OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro 22. Article 3 of this draft Law speaks of the transparency of the Human Rights Protector’s work, which is ensured through publication of annual and special reports and “in any other manner determined by the Protector”. This last part of Article 3 could lead to the impression that beyond the publication of reports, the Human Rights Protector will determine whether to be transparent (and accountable) regarding certain issues or proceedings or not. Given the Human Rights Protector’s role as an independent but accountable institution, it is paramount that this office be as transparent as possible in all aspects of its work. The only limitation to complete openness and transparency should be the confidentiality of its work and the human rights and safety of persons requesting the Human Rights Protector’s assistance. It is recommended to amend Article 3 to the effect that all work and procedures of the Human Rights Protector shall be transparent and open, except in cases where the human rights of individuals or groups of individuals require otherwise. 23. Also, while Article 6 specifies that all masculine terms used in this law for individuals shall include feminine terms as well, it is noted that this does not reflect a specifically gender-sensitive approach. Given the importance of the Protector and his/her special significance for human rights and equal treatment, it is recommended to refer in each provision to both the masculine and feminine term of a word. 4.2.1.1. Election of the Human Rights Protector 24. Chapter II of the draft Law focuses on the election to and termination of office, including dismissal from office, of the Human Rights Protector and his/her deputies. 25. While the current Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms includes a provision on the election of the Human Rights Protector (Article 8), this has also been removed from the current draft Law. Instead, Article 7 of the draft Law merely states that the Human Rights Protector is proposed and elected in accordance with the Constitution. 26. The Constitution itself describes the Human Rights Protector under Article 81, while the procedure for electing him/her is found in different articles outlining the responsibilities of the parliament and president. Article 95 par 5 states that the President is responsible for proposing a candidate for Human Rights Protector to the parliament, which has the mandate to appoint and dismiss from duty the Human Rights Protector (Article 82 par 14 of the Constitution). Article 91 par 2 stipulates that the Human Rights Protector is elected by the majority of the total number of members of parliament. 27. In this context, it is noted that Article 8 of the current Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms outlines the election of the Protector, which takes place upon proposal of the competent working bodies of the Assembly (Parliament). Prior to proposing a candidate, this competent working body is held to consult with scientific and specialized institutions and organs, as well as with representatives of the non-governmental sector dealing with human rights and freedoms. 11