Majda Hrženjak
Framing prostitution and trafficking in Slovenia1
Based on the methodology developing by the research network Mageeq paper is focused on
how the issues of prostitution and trafficking have been framed in the last eight years in
Slovenia. After presentation of some background information on policies concerning
prostitution and trafficking two dominant frames, namely »neoliberal« and
»socialdemocratic«, that have been appearing in discussions on decriminalization of
prostitution in Slovenia, are scrutinized according to the standpoint of the policies of equal
opportunities for women and men. Further to analyze how the issue of trafficking has been
introduced into the framing of prostitution enable us to become aware of symplifying and
discriminating discourse on prostitution. For example: trafficking has been framed as an
involuntary prostitution meanwhile a prostitution on general has been framed as something
completely voluntary; involuntary prostitution has been constantly externalizing through the
argument of poverty of Southeastern countries; degendering the issue of prostitution and
trafficking; framing the countries of destination and demand for sexual services (namely
democratic West European countries) as not part of the problem etc. In the conclusion we
come with a question why there are no knowledge on female consumption of sexual services
available, neither in Slovenia neither elsewhere, and how would that kind of knowledge
influence a shift in framing prostitution.
I. Background of politics on prostitution and trafficking in Slovenia
1. Legislation and statistics
In Slovenia the issues of prostitution and human trafficking is not covered by a
comprehensive law. According to the Slovenian legislation prostitution was inherited from
former Yugoslavia (1974) (until recently) treated as an offence (the Law on Public Order Zakon o prekrških zoper javni red in mir, Ul. SRS št. 16/74). Item 5 of Article 10 stated that a
person that is submitted to prostitution, takes part in it, or allows or supports it may be
sentenced to up to 2 months in prison.
According to the Criminal Code (articles 185, 186 and 387) pimping and serving as an agent
1
The analyse was part of the project Policy frames and implementation problems: The case of gender
mainstreaming (www.mageeq.net) financed by 5th EU research framework.
to prostitution are defined as criminal offences. For both offences a term of up to 3 to 5 years
in prison is envisaged, or up to 5 to 10 years if the offence involves a minor. Although there
are acts regulating the organization of prostitution, the law includes no provisions dealing
with clients.
Opinions vary widely about the extent of prostitution in Slovenia. In 1996, the Criminal
Service Administration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs recorded around 100 prostitutes, but
the "grey area" according to some figures is very large in Slovenia (some estimates suggest
1,800 prostitute).
Based on the information available to the media, prosecutors and criminal investigation
officers, the characteristics of prostitution in Slovenia are as follows:

Most prostitutes are women and girls aged between 18 and 45. According to the criminal
investigation officers, they are predominantly women from Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria,
Romania and the republics of the former Yugoslavia. Slovenia is particularly interesting
for them, since the relatively high level of prostitution means that pimps don't force them
"onto the streets".

Prostitution has grown particularly noticeably since 1991. This period has seen marked
growth in the number of massage parlours, night bars and demand for certain vocational
profiles (platform dancers, masseuses, hostesses, strippers, etc).

It is characteristic of Slovenia that there is almost no street prostitution. The most
widespread forms of prostitution are hotel and bar prostitution, while prostitutes from
Slovenia for the most part operate at a very high level (advertising and mobile telephones)
and are very independent (no pimps).

Pimps are mostly owners of private companies, renters of night bars and individuals.

Clients come from different social classes, with many traders and businessmen.
2. Timeline of policies and discussions (1996 -2004)
Before 1996, and after independence of Slovenia, in some media debates and articles, several
individual statements of some younger male liberal political leaders announced (together with
the debate about the decriminalization-legalization of pornography) the endeavor for
decriminalization or even legalization of prostitution. Before that, within Yugoslavia, the
issue was raised in the debates in the civil society circles in the times of strong oppositional
movement in Slovenia in the eighties. Prostitution, however, at the general level, was
considered to be both immoral and an obstacle to the real emancipation of women. According
to the Marxist interpretation of prostitution as a part of a female proletarian enslavement, it
was seen first as a crime and then as a disturbance of public order. However, prostitution was
an invisible practice and rumours were telling that it was many times organized by either
secret police or local powerful communist leaders.
In 1996, the first attempt was made to prepare a law on the decriminalization of prostitution.
Suggestions/changes were not submitted to parliament with the explanation that
circumstances in Slovenia did not allow the implementation of the changes. According to a
public opinion survey carried out in that period, 59% of respondents were against changes in
the legislation.
In January 2000 two parliamentarians addressed the government, submitting a suggestion to
establish a governmental expert group involving experts from different governmental bodies
to design a law on prostitution. The group was confirmed by the government within a few
months (April) and includes experts from the Ministry of Work, Family and Social Affairs,
Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health and governmental Office for
Women’s Policy (later renamed the Office for Equal Opportunities). Actually, two interministerial groups were founded: in December 2001 a working group for the fight against
human trafficking, which functions as an expert advisory body, and in January 2002 a
working group for regulating the issue of voluntary prostitution, the task of which is to study
prostitution in Slovenia.
In 2001 The NGO organisation Ključ Society, the Centre for the Fight against Human
Trafficking was founded, whose basic tasks are the development and implementation of
preventive and curative programmes aimed at raising the awareness of the general and
professional public as well as potential and actual victims of trafficking, including women,
victims of sexual exploitation and (forced) prostitution. The purpose of the centre is also to
offer the necessary help to victims, aid and assist in their return to their country of origin,
provide free advice to victims, encourage and organise their co-operation with prosecution
bodies and help in implementing witness protection programmes.
In December 2001 a group of parliamentarians (the proposer was from Liberal Democracy,
the leading political party in Slovenia) submitted to parliament a bill of changes to the Law on
Public Order and Peace (Zakon o prekrških zoper javni red in mir). Submitters claimed that
by introducing changes they are actually going to implement decriminalization of prostitution.
They furthermore were arguing for an understanding of prostitution as an economic activity.
They did not understand prostitutes as victims but as businessman and businesswomen. They
were against treating prostitution as an offence and were justifying decriminalization on this
ground.
After a year and a half, at the end of May 2003, the subject appeared on the agenda again. It
was again suggested that the existing law should be changed; more specifically, the proposal
referred to changes in article ten and elimination of item five that dealt with people who
submit themselves to prostitution, take part in it, or allow or support it. In addition, item six of
the same article that treated “sexual immorality” as an offence was also proposed to be
eliminated. Models adopted in Germany and the Netherlands were often cited.
In the summer of 2003, prostitution in Slovenia was decriminalized with the decriminalization
being supported by all parliamentary parties. The Civil Society later proposed a referendum
against decriminalization but their incentive failed to gain sufficient support. Surprising to
some, the invitation to support the referendum against decriminalization of prostitution
received no response from the Catholic Church which might be the reason why it failed.
3. The protagonists
As one can see from the timeline, the real discussion on prostitution entered the political
agenda in 2001 with the proposal for its decriminalisation submitted by the deputies from the
leading party, the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. In my estimation, this proposal and the
records of the 2nd and 3rd discussion in Parliament, together with the opinion of the
Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs, are the documents that reveal the core of the
structure of the policy arguments. It can be said that media and expert texts have not raised
anything new, different or more illuminating than the above-mentioned policy papers. The
only exceptions are perhaps the interviews with two Slovenian prostitutes, since the opinions
of prostitutes themselves are consistently and symptomatically not taken into account in the
policy design process. This means that the decisive protagonists of the decriminalisation of
prostitution in Slovenia were political parties, the Committee for Home Affairs and
parliament. The governmental expert group, involving experts from different governmental
bodies, was established to design a law on prostitution, but it has produced no expertise.
Academic research groups were not appointed to do research on prostitution in Slovenia;
instead, all data available in debates were obtained from the Criminal Investigation
Department. In addition, the nongovernmental organisation Ključ dealing with the victims of
human trafficking was not invited to participate in the discussions on the decriminalisation of
prostitution, although they are experts on involuntary prostitution. As well, women’s civil
society organizations were not consulted. The Office for Equal Opportunities did not express
their opinion apart from standpoints in CEDAW reports which reflect the governmental
position. Perhaps worthy of mention are two additional participants as well: the Civil
Society's incentive for a referendum on decriminalisation of prostitution that was submitted
after decriminalisation was adopted in parliament by all parliamentary parties, and the attitude
of the Catholic Church which surprisingly did not openly stand against decriminalisation.
II. Dominant frames
1. Non-frames
Before analyzing the two most dominant political frames that covered the debate on
decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia, we should mention the frames that were
expected to be a part of the debate but failed to appear in it – they are designated ‘nonframes.’
Firstly we should mention the media, which followed the discussions on decriminalization on
a superficial level, and merely reported uncritically the arguments of, in most part, the liberal
option. Outside of this particular discussion on decriminalization, the media strategy for
presenting prostitution in Slovenia consists of labelling prostitutes and human trafficking
victims as young naïve girls from problematic countries of south-eastern Europe. Even though
at the time of the discussions on decriminalization of prostitution two interviews with
Slovenian prostitutes appeared in the media, we believe that one of the important frames of
discussion on prostitution should have consisted of opinions, needs and wishes of female and
male prostitutes, whose standpoints had obviously not been included in the discussion. In the
interviews mentioned above, the prostitutes clearly stated that they did not care about
decriminalization, that the politicians were doing it for themselves and not to improve the
status of female and male prostitutes, and that they would never officially register as
prostitutes.
Secondly, many were surprised at the absence of opinions and standpoints of the Catholic
Church on the decriminalization of prostitution. Even though the proposers of the referendum
against decriminalization of prostitution made a public call to the Church for their support, the
Church remained silent.
And finally, what is probably most surprising is the absence of feminist intervention in the
discussion. The Office for Equal Opportunities did not participate in the discussion, and the
same holds true for feminists, whether activists or academics. In general terms, there is no
feminist reflection on the phenomenon of prostitution in Slovenia.
2. The structure of the policy debate – an alliance between Liberals and Socialdemocrats
The analysis of policy documents mentioned above (the proposal for decriminalization of
prostitution in Slovenia submitted by the deputies from the leading party, the Liberal
Democracy of Slovenia, the records of the 2nd and 3rd discussion in Parliament together with
the opinion of the Committee for Home Affairs) has shown that the positions of the Liberal
Democracy of Slovenia and the United List of Social Democrats of Slovenia were the most
noticeable and conceptualized frames, which defined the course of the discussion on
prostitution.2
The Liberals pointed out that prostitution was mainly a voluntary activity and in this they
referred to both human rights and freedoms and the prostitute’s freedom to choose her/his
way of making a living. They stressed the definition of prostitution as an equal economic
activity3 (a strong political argument for this was the definition of prostitution by the
European Court of Justice) and as the opportunity for extra earnings. Even though Slovenia
has no studies on the quantity and quality of prostitution, the Liberals argued for
decriminalization by pointing out the high level of prostitution in Slovenia and the abundance
of new forms of prostitution, such as mobile-phone prostitution, prostitution for improving an
already comfortable living standard, week-end prostitution, student prostitution, etc. These
'new' forms of prostitution are supposedly not problematic from the point of view of offences
against public order and peace. Above all, they are presumed to be a consequence of an
individual's free will. But in the proposal for decriminalization submitters put forward the
2
In the process of decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia, two other frames became more pronounced. The
first, which can be termed the 'conservative frame', was initiated by the proposers of the referendum against
decriminalization of prostitution from the so-called Civil Society. The same group successfully carried out the
referendum against the right of single women to be artificially inseminated. The second distinctive frame was
established in the field of human trafficking, its bearer being the non-governmental organization Ključ. The
characteristic features of the NGO frame are pragmatism, operability, focus on concrete help for victims, and
acting in accordance with legislation. Both frames are very gendered. The conservative frame assumes only
women are prostitutes, while the activities of the NGO frame specifically emphasize 'the most vulnerable victims
of human trafficking', namely women and children. Through its key representative, the NGO frame also carries
great influence in the interdepartmental advisory body for the fight against human trafficking. In comparison
with the interdepartmental group for regulating the issue of prostitution in Slovenia, the group fighting against
human trafficking is very active, and has taken a number of concrete measures in the field of legalizing the status
of illegal immigrant victims of human trafficking.
3
In socialism prostitutes where depicted (scientificaly mainly in surveys from social pathology) in negative way
as whores, pathological personalities and criminals in evereday representation. The proposal for
decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia in its reffering to the definition of EU Court that prostituion could
be seen as an equal economic activity influenced an important shift in the representation of the prostitute as a
whore. Now a prostitute could be seen as an enterpriser. On the other hand, introducing the dimension of
trafficking in human beings into the issue of prostitution lead to the shifting in framing of prostitutes from whore
to the victim of trafficking and to the victim of violating of human rights. So the socialist image of prostitute as
a whore has been splitted into an image of enterpriser or a victim of vioalting of human rights during the period
of transition.
argument that prostitution should be decriminalized because criminalization puts prostitutes in
even harder position then that they are already in. With this argument the submitters
contradict themselves – if prostitutes are in a hard socioeconomic position then also the
voluntary prostitution must be seen as a problem since its voluntaries is questionable, namely
prostitutes are forced into prostitution by their hard socioeconomic situation.
Slovenia also has no data on the gender structure of prostitution; there exist only rumours
about an increase in male prostitution. Nevertheless, the Liberals maintained that prostitution
is not a gender issue and they strictly used non-gendered language in their proposal. Feminists
in Slovenia have been fighting for a long time for the non-sexist use of language. Today the
use of both gender forms is, or is at least supposed to be, a matter of common practice and
political correctness. Yet, in this concrete case, the political correctness of the Liberals seems
to be a guise obscuring the problem of the gender dimension of prostitution. Politically
correct, non-sexist use of language thus became a way of concealing the gender dimension of
political reality. The truth is nevertheless revealed in the language, which is why it is
symptomatic that not only in speeches but even in the written proposal for decriminalization
the Liberals often, without even knowing it, slip into the representation of prostitution as a
mainly female activity.
In contrast, those who expressed hesitations regarding decriminalization of prostitution in
Slovenia (they were the United List of Social Democrats and to a lesser extent Pensioners’
Party that have developed the conceptual argumentation, other parties put forward mainly
moral questions regarding prostitution; both parties successors of the former League of
Communists with its Marxist views on women’s emancipation and prostitution issue))
claimed that prostitution was above all an involuntary activity. They connected prostitution
with human trafficking, enslavement of persons, criminal offences and illegal immigration.
They could not agree with the EU Court's definition of prostitution as an equal economic
activity, but instead saw it as sexual and economic exploitation of (mainly) women. Hence for
them prostitution is a highly gendered topic since it arises from a difficult social and
economic situation in which women may find themselves more easily than men.4
In spite of those very fundamental differences in their points of departure, the discussion did
not continue further or deeper either in parliament or elsewhere. They merely terminated it
and made a joint agreement that for now prostitution should be decriminalised (note that even
4
One could notice that both sides used the argument of human rights but in the opposite way: Social Democrates
consider that it is the matter of human rights not to sell one's body; on the other hand Liberals put as a matter of
one's human rights also the right to voluntary decide for selling his/her body.
before decriminalization, prostitutes were not persecuted in Slovenia but decriminalisation
now enables them to cooperate with criminologists in persecuting pimps and other
perpetrators connected with involuntary prostitution). However, in the (near) future the
governmental expert group (the same one that produced nothing during the two years of its
existence) must develop an expert platform for the further regulation of (voluntary)
prostitution which will concern mainly health and social security, as well as labour and tax
legislation.
The dominant frame in this whole debate on decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia was
a (neo)liberal one and it was expressed in the conceptualization of prostitution as a voluntary
economic activity aimed at earning extra-profits, seen mainly as a matter of human rights and
freedom of choice. Within this frame, the problematic dimensions of prostitution and the
reasons for it, even if it seems voluntary, were somehow reduced and swept under the carpet.
There were no words regarding social position of single mothers, employment opportunities
for women, wage disparity, the global dimension of migration involving women, etc. And
what is perhaps most important for our analysis – the issue was framed as non-gendered.
From the proposal for decriminalisation and parliamentary debates on it, one could see that
the main arguments for (and against) decriminalization were built on the conceptual
difference between voluntary and involuntary prostitution, although this difference was not
openly exposed by either side. On the one side, the Liberals emphasized mostly prostitution as
a voluntary decision for the improvement of an individual's living standard, while on the other
hand, the Social Democrats pointed out the dark side of prostitution, namely that it is forced
upon mostly women by organized crime dealing with human trafficking. Somewhere between
these extremes, however, lies a substantial part of prostitution, which, admittedly, though not
a consequence of organized crime and extreme coercion, is nevertheless not voluntary. This
form of prostitution, which we believe is the predominant form, and for which we believe that
it is a consequence of unequal opportunities of women in contemporary societies, and for
which we are convinced that it is still a gendered issue, did not come to the fore in any of the
dominant frames. Maybe the main reasons for this lie in the fact of the socialist and
Marxist’feminist legacy of the argument, in the absence of feminist debate, and in the
pre’dominant neo-liberal frame of the post’socialist transitional situation. We are speaking,
for instance, of women who, out of " free will" , decide to prostitute themselves because they
are single parents and cannot support themselves and their children on a worker's salary.
It should be emphasized that the policy of equal opportunities for men and women in the
process of decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia was not the subject-matter of either
political or any other public debate.
3. Framing the trafficking: voluntary prostitution vs. involuntary prostitution =
prostitution vs. trafficking
Beside above mentioned dominant frames on prostitution occurring in the debate on
decriminalization of prostitution in Slovenia which might be labeled as »pro« and »contra«
frames and which perfectly fit into the feminist disputes on prostitution, the issue of
trafficking in human beings influenced the discussion too. It is not negligible that the issue of
trafficking in human beings is not treated together with the issue of prostitution but separately
in Slovenia. Although it is well known that a substantial number of prostitutes working in
Slovenia got here by trafficking. Namely by considering trafficking as an issue separated from
the issue of prostitution the dark sides of prostitution are being somehow reduced and
concealed. Of course to do the opposite and to replace the issue of prostitution with that of
trafficking which is recently the case in some countries (Austria?) might lead into the
demonization of prostitution.
In Slovenian proposal for decriminalization of prostitution framing of trafficking has been
brought out implicitly in a way that looks suspicious and influences and simplifies the whole
issue of prostitution. Trafficking has been framed as an involuntary prostitution meanwhile a
prostitution on general has been framed as something voluntary. So we are faced with the
following equation: voluntary prostitution : involuntary prostitution = prostitution :
trafficking.
Positioning involuntary prostitution in such restricted and narrow sense that only the victims
of trafficking are justified addressing themselves as victims of involuntary prostitution in my
opinion erases the whole problem of prostitution. Considering this equation, a prostitution is
not a problem any more instead a trafficking becomes problematic. Or speaking more
precisely, the portion of prostitution which is problematic from the point of view of equal
opportunities of men and women is erased. Although in Slovenia we do not have any
empirical surveys of prostitution, except the records of the repressive bodies which are not by
far neither reliable neither sufficient, we can feel quite confident of the existence of the
involuntary prostitution which does not result only from the trafficking but also from a hard
socio-economic position of some groups of women in temporary societies (for example
pregnant girls, single mothers, unemployed women, women with low salaries, immigrant
women, women victims of violence in a family etc.)5
Framing the involuntary prostitution only as a consequence of trafficking in human beings
(and not also as a consequence of a hard socio-economic situation in which some groups of
women can find themselves more easily than men) is one way how framing of trafficking
issue influences the discussion on prostitution in Slovenia. The other way could be found in
the externalization of involuntary prostitution. In our analysis of different texts that treat or
just slightly mention trafficking we came across statements (proposal for decriminalization,
CEDAW reports, EU Ambassador's speech, speech of the president of inter-ministerial
working group for combating trafficking etc., article of Mr. Popov) that trafficking is a
consequence of the poverty. The argument is entirely degendered in two ways: first, it
addresses not the people, but the states, and not all states, but only Southern and Eastern
European countries, thus producing the effect of externalization of the issue; and second, there
is no recognition of the feminization of poverty. The fact that if the country is poor, some
groups of female citizens are the poorest among citizens and thus more vulnerable for the
promises given by seducers is not addressed.
For the matter of facts regarding the gendering/degendering dimension of framing the
trafficking issue in Slovenia it should be say that on the policy (state) level the issue is
degendered as it has been just stated. On the other hand on the level of NGO (Ključ Society center for combating trafficking) the issue is very much gendered. The activists from Ključ
Society speak mainly about women victims of trafficking, sometimes they also speak about
»women and children as the most vulnerable victims« (see A Presentation of Ključ Society
and its Activities). So we are faced with a strong generalization and degendered framing on
the level of policy and with more concrete and gendered framing on the level of NGO's.
Going back to the argument of poverty it does not mean only degendering the issue of
trafficking but it also frames trafficking as the issue of the Other and as the issue of the
problematic Other. In Europe this Other are of course Southern and Eastern European
countries. And since Slovenia wants to see itself more as a part of West than of East Europe it
is of particular importance to stress out that Slovenian prostitutes are high rank prostitutes,
offering sexual services voluntary for the purpose of extra earning, usually not having pimps
who would exploit them etc.; to sum up - Slovenian prostitution is not the consequence of
poverty of Slovenian women and do not cause any other problems (see Proposal for
5
The assumption here is that women find themselves in such difficult positions more easily than men, which is
the consequence of not taking into consideration the specific gender dimensions in the policy making processes.
decriminalization). On the other hand the situation with the foreign prostitutes (trafficked
from Southern Eastern European countries) is completely opposite to that of Slovenian one.
Again we can present these arguments with a set of equations:
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = prostitution vs. trafficking
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = voluntary vs. involuntary prostitution
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = high rank vs. low rank prostitution
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = extra earnings vs. earning for a living
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = »new types of prost.« vs. «classical prost.«
Slovenian prostitutes vs. foreign prostitutes = not being problematic vs. being problematic
Slovenian prostitution vs. foreign prostitution = not criminalized vs. criminalized
Apart from framing the issues of trafficking and prostitution in such a (xenophobic, black and
white) way it is still another disturbing element in this poverty framing, namely not
addressing the countries of destination. In policy speeches (Ambassador EU, inter-ministerial
working group for combating trafficking) trafficking in human beings has been considered
above all as a problem of post-socialist situation of Eastern European Countries facing hard
economic and social situation in their processes of transition into the system of Western
democracies with a capitalist system and with the areola of human rights. Although these
democratic countries are the main countries of destination for victims of trafficking in human
beings, although they are the main countries of the demand for sexual services offering by
victims of trafficking in the conditions of extreme violating of human rights, they are not
considered as a part of a problem. Rather the unstable political, social and economic situation
of postsocialist countries is diagnosed as the reason for trafficking in human beings and as
the reason on which policy prognosis should stay focused; for example with amending
immigration policies (making them more restrictive).6
III. Further questions concerning conceptualization of prostitution
In the conclusion one might put a question to him/herself on what kind of prostitution has
been discussed above. Considering prostitution an implicit concept of a female heterosexual
prostitution occupies our mind as a paradigm of the prostitution. However in realty the
prostitution is a many-sided phenomenon. It is symptomatically that there is on one hand a lot
of representing, talking, keeping a record of, controlling, regulating, surveying etc. of female
6
In media articles on trafficking the representation of Eastern European Countries as extremly poor and
deorganized is being continuously linked with a representation of female victims of trafficking as a young, naive
girls lured to the golden west by false promises.
prostitution and on the other hand there is a complete absence of evidence and knowledge on
male prostitution at least in Slovenia. In everyday knowledge (and also by the opinion of
some expert: a conversation with the president of Ključ Society) a questionable estimation
exists that male prostitution is first of all homosexual. Here again we run into a simplifying
equation: female prostitution vs. male prostitution = heterosexual prostitution vs. homosexual
prostitution. So we are faced with an intersection of prostitution issue and the issue of
different sexual styles, which for one can not come as a suprise in the case of considering
prostitution. However it is astonishing that this intersection is highly gendered and, for a
matter of truth, it is not gendered in favor of men.
Anyway there is still another side of prostitution that is not yet exploited in Slovenia but
should be put forward, namely a female demand for sexual services. In my opinion to exploit
female consumption of sexual offer might causes a considerable influence on shifting the
frames on prostitution
List of analyzed texts
Law of republic of Slovenia on Offences Against Public Order and Peace.
Kanduč, Z., 1998, “Prostitution” in Kanduč, Z., Korošec, D., Bošnjak, M., Sexuality,
Violence and Law, Ljubljana, Institute for Criminology, office for Women’s Policy, p. 52 –
72.
Second Report of the Republic of Slovenia on the Implementation of the Provisions of the
Convention on the Elimination all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),
Ljubljana: Office for Equal Opportunities of women and men, 1999.
Bill Amending the Law on Offences Against Public Order and Peace. Ljubljana, 2001.
Third Report of the Republic of Slovenia on the Implementation of the Provisions of the
Convention on the Elimination all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),
Ljubljana: Office for Equal Opportunities of women and men, 2002.
Second Bill Amending the Law on Offences Against Public Order and Peace. Ljubljana,
2003.
26th Regular Session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia; Item 5 of the
Agenda – the Second and Third Discussion on the Bill Proposing Changes in the Law on
Offences Against Public Order and Peace. Ljubljana, 2003.
Voters Initiative for an Application for a Subsequent Referendum to Confirm the Bill
Proposing Changes in the Law on Offences Against Public Order and Peace. Ljubljana: Civil
Society, 2003
Working Materials for Draft on National Program for Equal Opportunities for Men and
Women Concerning Trafficking in Human Beings, Prostitution and Pornography. Ljubljana:
Office for Equal Opportunities, 2003.
A Presentation of Ključ Society and its Activities (in Witness Project, Ljubljana: Ključ, 2003,
p. 6 - 15).
A Presentation of the Outcomes of the Inter-ministerial Working Group Acting in the Field of
Trafficking in Human Beings. Ljubljana 2003.
Speech of the Ambassador of the European Commission. Ljubljana 2003.
The Agreement between Ključ Society and The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office of
Republic Slovenia on the Cooperation on the Area of the Assurance Assistance to the Victims
of Trafficking in Human Beings in Republic Slovenia. Ljubljana 2003.
The Agreement between Society Ključ and Ministry of Republic Slovenia for Internal Affairs
on the Cooperation on the Area of the Assurance the Help to the Victims of Trafficking in
Human Beings in Republic Slovenia. Ljubljana 2003.
Popov, J., 1999, Shadows of The Red Lights, Ljubljana.
Popov, J., 2001, “Differencies in the Field of Prostitution”, Ljubljana: daily newspaper Delo,
December 20, 2001.
Popov, J., 2002, Trafficking in Human Beings, Ljubljana, Ključ
Vegi, S., Proposal for the Legalization of Prostitution and Regulation of Registration of
Brothels. Ljubljana, 2002
Cotic, M., 2003, “Native Land, Pale Mother” in Primorska srečanja, Magazine for Sociology
and Culture, XXVII, no. 264/5, Nova Gorica, Cultural Society Primorska srečanja, p. 12 –
15.
Modic, M., 2003, “Ugly Sex and Nice Words”, A Sincere Conversation with a Professional
Prostitute Who Knows Well Why Slovenian Men Visit Prostitutes and What They Want the
Most. Ljubljana: Mladina, June 9.
“Delight of the Morning Love”, Ljubljana: in weekly family magazine Jana, June 10, 2003
Witness Project, Ljubljana: Ključ, 2003.