OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro 27. - the ability to seek an amicable and confidential settlement of the complaint through an alternative dispute resolution process (see also par 39 infra); - the ability for the Human Rights Protector to refer his//her findings to courts of law or specialized tribunals for adjudication in all cases; - the ability to seek enforcement through the court system of its decisions on the resolution of complaints; - the ability to follow up and monitor the implementation of its decisions on the resolution of complaints. Regarding Article 7 of the Draft Law (amending Article 23 of the Human Rights Protector Law), OSCE/ODIHR reiterates that the obligation to receive the Human Rights Protector at his/her request should not be limited to the officials listed in Article 23 of the Law, but should be extended to any state and/or local official. This obligation to meet should also extend to the Protector’s Deputies, advisors and members of the OPCAT working body (see par 29 infra).39 4.2 Competences as a National Preventive Mechanism under the OPCAT 28. It is particularly noteworthy and welcome that the provisions relating to the Protector as a national preventive mechanism under the OPCAT have been substantially amended and supplemented to improve the legislation’s compliance with the OPCAT. Some further improvements, as detailed below, should be considered in order to ensure that the Draft Law is fully in line with the provisions of the OPCAT. 29. A special expert advisory body to assist the Protector in implementing his/her role as the national preventive mechanism was already created by Article 25 par 3 of the current Human Rights Protector Law. In the Draft Law, this body is referred to as the “working group”. It is particularly welcome that in the amended version of Article 25, par 2 now includes representatives of non-governmental organizations as members of such body. A new Article 25a provides for the nomination of all members of the working group to be based “on a public call” with more detailed provisions on composition and selection/engagement to be determined in the Rules of Procedure of the Protector. This is a positive change to the current Law, since this provision expressly provides for a more open selection process. At the same time, the Rules of Procedure will need to ensure that the composition of this body, and selection/engagement process for its members, is transparent and inclusive. The selection and appointment process will need to involve a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society, with due consideration for gender balance and an adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups (as required by Article 18 par 2 of the OPCAT for experts of a national preventive mechanism). 30. Articles 25b and 25c, newly introduced by Article 10 of the Draft Law, generally comply with the requirements of the OPCAT as regards the scope of the mandate of national preventive mechanisms, as the Human Rights Protector, the Deputy, his/her advisors and the working group have the power to monitor facilities where persons are deprived of their liberty, visit such persons without prior notification or approval, and talk to them in the absence of officials or other persons. The Human Rights Protector may also provide recommendations to public authorities, give opinions on relevant laws and regulations, as well as cooperate with the UN Subcommittee on Prevention 39 See par 27 of the 2011 Joint Opinion and par 60 of the 2010 OSCE/ODIHR Comments. 13