OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights non-discrimination’. While a welcome inclusion in relation to the SNCHR’s nondiscrimination mandate, the language as well as the Explanatory Report, suggest that an investigative function for its human rights mandate is excluded. As noted above, the SCA has previously advised that the NHRI have the power to investigate complaints of human rights violations. It is not clear why this power of the Centre is limited only to the area of non-discrimination. It is recommended to modify § 1 (3) (a) of the Draft Amendments, to ensure that the Centre’s investigative functions are not limited to the area of non-discrimination. Alternatively, an explicit investigative function covering the Centre’s human rights mandate should be included in the list of functions in §1(2). 31. Moreover, the lawmakers could envisage the inclusion of amicus curiae briefs within the mandate of the SNCHR. A clear legal framework in the law in this context should enable the SNCHR to have proper access to files and other documents related to the case prior to submitting amicus curiae briefs and obliging the Supreme or Constitutional Court to deal with the SNCHR’s arguments and to respond to them in the written reasoning of the decision. It is worth considering also the right of the SNCHR to appear as an independent third party also in the context of international human rights mechanisms that provide for such, especially the ECtHR37. 32. As part of its protection mandate, the SNCHR – through its representatives – should be guaranteed by law 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. A detained person should have the opportunity to freely communicate, without any supervision, with representatives of the SNCHR. The law should clearly state that this is not limited to conversations, but that it also covers all other means of communication. 33. It is reiterated that according to sections A.1 and A.2 of the Paris Principles, an NHRI should possess “as broad a mandate as possible”. General Observation 1.2 of the SCA, requires that an NHRI mandate shall extend to acts and omissions of both the public and private sectors.38 § 1 (2) of the Draft Amendments, should explicitly state that human rights violations allegedly carried out by private persons and entities are covered by the SNCHR’s mandate. 3.4 Annual Report 34. §1 (9) of the Draft Amendments, concerning the annual report of the SNCHR would benefit from additional clarity as to whom the Centre’s annual report is submitted. This is strongly recommended to be to the parliament, rather than a government ministry. Indeed, it seems from the Explanatory Report that this is the intention of this section. However, this should be stated explicitly in the section of the Draft Amendments. Furthermore, the parliament should consider and debate the annual report. SCA General Observation 1.11 emphasises the importance of preparing and publicising annual reports that include opinions, recommendations and 37 Article 36 ECHR “An NHRI’s mandate should be interpreted in a broad, liberal and purposive manner to promote a progressive definition of human rights which includes all rights set out in international, regional and domestic instruments, including economic, social and cultural rights. Specifically, the mandate should:- extend to the acts and omissions of both the public and private sectors.” 38 11