OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro Human Rights Protector is elected, to ensure that the entire leadership of the office does not change at the same time. 37. Article 16 specifies that in the Protector may designate which deputy may replace him/her in case of absence or impediment to perform office. This raises the question of which deputy should replace the Protector in case the Protector is temporarily, either due to illness or because of an inability to communicate, unable to designate a deputy to replace him/her. It is recommended that the draft Law oblige the Protector to designate a principal deputy who may take over in such unexpected cases. 38. Further, par 2 of Article 16 foresees that in case of termination of office of the Protector, the longest performing Deputy shall perform the office of the Protector until the appointment of a new Protector. In cases where the termination of office is merely due to the expiration of the Protector’s term of office, and in order to maintain continuity in the work of the office, it may be preferable to have the Protector continue to run the office until a new Protector is elected (provided he/she is able to do so).18 Especially in situations where there are delays in appointing a new Protector, this solution would be preferable to a situation where a deputy is obliged to fulfill both his/her own functions and those of the Human Rights Protector for a possibly lengthy period. It is recommended to amend Article 16 accordingly. 4.2.1.3. Immunity 39. Article 12 of the draft Law specifies that the “Protector and Deputy cannot be held responsible for the opinion or recommendation made by the exercise of his office”. This appears to restrict the immunity usually accorded to public officials only to opinions and recommendations, but does not appear to cover other actions such as decisions, nor does it cover luggage, correspondence and other means of communication of the Human Rights Protector or deputies. As far as this is possible within the applicable legal framework in Montenegro, it is recommended to expand the immunity of the Human Rights Protector to ensure that he/she and his/her deputies are exempt from prosecution, arrest, detention and civil and criminal lawsuit for activities and/or decisions that are within the scope of responsibilities of the Human Rights Protector. Such extended immunity should be accompanied by provisions specifying under which conditions such immunity may be waived by the parliament (usually in exceptional cases involving serious crimes). The immunity should also cover luggage, correspondence and all other means of communication. Unless such immunity is also part of the regulations of civil servants and state employees, it is further recommended to expand this immunity to staff of the Human Rights Protector’s Technical Service (staff) under Article 57 of the draft Law.19 18 See the Venice Commission’s Opinion on [the 2009] draft Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, cited in footnote 13, par 16. 19 See the Venice Commission’s Opinion on [the 2009] draft Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, cited in footnote 13, par 29. 14