A/HRC/14/15 93. Azerbaijan noted the standing invitation extended to all special procedures, and welcomed the promotion of human rights education and efforts to enhance the rights of women and children. Azerbaijan noted that the new Family Code under discussion envisaged the prohibition of corporal punishment against children. It made recommendations. 94. Moldova noted that the implementation of human rights standards and children’s rights was among Slovenia’s priorities. Moldova asked about the planned modalities for implementing the recommendations resulting from the present review. Moldova made a recommendation. 95. Ghana appreciated the entry into force of a new Penal Code and of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, aimed at eliminating domestic violence. Ghana noted the concern of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women at the continuing prevalence of violence against women and girls. Ghana made recommendations. 96. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stressed the importance of the effective role played by the Ombudsman in the judicial system. Macedonia requested further information about national programmes aimed at the promotion and protection of minority rights. Macedonia asked about Slovenia’s position concerning the eventual adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 97. Palestine commended efforts to achieve security for all, social justice and development in the area of human rights, as well as the commitment to international law. 98. Kyrgyzstan welcomed efforts to build national institutions for human rights protection, including the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Office for Equal Opportunities, Coordinators for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, the Office for Religious Communities and the Office for Nationalities. Kyrgyzstan made recommendations. 99. The Russian Federation noted the unresolved problem of “erased persons”, which had emerged after independence in 1991, stating that some 18,000 persons living within the territory of the former Yugoslavia had lost their citizenship. It also welcomed Slovenia’s intention to address that issue. It made recommendations. 100. Concerning “erased persons”, Slovenia noted that several delegations had referred to statelessness and clarified that the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act of 1991 had not introduced the basis for withdrawing their citizenship, but rather had provided for the withdrawal of their residency permits. As for the compensation claims of such persons, Slovenia clarified that the relevant decisions were taken by competent courts and that there was no reason why the Government should prepare any special measures that were being dealt with by the courts. It reiterated that the issue would be comprehensively addressed under the new law. 101. With regard to women murdered by their partners, Slovenia stated that the relevant data seemed to be faulty, as over the previous five years there had been 11 cases involving the murder of women by their partners. It clarified that, nevertheless, a number of measures, including legislative measures, had been adopted on protection against violence, and that it was now possible to remove violent persons from the vicinity of the victims. 102. As requested, Slovenia then provided details about the National Programme of Measures for the Roma for the Period 2010–2015. It explained that the programme included measures aimed at the key areas in which Roma still faced discrimination or in which specific positive measures were needed, such as education and schooling, health care, employment, living conditions, culture and the fight against discrimination. Each measure of the programme had its own implementation timeline, and a special Government body had been established to monitor its implementation. 13