OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro to receive external sources of funding,30 the training and professional development of staff31 and the development and formalization of working relationships with other domestic human rights bodies/institutions and civil society, international human rights bodies and NHRIs in other countries,32 among others. It is particularly important that the institution of the Human Rights Protector has sufficient funding to fulfil its competences as an anti-discrimination and equality body, and as a national preventive mechanism of the OPCAT. 3. The Appointment and Cessation of Functions of the Human Rights Protector and Deputies (Articles 1 to 5 of the Draft Law) 21. As already stated earlier under par 16 supra, it is essential that the Human Rights Protector is selected and appointed following inclusive and pluralistic selection and appointment procedures.33 The manner of selecting and appointing the Human Rights Protector also concerns the overall composition of the NHRI since ensuring pluralism is a prime requirement of the Paris Principles as a guarantee of institutional independence.34 22. Consequently, the methods for selection and appointment of the Protector’s Deputies should also be open and consultative. This could be achieved by providing for procedures whereby the Human Rights Protector would consult diverse societal groups for suggestions or recommendations of candidates; or whereby he/she would organize their participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process, among others.35 Accordingly, Article 3 of the Draft Law (amending Article 10 of the Human Rights Protector Law) could be supplemented by requiring the Human Rights Protector to go through a consultative process with various public and nongovernmental organs prior to proposing candidate(s) for Deputies to the Parliament. 23. Article 2 of the Draft Law provides for the internal division of work and specialization of the deputies (as was already mentioned in the current Article 9 of the Human Rights Protector Law) while the general mandate of the Protector as per Article 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law provides for overall coherence of the work of the institution. 24. According to Article 3 of the Draft Law (amending Article 10 of the Human Rights Protector Law), the “Deputy shall report to the Protector and the Parliament of Montenegro”. It is unclear why the Protector’s Deputies should report to both the Protector and the Parliament of Montenegro. According to ICC General Observation 1.1, it is important to include in the legislation clear provisions on lines of accountability. The Protector, as the individual entrusted with the broadest powers and responsibilities listed in Article 2 of the Human Rights Protector Law, should be the one accountable to the Parliament on behalf of the institution. As such, the Protector has to present an account of, and answer for, the performance of tasks and functions of the institution as a whole, including the work of his Deputies, Advisers and other 30 31 32 33 34 35 ICC General Observation 1.10 as amended in May 2013. See the UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with NHRIs, Section 8.2.4.4 on Training and Professional Development, page 175, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NHRI/1950-UNDPUHCHR-Toolkit-LR.pdf. ICC General Observations 1.4 on Interaction with the International Human Rights System and 1.5 on Cooperation with other Human Rights Bodies. See pars 15-18 and 25 of the 2011 Joint Opinion and pars 28-29 of the 2010 OSCE/ODIHR Comments. See section B.1 of Paris Principles. ICC General Observations 1.7 and 1.8. 11