OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 72. The Draft Amendments requires that the Executive Director has completed second degree university education (Masters level) and fulfils requirements for appointment to membership in the Board under § 3a (4) of the Draft Amendments. As well as being of unimpeachable integrity and at least five years activity in human rights or nondiscrimination (per §3(4)). The above comments on the subject of on ‘unimpeachable integrity’ in relation to Board Members are also valid here (see par 61 supra). 73. Pursuant to § 3 (b) (6) of the Draft Amendments, the Executive Director may be terminated upon conviction of a crime, as well as pursuant to the grounds set out in § 3 (b) (7).99 According to § 3 aa (4) of the Draft Amendments, the procedure for recalling of the executive director shall be governed by the rules of procedure of the Board, which the Board prepares and adopts (§ 3 aa (1) (g) of the same). 74. The removal provisions at present are unlikely to meet the requirements of the Paris Principles. The SCA’s dismissal requirements in relation to Board Members (see above) can be considered as applicable to the head of the NHRI also, with the SCA using the term ‘senior leadership’ of the NHRI in relation to selection and appointment, and dismissal, thus including the senior executive leadership. The process for dismissal should be set out in the enabling law.100 In particular, the four provisions noted above appear to be insufficiently precise and open to potential misuse. § 3b (7) (a) and (b) of the Draft Amendments are open to broad interpretation. These vague provisions, coupled with a lack of clarity on the procedure for recalling the Executive Director, which shall be governed by the rules of procedure of the Board, means that this section is potentially problematic and does not provide the required security of tenure. The presence of stricter voting requirements by the Board introduced in the December amendment does not rectify this issue. § 3b (7) of the Draft Amendments should be changed to set out the procedure by which the Executive Director can be recalled, or at a minimum the principles governing such procedure. The grounds for recall by the Board should be clearly defined and confined - § 3b (7) (a) and (b) of the same, require reconsideration here. A process of appeal of a decision under this section to another independent body should be included to improve the guarantees of a stable mandate for the Executive Director. 75. While a transparent and open process is welcome, several aspects of the appointment procedure contained in the Draft Amdments, are unusual for the appointment of a public official to an executive position: that the interview is public § 3bb (1), that ‘anyone can raise justified reservations against applicants’ § 3ba (7), and that the scoring sheets of members of the selection committee shall be published on the website § 3ba (7). As regards § 3 ba (7), it is not clear what the result of a ‘reservation’ will be, and who can make such reservations. The Explanatory Report indicates that the committee is required to request a statement of the applicant regarding the reservation. This provision is unclear could negatively impact the fairness of the procedure and disproportionately 99 1. The grounds include: - For ‘serious’ violation of duties - Where the Executive Director ‘hurts [the] good name or interests of the Centre by his/her statements or conduct’ - For reasons of health where health condition ‘does not permit due performance of duties’ for at least 6 months. - Failure to fulfil the obligation under 3(b)(4) regarding conflict of interests due to other functions or because the director ‘started to conduct a function or activities incompatible with the function’ of director. he/she no longer meets compatibility requirements under para. 3(8) 100 SCA Report, Norway, March 2017, p. 15. 24