OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro - the omission, both in the Constitution and in the Human Rights Protector Law, to expressly state whether the Protector may or may not be re-appointed;16 - the limited personal, material and temporal scope of functional immunity for the Protector and his/her staff (Article 12 of the Human Rights Protector Law);17 - the lack of provisions regulating the procedure for dismissal of the Human Rights Protector (Article 15 of the Human Rights Protector Law);18 and - the content of the reports submitted by the Human Rights Protector to the Parliament (Article 47 of the Human Rights Protector Law).19 17. Also, it is important to highlight that Articles 1 and 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law mention only the “protection” of human rights and freedoms, and not the “promotion and protection”. Other Articles of the Law refer to the “protection and promotion” of human rights20 and substantively provide for human rights promotionrelated activities such as advising on draft legislation, providing opinions, publishing special reports on human rights issues, etc. According to Sections A.1 and A.2 of the Paris Principles, an NHRI should possess “as broad a mandate as possible”, which should include both “the promot[ion] and protect[ion] of human rights”.21 It is therefore recommended to expressly mention the “promotion” of human rights under Articles 1 and 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law and, as appropriate, further detail in the Draft Law which kind of activities this would imply, e.g. by clarifying or considering supplementing22 the provisions of Chapter III of the Human Rights Protector Law on the general competences of the Protector23 (see also pars 38-39 infra). 18. Additionally, it must be noted that Article 27 of the Human Rights Protector Law refers to cases of discrimination also by natural or legal persons, not only by public authorities, and that the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Law extends to both public and private spheres. To ensure coherence and avoid confusion, it is advisable to extend the scope of Article 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law to cover the acts and omissions of both the public and private sectors24 and to include the Human Rights Protector’s ability to receive complaints against both public and private bodies under his/her jurisdiction25 in Chapter V of the Human Rights Protector Law. This would be in line with the revised ICC General Observations (May 2013) and would 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 See par 20 of the 2011 Joint Opinion. See par 23 of the 2011 Joint Opinion. See pars 24-26 of the 2011 Joint Opinion. See par 42 of the 2011 Joint Opinion (obligatory parliamentary debate on the annual work report and its main topics and separate section on the activities of the Human Rights Protector as a National Preventive Mechanism under the OPCAT). Human Rights Protector Law refer respectively to “opinion on the protection and promotion of human rights” on draft laws, regulations or other acts (Article 18), “opinion on the protection and promotion of human rights” at the request of authorities (Article 20) and “general issues of importance for the protection and promotion of human rights and freedoms” (Article 21). See also ICC General Observation 1.2. E.g. by adding, providing that there is sufficient funding and human resources to allow the NHRI to carry-out such activities, education, training, advising, public outreach and advocacy activities (see ICC General Observation 1.2). See Sections 4-6 of the Paris Principles and ICC General Observation 1.2 on the Human Rights Mandate of NHRIs. ICC General Observation 1.2. ICC General Observation 2.10. 9