OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro 39. To further enhance consistency of both laws, it is recommended to further supplement Chapter III of the Human Rights Protector Law by also including certain competences which are stated in the Anti-Discrimination Law but which are not currently mentioned in the Human Rights Protector Law (see also par 26 supra). This could include e.g. the possibility to conduct conciliation proceedings (see par 26 supra), to initiate court proceedings or appear as an intervening third party (see par 37 supra and Article 21 par 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Law), to collect and analyze data/statistics, public information and awareness-raising on human rights issues.43 In case these additional competences are not mentioned specifically under Chapter III of the Human Rights Protector Law, then Article 11 of the Draft Law (amending Article 27 of the Human Rights Protector Law) should at least contain specific references to the additional competences of the Human Rights Protector laid down in the AntiDiscrimination Law. 40. Additionally, given that paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 27 of the Human Rights Protector Law will be deleted (as per Article 11 of the Draft Law), meaning that the current par 2 will become the new par 1, other articles of the Human Rights Protector Law which currently refer to Article 27, such as Article 22 of the Human Rights Protector Law, should be adapted accordingly. 5. The Complaints-Handling Procedure (Articles 12 to 17 of the Draft Law) 41. Article 30 of the Human Rights Protector Law (as amended by Article 12 of the Draft Law) provides that “the complaint may be filed by anyone who believes that his/her rights and freedoms are violated”. While the Human Rights Protector Law provides the possibility of the complaint being filed by a Member of Parliament or human rights organizations, it does not specify that an individual may also submit a complaint by proxy or representative acting on his/her behalf (see par 26 supra). It would be recommended to supplement Article 12 of the Draft Law (amending Article 30 of the Human Rights Protector Law) to allow for this. 42. It is welcome that Article 14 of the Draft Law (amending Article 36 of the Human Rights Protector Law) clarifies the powers of the Human Rights Protector to compel public authorities to produce documents and information and grant access to premises, thus distinguishing between the general competences of the Protector and his/her competences as a national preventive mechanism under the OPCAT. Should the scope of competences of the Protector be extended to cover private entities, Article 36 of the Human Rights Protector Law would also need to address such situations. 43. Under Article 37 of the Human Rights Protector Law, the Protector “can notify the immediate superior authority or the Parliament or inform the public” in cases where a public authority fails to comply with his/her requests; this is considered an “obstruction” of the work of the Protector. In this context, it may be beneficial to discuss further ways of strengthening the Protector’s mandate to compel authorities to respond to his/her recommendations or to provide requested information.44 While Article 44 of the Human Rights Protector Law refers to disciplinary or dismissal procedures, as well as misdemeanour proceedings, this covers situations where the act 43 44 See Article 21 of the Anti-Discrimination Law as amended by the Draft Amendments to the AntiDiscrimination Law. See the UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with NHRIs, Section 7.6.8 on Capacity to Obtain Information and Documents, page 149, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NHRI/1950UNDP-UHCHR-Toolkit-LR.pdf. 16