OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro individuals, not only citizens of Montenegro, may initiate proceedings before the Protector, as laid down in Article 33 of the draft Law. 56. Article 33 par 4 states that an individual may also submit a complaint by proxy, legal representative, representative, as well as through a human rights organization. In order to ensure that these permissible representatives are really acting on behalf of the complainant, it is recommended to expand Article 34 on the complaint with the requirement that representatives shall submit signed authorization letters of the persons whom they are representing before the Human Rights Protector. 57. According to Article 33 par. 6, persons deprived of their liberty shall have the right to file a complaint with the Protector in a sealed envelope. It would greatly strengthen the rights of these persons if they would have the right to seek regular visits of the Protector without constraint.20 These persons’ rights would be further strengthened if the possibilities of communication were expanded to include all other means of communication, such as electronic or telephone communication. It is recommended to enhance Article 33 par 6 accordingly.21 58. While Article 34 states that complainants shall indicate the name of the authority to whose work it refers, it is noted that in some cases, the complainant may not know which authority is responsible for the alleged human rights violation. It is recommended to specify in Article 34 that the authority shall only be named if it is known to the complainant. 59. Once the Protector has assessed that the complaint meets the requirements for taking action, he/she shall notify the complainant and the head of the defending authority (Article 40 par 1). In order to ensure proper administration on the side of the Human Rights Protector, it is recommended to include in Article 40 the requirement that the notification of both parties shall take place without delay.22 60. Articles 41 and 42 specify that all authorities are obliged to cooperate with the Human Rights Protector. In addition to providing comments on human rights complaints, access to files, documents and data, the required cooperation should also include a duty to meet with the Human Rights Protector, his deputies or authorized staff upon request and without delay. 23 Such a duty already exists for the President, President of Parliament, members of the government, and mayors. It would help the Human Rights Protector and his office in their work and enhance his/her position if this duty to meet were expanded to all authorities. 61. It is much welcomed that in cases where a public official was the cause of a human rights violation, the Human Rights Protector may submit to the competent authority the initiative to commence disciplinary proceedings 20 See the Venice Commission’s Opinion on [the 2009] draft Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, cited in footnote 13, par 18. 21 Ibid, par 19. 22 See the Venice Commission’s Opinion on [the 2009] draft Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, cited in footnote 13, par 22. 23 See the Venice Commission’s Opinion on [the 2009] draft Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, cited in footnote 13, par 21. 18