OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Federal Law on the Support to the National Human Rights Institution of Switzerland and federal levels, to ensure that they are coherent, not overly complex and easily accessible. In particular, the legislator should assess whether existing mechanisms are adequate to deal effectively with individual complaints of human rights violations and ensure effective protection. If not, the legislator may consider including the possibility for the future NHRI to review individual complaints of human rights violations in the Draft Act, or other relevant legislation; in this case, adequate funding should also be allocated for that purpose. 60. In this respect, it is worth mentioning General Observation 2.10, which provides useful guidance as to the powers and functions of an NHRI that has a mandate to receive, consider and/or resolve complaints alleging violations of human rights. In any case, there should be adequate co-ordination between all human rights-related complaintshandling systems in Switzerland. Moreover, information and statistics on all human rights-related complaints should be transmitted to the NHRI as the main human rights protection mechanism in Switzerland, to allow it to gain a comprehensive overview of the human rights situation in the country. 4.3. The NHRI’s Powers to Perform its Mandate 61. General Observation 1.2 requires that an NHRI’s mandate should provide it with the authority to obtain the statements or documents that it needs in order to assess situations raising human rights issues. The Draft Act is silent as to any obligation for legal entities in Switzerland to provide the NHRI with any document or information deemed necessary to perform its mandate.85 62. Moreover, General Observation 1.2 further provides that the NHRI should be granted unannounced and free access to inspect and examine any public premises, documents, equipment and assets without prior written notice, and be authorized to conduct a full investigation into all alleged human rights violations, including those committed by the military, police and security services. Specifically, the NHRI, through its representatives, should be guaranteed free access at any time to all places where individuals deprived of their liberty are or may be detained, without the need for consent from any agency and without prior notification. This is one of the most important safeguards for the effective operation of the NHRI in the areas related to the rights of detainees or prisoners and should be clearly stipulated in underlying legislation. A person deprived of liberty should also have the opportunity to freely communicate either in person or through any other means of communication, without any supervision, with NHRI representatives. At the same time, the work under this aspect of the NHRI’s mandate should be closely coordinated with the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture (see Sub-Section 2.1 supra). All of the above elements should be directly and properly reflected in the text of the Draft Act (or separate act). 63. Moreover, the Draft Act does not foresee specific sanctions that could be imposed on public officials or authorities if they hinder the NHRI in its work. In this context, it may be beneficial to discuss further ways of strengthening the NHRI’s mandate to compel 85 See e.g., Section 6 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act of Finland (197/2002), <http://www.legislationline.org/topics/country/32/topic/82>, which states that “[t]he Ombudsman has the right to executive assistance free of charge from the authorities as he or she deems necessary, as well as the right to obtain the required copies or printouts of the documents and files of the authorities and other subjects”. 20