) two disciplinary procedures had been conducted, resulting in the penalty of solitary confinement for ten days (with and without the right to work). The disciplinary procedure adheres to procedural guarantees, including the written proposal for instigating the disciplinary procedure (with a reference to the disciplinary violation), a written summons and the possibility of participation by an advocate. Yet clearly difficulties arise in practice where witnesses proposed by a convict do not wish to appear or will not testify before the disciplinary commission. In such cases the commission simply evaluates the other evidence. The consequences of non-fulfilment of evidence proposed by the convict can lead to a halting of the procedure. Relative to the number of convicts, the number of disciplinary procedures and solitary confinement penalties ordered are within reasonable limits.

The same conclusion may be deduced with regard to use of the measure of removing a convict from the common living and other areas to a separate area (to the separation room pursuant to Article 236 of the ZIKS-1 for up to 12 hours). The report book on removal to the separate area indicates that in 2004 there were eight such cases, and in 2005 (in the period up to our visit) there had been three. We suggest that this book enumerates individual cases, which will make the entries easier to peruse.

12.
In 2005, both cases of removal to a separate area involved a remand detainee who on 5 March 2005 committed suicide (he died in the Ljubljana Clinical Centre on 11 March 2005). This is the only case of suicide this year, while in 2004 there were no deaths from suicide. It should be stressed here that the prison is bound to take all reasonable steps to prevent the suicidal behaviour of imprisoned persons. Especially important here is the early assessment of individuals being at risk of such behaviour. It is thus especially important even on actual admission to the prison that the medical service (including the psychiatrist) applies careful observation to evaluate such threat to an imprisoned person and to adapt supervision of such person accordingly. It is also worth stressing that the use of force (means of restraint) is permissible on a violent, agitated or disturbed prisoner only for the shortest time necessary in line with the principle of proportionality, and only until the arrival of a physician who will then take action in accordance with the rules of the medical profession.

13.
We heard no complaints this time regarding (accessibility and quality of) medical care. It appears that the prison now has markedly improved arrangements in this area. Under contract with the Revita Health Centre, three physicians visit the prison three times a week, each for four to six hours. Each physician sees specific prisoners, which facilitates greater doctor-patient trust, since the physician is thereby generally already familiar with the health problems of the person they are interviewing and examining. We were somewhat surprised, however, that on the day of our visit the doctor examined 48 persons, and normally sees as many as 60. This means (given the six-hour total visit time) that each patient receives on average just ten minutes of attention. Here it should be stressed that imprisoned persons should be provided with the same standard of medical services as people that are at liberty.

The prison employs two full time (middle level) nurses, and two work under contract. A nurse is therefore present in the prison every day from 7.00 to 15.00, and also on Tuesday afternoons (when the psychiatrist is in attendance) from 14.00 to 18.00. Outside this time (i.e. the other afternoons, weekends and holidays) there is no nurse at the prison. The bottom line is that this situation is still acceptable. In urgent cases prisoners are taken to the emergency room of a health facility. In conversations with convicts we heard some complaints about the unfriendliness of the nurses, including the assertion that a nurse did not supply a prisoner with the medication prescribed by the physician.

Under contract with the Ljubljana Polje Psychiatric Clinic, the prison is visited by two psychiatrists each week (on Tuesdays) for four hours. We received no complaints about psychiatric care. However there were several complaints regarding a lack of dental care. Under contract a dentist visits the prison once a week for four hours. In urgent cases prisoners are supposedly given emergency dental treatment outside the prison. Several prisoners told us that despite toothache they had to wait for several days, even up to a week, to see a dentist. Waiting for the dentist can also take three months at a time. We suggest that the prison take all reasonable steps to ensure that prisoners obtain unhindered dental care, and especially immediate care in the event of pain (toothache).

14.
Following numerous efforts and suggestions from the Ombudsman, in October 2004 amendments and supplements were made to the Rules on Enforcement of Detention (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 114/2004), which provides new arrangements for visits to those on remand. Now in the first 14 days of admission for remand, as a rule visits are carried out in a special room with a glass screen. For remand lasting longer than this, open visits are provided as the rule.

The prison director can determine closed visits for a remand detainee if there are well-founded security reasons or if the danger exists that the visitor might supply the detainee with illicit drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating agents and with items intended for attack or escape. This provision of the rules should be subject to narrow interpretation, since it involves an exception from the rule that detainees have the right to open visits. At the time of our visit 51 detainees had open visits at the prison and 32 had closed visits (of these eight were detainees in the first 14 days of remand). The other detainees did not have visits. This means that 62 per cent of the detainees receiving visits had open visits, which is less than 40 percent of all remand detainees. This indicates that there is still plenty of slack to give in terms of open visits, which must in practice also indeed become the rule. It would be right for those detainees without visits that a determination is made (and communicated to the detainees) as to which ones would only be eligible for closed visits.

It should be stressed once again that remand detainees are governed by the presumption of innocence, and restrictions may be imposed against them only to the extent necessary to prevent escape or conspiracy that might damage the success of proceedings. The provisions of the revised Article 47 of the Rules on Enforcement of Detention should be interpreted in line with this principle. And since detainee visits are authorised by the (investigating) judge, based on the legal authorisation pursuant to Article 213 b of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP), it will be indeed just exceptions where the prison director determines visits for a detainee behind a glass screen, preventing personal contact.

15.
(Investigating) judges issue detainees with single visit permits or permanent permits. We were given to understand that the practices of (investigating) judges differ. The prison management told us that judges from the District Court in Kranj (most often) issue permanent permits, while Ljubljana District Court judges issue single visit permits. Paragraph one of Article 213 b of the ZKP provides that individual visits may be prohibited if they could result in damage to the proceedings. The permissible legal prohibition therefore relates to individual visits, which speaks in favour of the rule that (investigating) judges issue visitors with permanent permits to visit detainees. We take the view that the requirement for a special permit for each individual visit signifies merely unnecessary work and trouble for the visitor, and an unnecessary burden on the courts. With a permanent permit the (investigating) judge can always cancel the permit at any time and therefore prevent a visit, if he felt that the (changed) circumstances warranted it. We suggest that (investigating) judges harmonise their practices and issue permanent permits for detainee visits. These permits can be cancelled if reasons of law so demand. It might perhaps be useful for future practice if relevant amendments and supplements were made to Article 213 b of the ZKP, which governs this area.

16.
Even greater concern is generated by the discovery that the prison director (and clearly this is also the approach of directors at other prisons) does not issue decisions on closed visits in the form of a written decision. Nor do detainees receive any written explanation, instead the “case manager”, i.e. a representative of the educational service, calls the detainee for an interview and gives a verbal explanation of the reasons for closed visits. A mere verbal explanation signifies a deficiency, if nothing else because there is a greater likelihood of it being incomplete, and perhaps even without proper reasons for restricting visits. This approach also overlooks the fact that open visits are laid down as the rule, and closed visits represent a restriction of the detainee’s right to visits. A mere verbal explanation takes away the detainee’s right to appeal against the director’s decision not to allow open visits. Decisions to impose closed visits have no time limit, and the detainee thus has no (particular) avenue of appeal against such a decision, nor even the possibility (after a given period of time) of being able himself to propose a change to the decision banning open visits. We suggest therefore that every decision determining visits separated by a glass screen be issued in the form of a written decision with a legal advice note regarding appeal. If necessary, the provisions of Article 47 of the Rules on Enforcement of Detention should be amended and supplemented in line with this orientation.

17.
The suggestion of changing the practice (and regulations) regarding decisions on closed visits is also backed up by the circumstances observed during our visit, which leads one to surmise that the prison uses closed visits also as a (collective) punishment of detainees in the event of breaches of discipline. When one of the detainees in the large detainee room was found in possession of a mobile phone, the director ordered glass screen visits for all five detainees in the room. Such action is also clearly the regular practice in all similar cases, where it is not possible to determine which of the detainees in the room is the real culprit in some disciplinary breach. Disciplinary penalties are ordered against detainees by investigating judges. But we understand from the management that investigating judges do not even respond to referrals from the prison regarding breaches of discipline. Thus in ordering closed visits for all detainees in a common room, the director is acting as if this involved cancellation of a privilege, and not in fact restriction of the right to open visits. And since there is no written decision, no appeal can be made against such a decision.

The action described can be understood as exercising informal disciplinary procedures, without determining the liability of the individual for the disciplinary violation in the prescribed procedure. It is precisely in this light that detainees understand such orders from the director on the basis of Article 47 of the Rules on Enforcement of Detention. Here it should not be overlooked that decision-making on this basis also requires the determining of specific circumstances precisely for the detainee against whom closed visits have been ordered. The fact that a detainee is in the room together with another detainee who has illicitly obtained a mobile phone, is not sufficient even for a disciplinary penalty, nor for the ordering of closed visits. For this very reason it would be essential in both cases for a reasoned official decision to be issued, thereby enabling the deprived person to use the appeals procedures. We suggest that the prison abandons the practice of informal punishment (as the detainees understand it), and that orders for closed visits be issued in the form of a written and reasoned decision with a legal advice note.

18.
We also advocate greater possibilities for detainees to have contact with the outside world. At the moment remand detainees are allowed a one-hour visit and two telephone calls of ten minutes each week. There appear to be no reasonable grounds to restrict contact with the outside world in this way. Why should detainees not have daily visits and daily telephone calls? After all, they are under the presumption of innocence, and there is no reason why there should not be significantly more visits and telephone calls, as is the case in many other comparable countries in Europe. The arguments of an insufficient number of guards or pressures of space are simply not sufficiently convincing to prevent this category of imprisoned person (with the presumption of innocence) having much greater contact with the outside world. We suggest that in this regard the prison deals with remand detainees in as friendly a way as possible, and facilitates to the greatest possible extent their contact with the outside world; especially since we also observed during this latest visit that there were quite a few lengthy remand cases involving deprivation of liberty for several months and even years.

Ljubljana, 26 April 2005

Written up by:
Deputy Ombudsman
Aleš Butala