OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter “the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture”). At the same time, the new Articles may benefit from certain improvements, which are detailed below. 31. As mentioned in the 2011 Joint Opinion,40 it would be important to specify that the Human Rights Protector has the power to carry out regular visits to all places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty; Articles 25b (first indent) and 25c (first indent) could be supplemented accordingly.41 Such regular visits are essential for the Protector to fulfil the strategic preventive role that OPCAT envisages for national preventive mechanisms. 32. Article 25b (second indent) provides for the powers to issue recommendations to the authorities. In order to fully correspond to the requirements of the OPCAT, such provision could further ensure that the authorities and the Human Rights Protector will thereupon enter into a dialogue on proper implementation measures as foreseen in Article 22 of the OPCAT (see par 44 infra). 33. The last paragraph of Article 25b defines “persons deprived of their liberty” as “persons under any kind of retention, detention, imprisonment or placement under supervision of an authority, who cannot abandon such place at their own will.” Article 4 par 2 of the OPCAT defines the deprivation of liberty as “any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority”. Such definition may encompass a wide variety of facilities, such as police stations, prisons, pre-trial detention centres, hospitals or psychiatric institutions, airports, migrants holding facilities, centres for juveniles, military barracks, etc., either public or private. The definition used in Article 25b appears to be more limited and unclear, e.g. it does not expressly cover both public and private custodial setting and the wording “placement under the supervision of an authority” is not defined. Unless this is merely a result of faulty translation, the definition of “persons deprived of liberty” in the last paragraph of Article 25b should be amended to reflect the wording of Article 4 par 2 of the OPCAT. 34. It is welcome that the new Article 25c broadens the powers of the Human Rights Protector as a national preventive mechanism in terms of access to information and monitoring of places where persons are deprived of their liberty. However, in order to fully comply with Article 20 of the OPCAT, the new Article 25c should be amended as follows: 40 41 - the access to information on the number of persons deprived of their liberty should not be limited to the places which are being visited (as currently stated in Article 25c (third indent), but should cover any places of deprivation of liberty, even those not actually being visited; - Article 25c (third indent) should also include access to information concerning the “number of places of detention and their location”; - Article 25c (fourth indent) should not only include information about the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, but also about the “conditions of detention” of such persons; and See par 29 of the 2011 Joint Opinion. See Article 1 of the OPCAT: “The objective of the present Protocol is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 14