OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro 4.2.2. Procedural Issues 4.2.2.1. Jurisdiction 45. Prior to looking at the procedure before the Human Rights Protector itself, it is important to look at the jurisdiction of the Protector. In order to support the public accountability of the Protector in the draft Law and to specify that he/she has the responsibility to act according to his/her jurisdiction, it is recommended to rename the title of Chapter III to cover not only the Protector’s jurisdiction and powers, but also his/her responsibilities. 46. In this context, it is noted that the jurisdiction of the Protector is limited to investigating individual complaints, participating in law making processes and in certain court or administrative procedures. In addition to such more reactive tasks in the field of individual human rights complaints, it would be beneficial if the Human Rights Protector would also be held to monitor and identify patterns of human rights violations, with a view to influencing government policies and practices to enhance human rights protection. Article 21 par 4 should be expanded to ensure that the Protector may initiate investigations if he/she obtains information that is not related to an individual complaint, but reflects an alleged pattern of potential human rights violations. It is recommended to enhance the Protector’s jurisdiction and responsibilities to this effect. 47. In addition to the general jurisdiction to investigate complaints concerning human rights violations in Article 21 of the draft Law, Article 21 par. 3 stipulates that the Human Rights Protector may investigate violations of human rights and freedoms on his own initiative. This is possible when, based on reliable information, he/she finds out that human rights and freedoms have been violated by an act, action or failure to act of authorities. Paragraph 4 of the same provision states that such action on his/her own initiate requires the consent of the victim or the victim’s legal representative. 48. Clearly, it is not desirable for the Human Rights Protector to act on cases on his/her own initiative if the person whose rights were violated opposes such action. In certain cases, victims of human rights violations may fear reprisals for having complained about a violation. However, it may at times be difficult or inappropriate to obtain such consent, e.g. if the individual concerned has changed address or is otherwise difficult to reach, or if he/she, for personal or emotional reasons, refuses to give such consent. In such cases, potentially serious human rights violations could then not be addressed by the Human Rights Protector due to the absence of the affected person’s consent. In an attempt to balance the interests of the individual and the interests of the public in having serious human rights violations investigated and dealt with, it is recommended to delete the requirement of prior victim’s consent from Article 21 par. 4. To protect the victims of human rights violations in such situations, the Human Rights Protector should be obliged to conceal or suppress the identity of individuals whose rights have been violated (in addition to the general confidentiality obligation imposed by Article 13). 49. If Article 21 par 4 is amended, Article 38 par 2 foreseeing the rejection of a complaint in case of its anonymity should likewise be amended – if reliable information points to the commission of a human rights violation, the Human 16