OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen Ombudsmen also investigate complaints of complainants referred to them by members of the Seimas, if they are in conformity with the requirements of this Law (Article 13 par 2). As proceedings before Ombudspersons are normally free of charge, it is unclear why these complainants would not approach the Ombudsmen directly, rather than submit complaints via members of the Seimas. In case this would lead to special or priority treatment, it would run counter to the principle of fairness and impartiality under Article 4 par 5. It is thus recommended to delete Article 13 par 2. In case members of the Seimas hear about potential human rights abuses, they should tell the respective individuals to address their complaints directly to the Ombudsman, or inform the competent Ombudsman, who will then under Article 13 par 3 decide on whether to initiate proceedings ex officio. 52. According to Article 15, complaints shall be filed within one year from the commission of the disputed act or decision. It is recommended that Article 15 should specify that this limitation period does not apply to cases of ongoing human rights violations. 53. Under certain formal admissibility conditions listed in Article 17, the Ombudsmen may refuse to investigate a complaint within 7 working days. It is noted that this time limit is quite short – it may not always be possible to assess a case adequately within this timeframe, in particular if the substance of a complaint is complex or if a decision depends on information that needs to be received from other bodies. It is thus recommended to extend this time limit to at least 14 days or even 30 days. Article 17 should also allow the competent Ombudsman to extend this time limit where necessary, an option which is also foreseen in Article 18 regulating the time limit in which to investigate a complaint. As in Article 18, Article 17 should also oblige the Ombudsman to inform the complainant about a delay in admissibility proceedings. 54. Article 19 is titled “[r]ights of the Seimas Ombudsman”, but appears to focus on a wider variety of issues ranging from an Ombudsman’s rights during investigations to his/her general mandate of monitoring legislation, to possible actions to take once a violation or abuse of power has been determined. While par 1 (1), (3)- (6) focuses mainly on the rights of the Ombudsmen while investigating a complaint, other parts of par 1 appear to combine investigative rights with more general aspects of the Ombudsmen’s mandate, or with actions to be taken once investigations have been completed. For the sake of clarity, it is recommended to differentiate properly with regard to the Ombudsmen’s general competences, rights during investigations, and actions that they may take once investigations have been completed, preferably by regulating all three matters in separate provisions. 55. Under Article 19 par 1 (1), the Seimas Ombudsman may ask for information, material and documents required to fulfill his/her functions and may obtain access to state, professional, commercial or bank secrets “in the manner prescribed by laws”. While Article 19 does not specify which laws it is referring to, these presumably relate to data protection and access to information. Generally, in order to conduct his/her investigations properly, an Ombudsman should have unlimited access to all relevant documents, including those of a confidential nature, if he/she deems this necessary to adequately assess a case. 56. According to par 1 (2) of Article 19, an Ombudsman shall meet with persons detained or imprisoned in state facilities in an unrestricted manner. The Law should also specify that these meetings shall take place in the absence of detention centre/prison personnel. Further, all detainees or prisoners in Lithuania should have unlimited 16