Dean’s Measure No. D132
on the Faculty Ombudsman

Version 1 as of December 30, 2025

Article 1
Establishment of the Ombudsman Position and Its Basic Principles

1. The position of the Faculty of Science Ombudsman at the University of South Bohemia (hereinafter referred to as “ombudsman”) is hereby established as an independent body whose mission is to protect the rights of members of the academic community and other persons active at the faculty and to contribute to creating a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment at the Faculty of Science of the University of South Bohemia.
2. The ombudsman performs their duties independently and impartially. In their activities, they act fairly, with dignity, conscientiously, and in accordance with good morals. The ombudsman is not subordinate to any university body and must not accept instructions from any person regarding how to proceed in investigating complaints or what conclusions to issue.
3. No one may be penalized, disadvantaged, or discriminated against for contacting the ombudsman with a complaint or request for assistance. All faculty employees and students are obliged to create conditions so that persons reporting unlawful or inappropriate conduct do not face retaliatory measures.
4. The ombudsman ensures the confidentiality of information. They are obliged to maintain secrecy about all facts learned in connection with the performance of their duties, even after leaving office. Information obtained from whistleblowers or witnesses may only be shared to the extent necessary for investigating the complaint within the faculty/university or if required to protect the rights and safety of affected persons. If the case under investigation suggests a criminal offense, the ombudsman will consider informing law enforcement authorities in accordance with legal regulations.
5. Contact details for the ombudsman (especially email and office address) are published on the public section of the faculty website, in the Social Safety The ombudsman is available for personal consultation on a designated day or by prior arrangement and also via the listed contacts.

Article 2
Personal and Subject-Matter Scope

1. Any member of the Faculty of Science JU academic community, other employees, and persons in a similar position connected with the faculty (e.g., visiting students and lecturers, participants in lifelong learning programs, applicants for study or employment) may contact the ombudsman with their complaints. A complaint from another person (not belonging to the above categories) may be accepted for investigation if it concerns faculty matters and the ombudsman deems it appropriate and purposeful in relation to their mission.
2. The ombudsman deals with complaints and issues that threaten or violate the rights of faculty community members or the principles of a safe and equal environment at the faculty. In particular, they are authorized to investigate complaints concerning: bullying, sexual harassment or other forms of gender-based harassment, discrimination based on sex, race, nationality, religion, disability, or other characteristics, inappropriate behaviour and violation of dignity, unequal treatment of students or employees, conflicts of interest, inactivity or delays by faculty or university bodies, violations of legal regulations or internal regulations of the faculty or university, and other similar undesirable phenomena.
3. The ombudsman does not investigate academic disputes that have a special procedure under law or internal regulations (e.g., review of decisions on non-admission to study, disciplinary proceedings against students, evaluation of exam results), unless the complainant alleges inappropriate treatment or a systemic problem within such a process. The ombudsman also does not assess complaints concerning elections to self-governing academic bodies or the scientific quality of decisions (these are handled by scientific councils, habilitation committees, etc.). Protection of whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Protection Act is not affected by this measure – if the complaint meets the criteria of a report under the Act, the procedure follows it, and the ombudsman may serve as the responsible person for receiving and handling such reports.

Article 3
Appointment of the Ombudsman, Term of Office, and Termination of Office

1. The ombudsman is appointed by the dean of the faculty based on the results of a selection procedure. The selection procedure is preceded by an open call for qualified external candidates. The selection committee appointed by the dean is composed in a balanced manner of representatives of students, academic staff, faculty management, the faculty senate, and possibly external experts. The committee assesses candidates primarily in terms of their moral integrity, communication skills, and experience as specified in paragraph 3. The committee recommends suitable candidates to the dean and the Academic Senate.
2. The ombudsman is appointed by the dean based on the selection procedure results and after discussion in the faculty academic senate.
3. A candidate for the ombudsman position must be a person of high moral quality and trustworthiness. Prerequisites include knowledge of the higher education environment and experience in rights protection, conflict resolution, human resources, counselling or mediation, and education in psychology or social work. Knowledge of relevant legal regulations (Labor Code, study regulations, anti-discrimination law, etc.) is an advantage. The ombudsman cannot be a person in an employment relationship with the faculty.
4. The ombudsman’s term of office is three years. The same person may serve as ombudsman for no more than three consecutive terms. After the term expires, the function ends on the date stated in the appointment decree. If a new ombudsman is not appointed by that date, the current ombudsman becomes temporarily authorized to perform the function until a successor is appointed, but no longer than six months.
5. The ombudsman’s function terminates before the end of the term:
   a) By written resignation addressed to the dean (effective upon delivery unless a later date is stated).
   b) By dismissal by the dean – dismissal is possible only with prior consent of the faculty Academic Senate (by an absolute majority of all votes). The dean may propose dismissal if the ombudsman grossly or repeatedly fails to fulfil obligations under this measure, commits a serious violation of legal or internal university regulations, or is convicted of a criminal offense. Dismissal must be duly justified in writing.
   c) Upon assuming a position incompatible with the ombudsman role under Article 4(1).
   d) Upon the ombudsman’s death.
6. If the ombudsman’s position becomes vacant (ends or terminates before the term expires), the dean shall promptly announce a new selection procedure or another method of filling the position under paragraphs 1 and 2 to ensure the position is filled without undue delay. In the interim, the university ombudsman may temporarily perform the faculty ombudsman’s duties.

Article 4
Incompatibility and Conflict of Interest

1. The ombudsman position is incompatible with any other employment relationship at JU.
2. The ombudsman must avoid conflicts of interest. If a situation arises that may compromise the ombudsman’s independence and impartiality (e.g., handling a complaint concerning a person with whom they have a close personal or work-related relationship), the ombudsman shall immediately inform the dean and the chair of the faculty Academic Senate. In such a case, the ombudsman refrains from any actions in the matter. The dean, after consulting the faculty senate, decides on further steps – either temporarily assigns the case to another authorized person (see Article 3(6)) or takes other measures to ensure objectivity in the investigation.

Article 5
Scope of Ombudsman’s Activities

1. The ombudsman primarily investigates individual complaints from members of the academic community (or other authorized persons under Article 2(1)). In doing so, they act methodically within the faculty as a whole and contribute to creating conditions for a safe and respectful environment. The ombudsman addresses specific complaints if there is reasonable suspicion that the rights of the affected person have been violated or that work or study social safety has been compromised, or if another faculty body has not acted in accordance with legal or internal regulations, or if no other competent body exists to resolve the matter.

2. The main activities of the ombudsman in fulfilling their mission include:

     a) Investigating complaints submitted by students, employees, or other persons under Article 2(1) – focusing on cases of suspected bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment, unequal treatment, conflicts of interest, unjustified sanctions, undue delays or inactivity of faculty bodies, violations of legal or internal regulations, or other similar undesirable phenomena aimed at undermining dignified and equal treatment.
     b) Investigating on their own initiative – the ombudsman may initiate an investigation without a specific complaint if they credibly learn of facts indicating the existence of phenomena listed under point (a) (e.g., from multiple informal complaints, faculty or university surveys, etc.).
     c) Providing assistance and counseling – the ombudsman offers confidential advice to persons who contact them and helps them find an appropriate way to resolve the problem. If the matter falls better under another body or institution, the ombudsman refers the complainant to such a body or facilitates contact.
     d) Mediation and amicable conflict resolution – if the ombudsman finds that the issue involves a conflict or misunderstanding between parties, they strive for reconciliation. They provide support to both parties, moderate communication, and propose a compromise if appropriate. If both parties agree, the ombudsman may choose informal settlement through mediation, possibly with the participation of a superior. If the parties reach an agreement, the ombudsman assists in its formulation and ensures its record.
    e) Submitting proposals for systemic improvements – based on findings from individual cases, the ombudsman identifies recurring problems and submits recommendations to the dean and other faculty bodies for changes in organizational procedures, internal regulations, or measures that would strengthen social safety and improve the environment.
     f) Methodological activities – the ombudsman provides methodological guidance on rights protection, proper academic environment, and prevention of undesirable phenomena. With the dean’s consent, they issue methodological guidelines or recommendations, e.g., for preventing and addressing workplace bullying, handling complaints at faculties, etc. They may also organize or propose training, seminars, and other awareness activities for students and employees on equal treatment and anti-harassment.
    g) Other tasks – the ombudsman performs other activities assigned by the dean or the faculty Academic Senate by agreement (e.g., preparing a conceptual analysis on a specific topic). However, the dean or the faculty Academic Senate is not authorized to assign tasks that would conflict with the ombudsman’s independence or excessively burden them at the expense of their main activity (investigating complaints).

3. The ombudsman’s conclusions and recommendations do not replace decisions of other faculty bodies. They are not authorized to annul or amend decisions of the dean, heads of departments, or other responsible persons. They do not act as an administrative authority, do not decide on the rights and obligations of students or employees, do not act in place of disciplinary and ethics committees, and have no direct powers to intervene in employment relationships. Their role is to offer an independent perspective, recommendations, and facilitate fair resolution; final decisions on measures belong to competent faculty bodies (faculty management, rector, committees, senates, etc.).

4. The ombudsman has the right to necessary cooperation from all persons at the faculty (see Article 7) and the obligation to act so that their activities do not harm the parties involved. In particular, they must choose procedures that minimize the burden on affected persons (not forcing them to testify repeatedly more than necessary, etc.) and protect the faculty’s and university’s reputation unless directly contrary to the need to clarify the matter properly.

Article 6
Procedure for Submitting, Receiving, and Handling Complaints

1. Submission of a complaint
A complaint to the ombudsman may be submitted:

   a) Physically/online under one’s name – especially by email, letter, or internal mail addressed to the ombudsman’s office,
   b) Physically/online anonymously – via an anonymous physical box or online through the FaceUp application,
   c) Orally under one’s name – dictated to the ombudsman, who records it,
   d) Orally anonymously – dictated to the ombudsman, who records it anonymously.

2. Required elements of a complaint
The complaint should include:

   a) Identification of the complainant (name, surname, position – e.g., second-year student, assistant professor at Department XY – and contact, unless submitted from a university email),
   b) Identification of the person or unit concerned (if relevant),
   c) Description of the decisive facts – what happened or is happening, what the complainant considers problematic, and possibly which rights they believe are threatened or violated. Evidence may also be provided, as well as expectations from the ombudsman’s work.

3. Inadmissibility of a Submission
The Ombudsman shall request the notifier to supplement the submission if it is unclear, vague, or incomplete. If the notifier fails to provide the supplement within the specified time limit, the Ombudsman shall dismiss the submission.

The Ombudsman may dismiss a submission without substantive investigation if he/she finds that:

   a) the submission does not fall within the Ombudsman’s competence under Article 2(2) and (3) (e.g., it concerns a dispute of a purely scientific-professional nature or a dispute that should be resolved by another body under law or internal rules of the university or faculty),
   b) it is an obviously unfounded or vexatious submission – i.e., a filing that abuses the Ombudsman’s role to harm other persons or a repeated submission by the same notifier without new relevant facts,
   c) the matter has already been finally decided by the competent authority (e.g., a court, a disciplinary commission) or duly resolved within internal mechanisms and the submission brings no new circumstances,
   d) the notifier has clearly failed to use proper remedies or formal procedures available in the matter (e.g., did not file a complaint against a supervisor under the work regulations, did not appeal a decision, etc.), unless the notifier states that he/she fears bias or ineffectiveness of such remedies.

If the submission is dismissed, the Ombudsman shall inform the notifier in writing of the reason for dismissal, if the notifier is known.

4. Investigation of a Submission
If the Ombudsman finds no reason for dismissal, he/she shall initiate an investigation. The Ombudsman shall conduct the investigation without undue delay – seeking to take the necessary steps as quickly as possible, considering the circumstances of the case. The standard time limit for handling a submission (from its receipt to informing the notifier of the outcome) is 60 days. In particularly complex cases, the time limit may be reasonably exceeded; if the investigation lasts longer than 60 days, the Ombudsman shall inform the notifier of this fact and continuously report on the stage of the process.

5. Method of Investigation
The Ombudsman shall proceed objectively, discreetly, and with appropriate empathy toward the persons concerned. He/she shall give the notifier and all persons against whom the submission is directed an opportunity to express their views. The Ombudsman shall request statements and, if necessary, additional documents from these persons or bodies. All students, employees, and faculty bodies are obliged to cooperate – see Article 7(1). During the investigation, the Ombudsman may hold joint meetings with the parties to the conflict (if appropriate and both parties agree), visit the workplace concerned, review related documentation, etc. He/she also has the right to use expert consultations – e.g., request legal advice, a psychologist’s opinion, or another expert’s assessment of the situation. In serious or complex cases, the Ombudsman may propose to the Dean the establishment of an ad hoc advisory committee to investigate the matter; the Dean shall either establish the committee or decide to leave the matter within the Ombudsman’s competence and justify his/her decision.

6. Special Regimes
If the notifier (affected person) expressly wishes not to disclose his/her identity to other bodies or persons, the Ombudsman shall take all measures to maintain anonymity. In such a case, the Ombudsman shall act personally on behalf of this person – communicating with the entities concerned without revealing the notifier’s name. This option may be applied if anonymization does not prevent effective resolution of the problem. If a confidential approach would make resolution impossible (e.g., circumstances cannot be clarified without revealing identity), the Ombudsman shall inform the notifier and discuss further options. The notifier may give consent to disclose his/her identity at any time subsequently.

7. Negotiation with Parties and Remedy
If the submission is directed against a specific person or his/her superiors, the Ombudsman shall first attempt to resolve the matter through direct negotiation with that person. He/she shall inform the person of the existence of the complaint, describe the alleged issues, and invite the person to respond or take corrective action. If the submission is directed against a particular body or workplace (e.g., department, unit), the Ombudsman shall similarly negotiate with the head or another authorized representative of that workplace. If a remedy is achieved (e.g., apology, agreement to improve behaviour, correction of an incorrect decision, etc.), the Ombudsman shall usually close the matter amicably. If no remedy is achieved, the Ombudsman is entitled to escalate the case to a higher level. In the case of a complaint against an employee, he/she shall contact the employee’s superior; in the case of a complaint against a superior or a collective body (e.g., a committee), he/she shall contact the Dean of the faculty or the head of the unit, or, if necessary, directly the Rector.

8. Complaints Against Senior Officials
If the submission is directed against the Dean of the faculty, the Ombudsman shall deal with the matter directly with this person only to the extent he/she considers appropriate (e.g., request a statement). He/she shall then inform the Rector and consult further steps with him/her. The Rector may consider whether to assign the investigation of the complaint to a special committee (outside the affected faculty) or take other measures. If the submission is directed against the Rector, the Ombudsman shall inform the Chair of the Academic Senate of the university and provide all necessary information for assessment. The Senate may subsequently propose further steps. In such a case, the Ombudsman shall not provide the Rector with sensitive information from the investigation unless the Senate decides otherwise.

9. Outcome of the Investigation
After closing the investigation of each submission, the Ombudsman shall prepare a final report on the investigation. This report shall include a summary of the findings, an assessment of whether there was misconduct or inappropriate behaviour, and, if applicable, recommendations for corrective measures. The Ombudsman shall deliver this report to the notifier and the person or body concerned. Other affected persons shall receive the report if the Ombudsman considers it necessary given the nature of the matter. If the resolution includes an agreement on amicable settlement (see paragraph 7), the Ombudsman shall prepare a record of the agreement signed by both parties and file it for record-keeping (unless there is reason to archive it elsewhere). When delivering the report, the Ombudsman shall always remind recipients of the duty of confidentiality and urge them to handle its content discreetly and sensitively.

10. Corrective and Follow-up Measures
If the Ombudsman has found misconduct and proposed corrective measures, the responsible manager or, where applicable, the Dean shall take steps to implement the remedy without undue delay. If such a responsible person cannot accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation for serious reasons, he/she shall provide the Ombudsman with a written explanation within 14 days. Any faculty body has the right to reject the Ombudsman’s recommendation if it believes that its implementation would conflict with legal regulations or legitimate interests of the faculty or university; however, it must explain its reasons to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall record how his/her recommendations were handled and, if necessary, highlight this in the regular report to the Academic Senate of the faculty and, if systematic non-compliance occurs, inform the Dean, the Rector, or the Academic Senate of the university.

11. Dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman’s Procedure
If the notifier or the person against whom the submission was directed believes that the Ombudsman did not act properly or quickly enough in handling the submission, he/she may request a review of the Ombudsman’s procedure by the Dean or the Academic Senate of the faculty. This request must be submitted within 30 days of receiving the Ombudsman’s final report. These bodies shall assess the request, and if either finds a procedural error in the investigation, it may recommend that the Ombudsman conduct a renewed (or supplementary) investigation or authorize another person to review the conclusions. If the complaint concerns the Ombudsman’s conduct in a case under paragraph 8, first sentence (submission against the Dean), the request shall be addressed to the Academic Senate of the faculty, which shall decide on further steps (e.g., establish an ad hoc committee to review the Ombudsman’s procedure).

Article 7
Rights and Duties in the Performance of the Role

1. Right to Cooperation
The Ombudsman is entitled to request from all bodies, departments, and employees of the faculty any information and cooperation necessary for their activities. In particular, they have the right to inspect files, documentation, and records related to the case under investigation; request written explanations and statements from persons concerned; ask questions of students and faculty employees and invite them for interviews; attend (by agreement) meetings of academic bodies directly related to the matter under investigation; enter faculty premises in connection with the investigation, etc. All employees, students, and faculty bodies are obliged to provide the Ombudsman with the cooperation necessary to fulfill their mandate. Cooperation may only be refused for legitimate and justified reasons (e.g., a statutory duty of confidentiality to which no exception applies for the Ombudsman). In case of a dispute over the scope of the duty to cooperate, the Dean shall decide. Refusal to cooperate without legal grounds is considered a breach of duty by an employee or student and may be subject to disciplinary action; the Ombudsman shall also record this fact in their investigation report.

2. Access to Information Systems
The Ombudsman has the right, within the limits necessary for investigating a specific complaint, to access the university’s electronic records—such as study records, file services, internal databases—if required to clarify the complaint and provided this does not result in an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of other persons. Administrators of the relevant information systems are obliged to provide the Ombudsman with access to the data they need and to which the person concerned would otherwise be entitled (e.g., records of the complainant’s employment history, study results, etc.). The Ombudsman shall make a record of each such access, which will form part of the investigation report.

3. Independent Access to Files
All documents, files, and records relating to cases handled by the Ombudsman are kept separately from the faculty’s regular records. The Ombudsman is authorized to process personal data necessary for handling the complaint (including special categories of data, such as health information, if relevant to the complaint)—in compliance with applicable data protection laws and to the extent necessary to fulfill the purpose of the investigation. The Ombudsman may disclose documents and information from the file to third parties only if necessary for the investigation (see Article 1, paragraph 4) or with the explicit consent of the persons concerned. The Ombudsman maintains a confidential record of complaints; faculty or university complaint records maintained by other departments do not interfere with it.

4. Independence from Management
The Ombudsman is not subordinate to anyone within the university or faculty management hierarchy. The Dean and other faculty bodies must respect the Ombudsman’s independence. The Dean may refer a matter for review or request an analysis (e.g., if they receive information about a possible systemic issue), but the Dean cannot instruct the Ombudsman on what conclusions to draw or interfere with investigations initiated by other persons.

5. Cooperation with Faculty Bodies
In performing their duties, the Ombudsman cooperates with other bodies and initiatives within the faculty to promote an equal and safe environment. In particular, they regularly communicate with the faculty’s Vice-Deans and the Chair of the Academic Senate, sharing general insights and recommendations for process improvement. Upon request, the Ombudsman may be invited to meetings of the Dean’s Collegium or other advisory boards when discussing matters related to the university’s social climate. However, the Ombudsman is not a member of these bodies and participates only in an advisory capacity (with a consultative voice).

6. Relationship with Ethical and Disciplinary Bodies
If the Ombudsman discovers facts suggesting a breach of the Faculty’s Code of Ethics, they have the right to submit a proposal for investigation to the Dean, the Faculty Academic Senate, or the University Ethics Committee. The Ombudsman may request the Chair to invite them to meetings of the Ethics Committee (with a consultative voice). If a complaint concerns the procedure or decision of the Ethics Committee, the Ombudsman shall communicate their findings to the Chair of the Ethics Committee and the Rector after investigation. Similarly, if the Ombudsman suspects a serious breach of employee duties that could justify disciplinary action or dismissal, they shall inform the relevant supervisor and the Dean. In the case of students, the Ombudsman may suggest to the Dean the initiation of disciplinary proceedings (e.g., if an investigation into bullying among students reveals a gross violation of internal regulations by a student). However, the Ombudsman does not assume the roles of ethical or disciplinary bodies—their activities are not duplicated, nor are their decisions reviewed (except for complaints about process, see Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 6, paragraph 3(d)).

7. Organizational Placement and Resources
From an administrative and economic perspective, the Ombudsman’s position falls under the Academic Senate. The Ombudsman is provided with appropriate working facilities (office) and access to administrative support from the faculty secretariat. The Ombudsman’s remuneration is determined by the Dean. The Ombudsman informs the Dean and the Chair of the Faculty Academic Senate of any special requirements (e.g., training, external consultations), and upon approval, their funding is covered by the faculty budget.

Article 8
Relationship with the University

1. The Faculty Ombudsman closely cooperates with the University Ombudsman, who primarily fulfils a methodological, coordination, and advisory role. The University Ombudsman provides the Faculty Ombudsman with support on issues of interpreting principles of equal treatment, protection against discrimination, and maintaining confidentiality, and assists in harmonizing standards of ombudsman activities across the university.
2. The Faculty Ombudsman may consult individual cases with the University Ombudsman if deemed appropriate and provided that the confidentiality of the case is not compromised. For matters that go beyond the faculty’s scope (e.g., systemic issues, cases concerning faculty leadership, university bodies, or interfaculty cooperation), the Faculty Ombudsman informs the University Ombudsman and consults on further steps.
3. The University Ombudsman is not superior to the Faculty Ombudsman and does not interfere with individual decision-making in specific cases. However, the Faculty Ombudsman may share (in anonymized or aggregated form) insights on general trends and systemic issues that can be considered when developing university-wide recommendations.
4. In cases of unclear competencies between the Faculty and University Ombudsman, both parties strive for an amicable agreement; if no agreement is reached, the matter is resolved by the Rector in cooperation with the relevant Dean. Until the jurisdiction is clarified, the Faculty and University Ombudsman cooperate to avoid delaying case resolution.

Article 9
Activity Reports

1. The Ombudsman continuously maintains records of received submissions and their resolution. For each submission, an internal file is created containing investigation documentation and a final report. These documents are stored separately and securely (see Article 7, paragraph 3).
2. Once per calendar quarter, the Ombudsman submits an interim activity report to the Dean. This report includes a summary of submitted cases (without names, only sufficiently anonymized descriptions), an overview of trends or recurring issues, and any recommendations for faculty leadership regarding systemic measures. The Dean discusses the report at the next faculty leadership meeting and informs the Ombudsman of the adopted measures or the leadership’s position.
3. By February 28 of each year at the latest, the Ombudsman prepares an annual report on their activities for the previous year. This report is presented to the Faculty Academic Senate at its next meeting. The annual report includes: the total number of submissions received, a breakdown by type (study matters, workplace, nature of the issue, etc.), a general description of resolved cases and their outcomes (anonymized), an overview of deferred or unresolved submissions with reasons, and recommendations for improving the faculty environment. It also includes an evaluation of the functioning of the Ombudsman institution and proposals for its improvement. After discussion by the Senate, the annual report is published on the public section of the faculty website (in an anonymized form that prevents identification of individuals).
4. The Ombudsman may attend Faculty Academic Senate meetings upon request to provide detailed explanations regarding the report or specific findings. They may also propose amendments to internal regulations or principles to the Senate if systemic deficiencies are identified during their work (e.g., ambiguities in regulations concerning equal treatment).

Article 10
Definitions

1. Notifier
Refers to a person who contacts the Faculty Ombudsman with a submission, whether as someone directly affected or as a witness to inappropriate, unequal, or otherwise problematic behaviour. The notifier may be any member of the academic community or staff who decides to report the situation. This person is entitled to confidential and safe handling, and their identity must not be disclosed to other parties without their consent.

2. Reported Person
An individual whose behaviour is described in the submission as potentially improper, inappropriate, or unethical. The reported person may be an employee, a student, or another member of the university community. At no stage of the process is this person automatically considered guilty—maintaining impartiality and protecting their rights are key aspects of the proceedings.

3. Affected Person
This term refers to a person impacted by the behaviour described in the submission but who did not file the submission themselves. For example, this may occur when another person reports the issue on their behalf. The affected person has the right to be informed about the progress of the case and may (but is not obliged to) participate in the process. Their involvement is always voluntary and protected by the principle of confidentiality.

4. Witness
A person who has direct or indirect knowledge of the situation described in the submission—e.g., was present at the event, heard about it from multiple sources, or has other relevant context. Witness statements are valuable for the investigation and are protected by the same principles as other inputs: confidentiality, identity protection, and prevention of any retaliation.

Article 11
Final Provisions

1. All participants who, based on this measure, come into contact with or become acquainted with sensitive information concerning the ombudsman’s work are obliged to maintain confidentiality about all facts they learn, even after the process ends. The ombudsman has the right to require written consent to confidentiality from all affected/involved persons.
2. In case of any divergence or contradiction between the Czech and English texts of this document, the Czech text shall take precedence and be considered the legally binding version.
3. This measure takes effect on December 30, 2025.

In České Budějovice

prof. RNDr. František Vácha, Ph.D.
Dean of the Faculty of Science JU