OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro demonstratively recognize the key role that national human rights institutions can play in the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.26 19. 20. 26 27 28 29 Moreover, the institutional framework regulating the promotion and protection of human rights in Montenegro may seem confusing due to certain inconsistencies between the Human Rights Protector Law and the Draft Amendments to the AntiDiscrimination Law, particularly in terms of the scope of competences of the Human Rights Protector27 (see also pars 38-39 infra). To avoid any confusion, it is recommended to: - expressly mention under Article 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law that the Human Rights Protector constitutes an anti-discrimination body whose competences are detailed in the Anti-Discrimination Law; - given that the Draft Amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Law of Montenegro expressly include the “promotion of equality” as part of the competencies of the Human Rights Protector, make it clear under Article 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law that the institution also constitutes an equality body; - ensure that the Human Rights Protector Law includes the detailed and full powers to implement the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Law on the scope of his/her competences as anti-discrimination and equality body, as per Article 9 of the Draft Law amending Article 21 of the Anti-Discrimination Law28 (see par 39 infra). While, according to the recent Reports submitted by Montenegro to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee Against Torture, some progress has been reported in terms of fund allocations,29 sufficient funding should be ensured for the Institution to have the human, financial, material and technical capacity to guarantee the proper implementation of the Human Rights Protector Law. This should include the allocation of funds for suitable premises which may be easily distinguished from those of the government and which are accessible to the wider community (including to persons with disabilities). Furthermore, funds should also support the establishment of well-functioning communications systems, the possibility UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. See also par 42 of the Report of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, 14 March 2013, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-32_en.pdf. See pars 33-37 of the 2011 Joint Opinion and par 38 of the 2013 OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Law. See par 38 of the 2013 OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Law and pars 73-75 of the 2010 OSCE/ODIHR Comments. Second and Third Periodic Reports submitted by Montenegro under Article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/MNE/2-3) dated 12 July 2013, available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/454/23/PDF/G1345423.pdf?OpenElement, par 52 which states that “the Law on Budget for 2011, funding for the work of the office of the Protector has been increased for about 31%. Premises of the institution of the Protector have been moved to a new location in the very centre of the city, with equipment and offices that are fully innovated.” Second Periodic Report submitted by Montenegro under Article 19 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT/C/MNE/2) dated 14 March 2013, available at http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/419/65/PDF/G1341965.pdf?OpenElement, pars 43-44 which states that “[u]nder the Budget Law, funds allocated for the needs of new mechanisms of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms amounted to € 93,496 for the anti-discrimination program and € 105,117 for the anti-torture programme.” 10