OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro 82. The above rights do not completely reflect the powers granted to the national preventive mechanism by the OPCAT, since the regularity of the visits “system of regular visits”) intended by Article 1 of the OPCAT is not mentioned in Article 28.28 Also, Article 28 should distinguish between visits to persons deprived of their liberty in the course of the investigation of complaints and the preventive, general and regular visits intended by the OPCAT. This distinction is vital with regard to the Human Rights Protector’s role under the OPCAT, since this role does not focus so much on the individual situation of specific individuals deprived of their liberty. Instead, it focuses on the systemic and permanent prevention of torture and inhuman treatment in places where persons are deprived of their liberty through constant monitoring and dialogue with competent authorities. It is recommended to introduce this distinction into the wording of Article 28. 83. Additionally, it would be beneficial if Article 28 would provide a nonexhaustive list of examples of places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty (places of detention according to Article 4 of the OPCAT29), to stress that not only prisons or detention centres are covered by the OPCAT, but all places where people are temporarily or permanently deprived of their liberty, including, for instance, hospitals or psychiatric institutes, or indeed airports, or border terminals. It would also be helpful to designate the responsible government or executive bodies that are obliged to cooperate with the Human Rights Protector in the manner intended by Article 20 of the OPCAT. For the sake of clarity, it is recommended to expand Article 28 to cover these issues as well. 84. Article 29 par 1 of the draft Law stresses the Protector’s role as an institutional mechanism for the prevention of torture and other forms of inhuman treatment and punishment. Here, it is recommended to include the proper terminology from the OPCAT, namely “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. 85. Article 29 also foresees the establishment of a working body by the Protector, made up of experts in medicine, social welfare, human rights and other related areas, which shall assist the Protector in his tasks under the OPCAT. Along with the representatives of the Protector, members of this working body shall occasionally or regularly visit places of detention, based on the decision of the authority or its initiative, or with its consent or approval, check the respect of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, and prepare a report on that. Based on these reports, the Protector shall give opinions, suggestions and recommendations. The working method of the working body shall be determined in the procedure of the Protector. 86. The wording of Article 29 does not clarify the nature or exact mandate of the working body established hereunder or its relationship to the Protector. The aim of the working body to “help the Protector understand the situation of persons deprived of their liberty” also appears to fall short of this body’s 28 See the Review of the draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights of May 2009 by the University of Bristol’s Centre for the Implementation of Human Rights, par 6. 29 According to Article 4 of the OPCAT, this shall cover “any place under [a state’s] jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence (hereinafter referred to as places of detention)”. 23