OSCE/ODIHR Final Opinion on the Draft Act Amending the Act on the Commissioner for Human Rights of Poland drafted in general and vague terms. Hence, a number of actions could potentially be interpreted to fall under Article 7 par 2, which may in practice not be grave enough to justify a removal from office. It is thus doubtful whether the violation of an oath fulfils the requirements of legal certainty and foreseeability, which would apply in cases leading to such removal. Moreover, the mere lifting of immunity should not be used as a ground for removal for breach of oath as long as a final judgment has not been rendered on the alleged offence (which is, for example, necessary prior to removal from office for making untrue lustration statements). The removal from office without such a court decision could violate the principle of presumption of innocence, as protected by Article 14 par 2 of the ICCPR and Article 6 par 2 of the ECHR. 5. Final Comments 66. The following comments are in addition to the above-mentioned key recommendations. In light of recent recommendations made to Poland by international and regional human rights monitoring bodies,83 OSCE/ODIHR would like to reiterate that it is essential for the independence of the Office of the Commissioner that sufficient funding is provided to allow this Office to have the human, financial, material and technical capacity to guarantee the proper implementation of the Act on the Commissioner for Human Rights, and to ensure the fulfilment of its mandate as the OPCAT national preventive mechanism and equality body. 67. Finally, it is worth recalling that OSCE commitments require legislation to be adopted “as the result of an open process reflecting the will of the people, either directly or through their elected representatives” (Moscow Document of 1991, par 18.1).84 Particularly legislation that may have an impact on human rights and fundamental freedoms, as is the case here, should undergo extensive consultation processes, including with the general public, to ensure that the Commissioner and the people are fully informed and able to submit their views prior to the adoption of the Draft Act. Public discussion and an open and inclusive debate will increase all stakeholders’ understanding of the various factors involved and enhance confidence and trust in the adopted legislation, and in the institutions in general. [END OF TEXT] 83 84 See Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Republic of Poland (14 November 2014), pars 14-15, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW/C/POL/CO/7-8&Lang=En, where the Committee recommends to Poland to “[p]rovide the Office of the Human Rights Defender with sufficient financial and human resources so as to enable it to fully implement its mandate to protect women’s rights and promote gender equality, in compliance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) (General Assembly resolution 48/134, annex)”; Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the Republic of Poland (19 March 2014), par 9, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD/C/POL/CO/20-21&Lang=En; Concluding Observations of the UN Committee against Torture on the Republic of Poland (23 December 2013), par 16, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT/C/POL/CO/5-6&Lang=En. See also op. cit. footnote 7, page 24 (Report and Recommendations of the Session of the SCA (November 2012)). Available at http://www.osce.org/fr/odihr/elections/14310. 21