OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen active participation and membership in a political party are not mentioned therein. In order to ensure an Ombudsman’s neutrality, this should also be included in the list of incompatible activities under Article 10. Should the Ombudsman have belonged to any party prior to appointment, then he/she should suspend his/her party membership for the duration of his/her term of office, to ensure that the office is perceived as being objectively independent. 47. According to Article 11 of the Law, the Seimas Ombudsmen shall submit an annual report to the Seimas by the 15th of March for the preceding calendar year, which the Seimas shall consider. This report shall be published on the homepage of the Seimas Ombudsmen. The Seimas’ obligation under Article 11 to “consider” the annual report would benefit from clarification and enhancement. In order to strengthen the position of the Ombudsmen and ensure follow up to the annual report, it is recommended to include in Article 11 an obligation for the Seimas to hold a special session at which it discusses the Ombudsmen’s annual report.21 This session should be held shortly after the Seimas receives the Annual Report, ideally within a month of receipt of this report. 5. Complaints Procedure before the Ombudsmen 48. Chapter III of the Law describes the acceptance and investigation of complaints. Article 12 specifies which complaints lie within the jurisdiction of the Seimas Ombudsman. According to Article 12 par 2, the activities of the President of the Republic, of members of the Seimas, of the Prime Minister, the Government (as a collegial institution), the State Controller and judges, municipal councils (as collegial institutions) are not covered by the Ombudsman’s investigatory mandate. This limits the Ombudsmen’s investigatory powers, without explaining why such limitation would be necessary or even desired. It would rather appear that the Ombudsmen should have wide powers to review all cases of potential human rights abuses and abuses of power. This could even include the behaviour of judges in cases involving fairness of proceedings, impartiality and independence of judges, and access to court (including the execution of judgments). Article 12 par 3 differentiates in a similar way with regard to the Ombudsmen’s mandate to investigate prosecutors; it is recommended to adopt the same approach with regard to judges. 49. Article 12 par 4 states that the Ombudsmen shall not investigate complaints arising from labour legal relations. This should, however, only apply to private labour relationships, not to labour relations between the State and civil servants. Article 12 par 4 should differentiate accordingly between the two. 50. The filing of complaints is regulated under Article 13, which also allows an Ombudsman to open investigations ex officio if he receives verbal complaints, or learns of potential abuse of power or human rights violations from other sources (par 3). Since ex officio investigations do not involve the filing of complaints, this type of investigation procedure should be regulated in a separate provision, not in Article 13. 51. Under Article 13 par 1, “complainants”, namely natural or legal persons filing a complaint with the Ombudsmen’s office, have the right to file a complaint. The 21 Such sessions are obligatory according to, e.g., Article 36 of the Ombudsman Law of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (op. cit. note 20), and Article 44 of the Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsman Law, (op cit. note 15). 15