OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen access to the Ombudsmen, meaning that any communication with an Ombudsman shall be permissible at any time and shall be free from any census or monitoring. This could, e.g., be ensured by establishing hotlines or special Ombudsmen mailboxes in prisons or detention areas, which are regularly checked by Ombudsmen staff. 57. Article 19 par 1 (11) states that an Ombudsman may propose to the Seimas to apply to the Constitutional Court regarding the conformity of legal acts with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Lithuania. Presumably, this right is limited to legislation dealing with or impacting on individuals’ rights and freedoms. In order to strengthen the role of the Ombudsmen (and avoid unnecessary administrative steps), the Ombudsmen should have the right to approach the Constitutional Court directly. 58. An Ombudsman may also approach the competent prosecutor and recommend to him/her to apply to court proceedings according to the procedure prescribed by the law for the protection of public interest (Article 19 par 1 (16)). The meaning of this provision is not clear – surely, the Ombudsman is obliged to inform about any kind of potentially criminal behavior? Article 19 does not specify the nature of the procedure for the protection of public interest, nor does it clarify which law regulates this procedure. This aspect of Article 19 is recommended to be amended. 59. In addition to the above rights, it would be advisable to include in Article 19 or in other relevant provisions the right of an Ombudsman to lodge cassation appeals against final judgments in court cases, and the right to appear as third party in the context of international human rights mechanisms. 60. Article 20 specifies that all officials have the obligation to cooperate with requests of the Ombudsman. Under par 4 of this provision, persons interfering with the performance of an Ombudsman’s duties shall be held liable under the law. This raises several questions, namely, which actions would fit this description, and what type of liability such actions would lead to. In order to ensure clarity and foreseeability of this Law, it is recommended to outline these matters under Article 20. 61. According to Article 21, an Ombudsman shall investigate the circumstances specified in a complaint and then draw up a statement revealing the circumstances disclosed, the evidence collected and a legal evaluation of an official’s activities. This statement shall be presented to the complainant and may also be submitted to the head of the respondent institution or agency, or the official whose actions were subjected to an investigation. 62. The nature of the statement mentioned under Article 21 is unclear. In particular, it is not apparent whether this statement and the decision on a case under Article 22 are separate documents or whether they are one and the same thing. This is proposed to be clarified – ideally, the summary of the facts of the case, the evidence collected and the evaluation of the case should all be part of an Ombudsman’s final decision on a case once investigations have been completed. The finality of an Ombudsman’s decisions should be stated in the Law. 63. Article 22 par 2 states that the period of complaint investigation shall be excluded from the limitation period which laws allow for the imposition of a disciplinary penalty. The meaning of this provision is not clear and should be made more explicit in this provision. 17