-7- CDL-AD(2011)034 30. Article 25 of the new Law merely stipulates that the Human Rights Protector “shall be the National Mechanism for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. 31. From a technical point of view, it would have been advisable to start the chapter devoted to the powers of the Protector as a national mechanism for the prevention of torture with the above mentioned general provision. It is a good improvement that the text uses the OPCAT terminology, but it is regrettable that the rest of the article has been deleted in the new Law. 32. More generally, the former Law referred to the establishment of a specialised group that could assist the Human Rights Protector in his or her function as an NPM. Although the relevant entitlements and responsibilities, as well as the eligibility criteria for the NPM membership were missing, the Article 25 in the new Law does not contain any type of reference concerning the responsibilities of the Protector as the NPM as stipulated in the OPCAT. Article 27 33. This Article states that the Human Rights Protector “shall be the national mechanism for protection from discrimination”. In fact, the Protector was designated as an anti-discrimination body under another Act, namely the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination adopted on 29 July 2010. Chapter III of that Law provides for specific powers of the Human Rights Protector in the field of combating discrimination. In addition to them, the present Law stipulates a very important provision that extends the enforcement powers of the Protector to private persons3. 34. However, the Law does not sufficiently set out the competences of the Human Rights Protector as an anti-discrimination mechanism and it even does not make any reference to the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, in which those competences are foreseen. 35. Concerning the specialisation within the Ombudsman institution, the Venice Commission has stated previously that when the Ombudsman is “in a stage of consolidation and development”, it is possible ”to organise the functions for the specialised ombudsperson within the overall institution of the national Ombudsman, by way of establishing a special department and/or appointing a deputy ombudsman for the special field” (CDL-AD(2007)020, Opinion on the possible reform of the Ombudsman institution in Kazakhstan, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 71st Plenary session, June 2007). Although “the alternative of appointing regional or local ombudspersons who are not subordinated to the national Ombudsman is preferred in many countries and has its advantages of its own” (ibidem, para. 29), the size and population of the country can also be taken into consideration to establish the specialised departments under the monitoring of the national Ombudsperson. Concerning the Human Rights Protector in Montenegro, the Venice Commission stated in 2009 that the specialisation of the deputies (on people deprived of liberty, people belonging to minorities, the rights of the child, gender equality, disabled and discrimination) “is welcome because it allows the deputies to deal efficiently with the issues attributed to them whereas the general mandate of the Protector provides for coherence between these specialised areas” (CDL-AD(2009)043, para. 14). 36. In the opinion concerning the Draft Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of Montenegro, the Venice Commission further stated that “whereas the creation of a specialised body is considered as the best solution, transferring the same competences to an already existing institution, which 3 Introduction of such a provision has been strongly recommended by the Venice Commission in its Opinion on the draft Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination adopted in October 2009 (see CDL-AD(2009)045, § 42).