OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen 36. When amending the Law, it would therefore be advisable to make the selection and appointment procedure more transparent, inclusive and pluralistic, by involving the above-mentioned groups in the selection procedure.19 Throughout the process, the relevant stakeholders should ensure that a proper gender and societal (including ethnic) balance is reached between the candidates reflecting the diversity of society. At the end of the selection procedure, the Seimas should not appoint one candidate, but rather elect an Ombudsman/Ombudsmen from a shortlist of 2-4 candidates. 37. The Law is also recommended to specify whether the Seimas shall elect the Ombudsmen by simple or qualified majority. In order to ensure that each Ombudsman is backed by an adequate majority of Seimas members, and not only the governing coalition, it would be advisable to have the Ombudsmen elected by a qualified majority of elected parliamentarians, preferably a 2/3 majority. Such a majority (including members of parliament from opposition parties), would provide the Ombudsmen’s positions with greater stability and independence from the Government. 38. Article 9 of the Law focuses on the “expiry of powers” of the Ombudsmen. Presumably, this refers to the termination of office. According to Article 9 par 1, the powers of the Ombudsman shall terminate upon “expiry of the Ombudsman’s powers” (presumably the end of the regular term of office), an Ombudsman’s resignation or death, in specific cases of absence, when an Ombudsman is convicted of a crime, or has been given a no-confidence vote by over half of the Seimas members. 39. According to Article 9 par 1 (4), the powers of an Ombudsman shall terminate where he/she has been absent from work due to temporary incapacity for more than 120 calendar days in succession or for more than 140 calendar days during the last twelve months, unless the law establishes that he/she shall retain his/her office for a longer period due to a certain illness, or when he/she is incapable or performing his/her duties, as established in the opinion of a medical commission/commission on disability. 40. This provision, while extremely detailed, also appears to contain a number of ambiguities. Absence due to temporary incapacity for approximately 4 months at a stretch, or for more than 140 days in one year, appears to automatically lead to the termination of office, unless the Law establishes that “due to a certain illness”, the Ombudsman shall retain his/her office for a longer period. Overall, it is not clear why an Ombudsman shall lose his/her office in cases where the incapacity to fulfill his/her work is only temporary. This also does not appear to be consistent with the wording of Article 9 par 3, which states that the Seimas shall terminate the powers of an Ombudsman only upon receipt of a finding of a commission of doctors established by the Health Minister. Also, it is not clear which law would allow an Ombudsman to retain his/her office “due to certain illness”, and which illnesses would permit him/her to stay in office and which would not. This part of par 4 should be amended and made clearer, to ensure stability and independence of the office, and of human rights protection in general. 19 One way to ensure a pluralist and inclusive recruitment procedure could be to initiate the procedure by issuing a general vacancy notice. This would ensure that all parts of society are aware of the process and may participate in it, and could enhance legitimacy and credibility of the institution in the eyes of the general public. 13