OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen 17. While it is possible that this structure works well in practice, it does raise certain questions. The necessity of having two Ombudsmen with separate fields of work – state and municipal – remains unclear. Especially in the case of Ombudsmen, which are very “personalized” institutions (as opposed to “de-personalized” councils or commissions), it would appear that one Ombudsman, with one or more deputies, would have a much stronger societal and political position than two Ombudsmen. Cases may arise in which it is not clear whether they are of a municipal or of a central nature – this could cause confusion and possibly overlapping actions, which would, in the end, weaken the positions of both Ombudsmen. Additionally, this could well lead to a situation where certain human rights issues are not addressed properly or where specific cases are overlooked due to overlapping competences or unclarities of whom to approach. 18. On a practical note, it is also questionable whether one Ombudsman is actually able to adequately replace the other in times of absence, given his/her lack of experience with regard to the other Ombudsman’s portfolio, whether dealing with state, or municipal matters. Also, it is noted that neither Ombudsman has a deputy to assist him/her in the normal course of events, which may lead to bottlenecks in their daily work. The structure of the Ombudsmen Office as it stands today would benefit from certain discussions on this structural matter. In order to strengthen the position of an Ombuds Office, facilitate work flows and avoid bottlenecks, but particularly in order to ensure an all-encompassing and strong human rights protection mechanism, it is recommended to consider changing this structure so that there is only one Ombudsman responsible for all cases, assisted by one or more deputies. 19. Further, it would appear that the mandates of the current Ombudsmen are very much focused on preventing maladministration and abuse of power of the executive rather than on protecting and promoting human rights of individuals. The Paris Principles stress that NHRIs shall be vested with the competence to “promote and protect human rights” and shall be given “as broad a mandate as possible”.16 In order to ensure a wide scope of activities and compliance with the Paris Principles, it is recommended to restructure and amend the Law so that the mandate of the Ombudsman/men explicitly covers the promotion and protection of human rights. Such a mandate should include, e.g., advising the government, parliament and other relevant bodies on legislation and policies with a human rights implication, undertaking awarenessraising activities (focused in particular on human rights education), monitoring/identifying patterns of human rights violations, handling complaints and mediation (briefly mentioned in Article 22 par 3 of the Law, but currently listed as a core activity of the Ombudsmen). 20. Furthermore, the Ombudsmen’s mandate should also include advocating for the ratification of international human rights instruments and advising the state on the implementation of such instruments. It is therefore recommended that Article 1 on the purpose of the Law be amended to include the promotion and protection of human rights as the main tenant of the mandate of the Ombudsmen. 21. The Law should also specifically include a reference to the obligation of the Ombudsmen to engage closely with civil society when fulfilling their mandates, as well as with regional and international human rights mechanisms. 16 See the Paris Principles, Competence and responsibilities, pars 1 and 2, op cit. note 2. 9