OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro potential. In order to make proper use of the cross-cutting and interdisciplinary experience in the working body (also including, e.g., medical and psychological practitioners, or non-governmental organizations with experience in monitoring prison and detention facilities), this group of persons should provide expertise to serve the diverse range of places of detention visited by the Protector. Medical or psychological practitioners will thus be able to help the Protector assess whether torture has taken place, even more specialized practitioners would be needed for psychiatric wards or places where the victims could be children. 87. The process for selecting members of the working body is also not clear, nor is its composition. Article 29 does not specify whether this body may include state representatives or non-governmental organizations, or whether there will be gender and proportionate ethnic balance within this group, as required by Article 18 par 2 of the OPCAT for experts of the national preventive mechanism.30 It would be advisable to not include state representatives in the working body, since this may jeopardize the perceived independence of the Protector (and thus of the experts whom he/she liaises with) required by Article 18 of the OPCAT. Practical issues such as technical and logistical support for the working body, as well as remuneration for its members are paramount to its survival and effectiveness and need to be discussed before the working body is constituted. 88. Further, the members of the working group should be permitted the same access to facilities as the Protector, his deputies and authorized officers – the working group will not be able to fully assist the Protector in his/her tasks if its members’ right of access depends on the consent or approval of public authorities. As indicated in Article 29 par 3, members of the working group shall visit places of detention together with representatives of the Human Rights Protector. The Protector’s reports should then be based on the impressions of both his/her staff and members of the working body. 89. It is recommended to review Article 29 in its entirety and clarify such issues as the mandate and composition of this body, as well as its relationship to the Protector. Selection procedures for its members and the obligation to provide appropriate support and funding should also be included in this provision of the draft Law. 90. Article 29 par 5 requires authorities, organizations or institutions to take actions and measures in accordance with the proposals and recommendations of the Protector, without delay and within the deadline provided. However, it does not make mention of the dialogue between authorities and the national preventive mechanism on proper implementation measures foreseen in Article 22 of the OPCAT.31 It is recommended to amend Article 29 par 5 to include such dialogue, to ensure that this provision corresponds to the requirements of the OPCAT. 30 See also the APT Comments on the 2009 draft Law and the 2003 Law on the Human Rights Protector cited in footnote 12, p. 7, where similar concerns were raised. 31 Ibid., p. 7. See also the University of Bristol’s Review of the 2009 draft Law, cited fully in footnote 25, par 6. 24