OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro against the official in question, or procedure for dismissal (Article 49 of the draft Law). He/she may also submit a request for the initiation of misdemeanor procedures for violations of human rights or of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. 62. In this context, it is worthwhile to review Article 60, which stipulates that fines may also be imposed on responsible officials of public authorities in case the authority in question did not comply with a request of the Protector within a prescribed deadline or if a person fails to appear as witness or expert upon request of the Protector under Article 45. Imposing fines on a responsible person within an authority for a failure to cooperate would appear to be a disproportionate measure if this sanction were not preceded by a proper administrative or disciplinary procedure. Article 60 should also specify which body is competent to impose sanctions - it would be preferable if the competent administrative, disciplinary or court authority would have this competence, following a proper procedure. It is thus recommended to indicate in Article 60 which type of procedure would precede the imposition of fines and which body would be competent to do so. 63. Article 44 provides reasons for which the Protector may suspend the investigation. In this provision, the lawmakers should differentiate between individual complaints and cases indicating that there may be a pattern of human rights violations. In the latter case, cases discontinued should still be analyzed for their possible relevance for the finding and statistical evaluation of such patterns. It is recommended to include this exception in the wording of Article 44. 64. After completion of the investigation procedure, Article 46 provides that the Protector shall give a final opinion on the matter, without however, specifying who or which body shall be the recipient of this opinion (Article 46). Presumably, the opinion will be sent to the complainant and the respondent public authority. At the same time, it would be advisable to also have it sent to the competent government ministry, and in certain cases to the parliament, and any other stakeholders who could have an interest in the case. 65. It is thus recommended to include in Article 46 the recipients of the opinion, as well as the requirement that as far as possible, and without violating the confidentiality requirement under Article 13, such opinions should be public. This is necessary both as a measure of enhancing the office’s transparency, and also as a manner of raising awareness among the public of the office and human rights protection in general. 4.2.3. Other Issues 66. According to Article 50 of the draft Law, the Human Rights Protector shall submit the annual work report to the Parliament. This report should, next to statistical evidence of the work of the Protector and recommendations on human rights issues, also include information on the results of interventions of the Protector and achievements in this context. It is recommended to enhance Article 50 accordingly. 19