OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen 22. As mentioned under par 18 supra, having one Ombudsman instead of two would ensure the proper organization and handling of all of these aspects of the mandate, avoid duplication of tasks and strengthen human rights protection throughout Lithuania. However, given the structural and considerable changes that all of the above would encompass, it may well be preferable to draft a new Law on the Ombudsman, instead of attempting to revise the existing Law. 23. Moreover, the Law’s explicit focus on individual maladministration by government officials does not take into account the fact that at times, the practices and overall procedures of certain public institutions as a whole, may be in violation of human rights. In such cases, it is neither appropriate, nor possible to single out the behaviour of individuals but rather, institutional questions should be addressed as well. 24. Further, an Ombudsman should be able to investigate serious systemic and structural human rights problems on his/her own as he/she becomes aware of them, and not only in case of individual complaints. To focus only on individual complaints could also mean that serious human rights violations are not tackled, especially in cases involving vulnerable groups, which often do not approach NHRIs to complain of human rights abuses. This is often due to a lack of proper access to or knowledge of the NHRIs and their work, or simple mistrust towards the NHRI as a public institution. Especially in such cases, it is very relevant that an Ombudsman has the possibility to review systematic and structural human rights issues per se, regardless of whether they are linked to individual cases/complaints or not. 25. Additionally, the Ombudsmen appear to be strongly linked to the Seimas, as their recruitment and appointment procedures are very Seimas-driven (see also pars 34-37 infra), they receive complaints from the Seimas (see also par 51 infra) and the Seimas appears to be the only body that determines the maximum number of staff of the Ombudsmen’s Office (see par 71 infra). This is in contrast with the Ombuds Institutions that have been established and operate in other OSCE participating States, which are sui generis institutions independent from the executive, legislative and judicative.17 Such strong links could potentially compromise the Ombudsman’s independence, as certain actions of the Ombudsman may have an influence on the work of the Seimas, e.g. in cases where there are attempts to change or initiate a law. The Law also does not explicitly establish the Ombudsmen as an independent institution, but only mentions the Office’s budgetary independence under Article 24. In order to emphasise the independence of the Ombudsmen and their Office, it is recommended to include, at the very beginning of the Law, a clear reference to such independence (see par 66 infra concerning financial independence). 17 As an example, see Article 2 of the Albanian Law on the People’s Advocate, no. 8454, adopted on 4 February 1999, last amended in 2005, which states that the People’s Advocate shall “safeguard the rights, freedoms and lawful interests of individuals from unlawful or improper actions or failures to act of the organs of public administration or third parties acting on their behalf” and that he/she shall be guided by the principles of, inter alia, impartiality and independence. See also Article 1 of the Portuguese Statute of the Ombudsman, Law no. 9/91, of 9 April 1991, last amended in 2005 (“(1) In accordance with the Constitution, the Ombudsman is a State body elected by Parliament whose main duties shall be to defend and to promote the rights, freedoms, guarantees and legitimate interests of the citizens, ensuring, through informal means, that public authorities act fairly and in compliance with the law. (2) The Ombudsman shall have complete independence in the performance of his duties.”), and Article 2 of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, adopted on 21 March 2003, last amended in 2010 (“The Human Rights Defender is an independent and unaltered official who, guided by the fundamental principles of lawfulness, social co-existence and social justice, protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms violated by the state and local self-governing bodies or their officials”). 10