-5- CDL-AD(2011)034 proposal of the competent working body of the Assembly, by a majority vote of all members of the Assembly”. The competent working body of the Assembly was obliged to “undertake consultations with scientific and specialised institutions, organs as well as representatives of the nongovernmental sector dealing with human rights and freedoms issues”. The former law also required informing the public about the initiation of the procedure to propose candidates. In the interests of clarity and foreseeability of the law, the procedure for appointing or electing the Human Rights Protector should have been set out in the law. 19. As regards the eligibility criteria for being appointed Human Rights Protector under Article 8, it is noted that one of the requirements should be 15 years of relevant work experience in the field of human rights, not merely work experience in general, as currently stated in Article 8 (1). The same should apply for eligibility criteria for being appointed Deputy under Article 8 (3). 20. The term of office of the Protector is envisaged in the Constitution (six years). However, neither the Constitution, nor the current Law establishes whether the Protector may be re-elected or not. Interestingly, the Law does provide for the term of office of the deputies of the Protector, specifying that they “may be re-appointed” (Article 10(2)). It should be borne in mind that the possibility of reelection could be seen as detrimental to the Protector’s independence, constituting a great risk that his or her activities might be influenced by considerations of future re-election. 21. The Law contains no indication as to when the procedure for selecting and proposing a new Protector begins. Such a provision is of key importance for ensuring continuity in the running of the office. It is recommended to fill this gap and the procedure for selecting and proposing a new Protector should begin at least six months before the expiry of his or her term of office. Article 11 22. It would have been advisable to amend the text of the oath so as to avoid an interpretation that the Protector should protect human rights in accordance “only” with the domestic law and include also international human rights treaties. Article 12 23. The functional immunity foreseen in this Article (“The Protector cannot be held responsible for the opinion or recommendation s/he provided while exercising his/her duty”) is restrictive in several aspects. First, not only the Protector, but also his or her Deputies as well as his or her staff should enjoy immunity. Second, such immunity should cover not only “opinions or recommendations”, but also other actions (e.g. decisions) of the Protector and his or her deputies in the exercise of their functions. Third, this immunity should also include luggage, correspondence and means of communication of the Protector, Deputies or the staff. Finally, the Law should have specified that the immunity of the Human Rights Protector, his or her deputies and staff shall also apply after the end of the Protector’s or deputies’ mandate or after the members of staff cease their employment with the Protector’s institution but only for acts performed during their time in office. Article 15 24. The grounds for the dismissal of the Human Rights Protector should also be laid down by the Constitution. This not being the case, it is necessary to provide for them in the law in a way which leaves as little discretion to the Parliament as possible. The new Law does not properly regulate the procedure for dismissal of the Protector. Article 15(3) only provides that Parliament should be informed of the reasons for dismissal. This provision is clearly not sufficient given the key