OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro or failure to act resulted in a violation of human rights and freedoms, but not specifically the failure to respond to recommendations or provide requested information. It is thus advised to review Article 37, and perhaps consider specifying, either in this provision or in a separate one, the legal consequences of such “obstruction”, in particular the procedure to be followed, the competent body presiding such procedures, as well as possible sanctions; potential sanctions could be introduced either directly into the text of the Law, or by referring to relevant administrative or disciplinary procedures.45 44. The introduction of a new Article 43a on reporting obligations and follow-up actions after visits of places of deprivation of liberty is much welcome. However, in order to fully correspond to the requirements of Article 22 of the OPCAT, Article 15 of the Draft Law (introducing new Article 43a) could ensure that such report is followed by a dialogue between the authorities and Human Rights Protector on proper implementation measures for recommendations issued by the Human Rights Protector (see par 32 supra). 45. Regarding the handling of personal data (Article 45 of the Human Rights Protector Law as amended by Article 17 of the Draft Law), it is recommended to expand the scope of the persons listed to include all staff working for the Human Rights Protector, as well as the “independent experts” that may be engaged by the Human Rights Protector as part of the working group under Article 25 par 3 as amended by Article 9 of the Draft Law. 46. It should also be highlighted that Article 21 par 2 of the OPCAT expressly provides that confidential information collected by a national preventive mechanism under the OPCAT shall be privileged, i.e. that it will not be disclosed under any circumstances, not even during investigations by public authorities or court proceedings (except in very limited circumstances to be defined by law, such as by consent by the individuals mentioned in the documents, or the disclosure of the information by the individual to a third party). It would be recommended to supplement Article 17 of the Draft Law (amending Article 45 of the Human Rights Protector Law) accordingly. 6. Other Provisions (Articles 18 to 23 of the Draft Law) 47. It is welcome that Article 18 of the Draft Law amends the provisions on remuneration of the Protector and Deputy Protector by referring to the remunerations, respectively, of the President of the Constitutional Court and of a judge of the Constitutional Court; this provision also demonstrates the high value placed in the institution’s independence. This is in line with the ICC General Observations which recommend that salaries and benefits awarded be comparable to those of civil servants performing similar tasks in other independent institutions of the State.46 Similarly, Article 20 of the Draft Law also provides for the remuneration of the Secretary General of the Protector and Advisors to the Protector by reference to civil servants performing similar tasks, which is commendable. 48. Article 20 of the Draft Law (introducing the new Article 51b) provides for different types of advisers to assist the Protector to perform his/her functions. However, the different titles, qualification requirements and respective grades under Article 51b par 2 and par 4 are confusing. It is also unclear whether the title “advisor” applies to all 45 46 See par 62 of the 2010 OSCE/ODIHR Comments. See ICC General Observations 2.6. 17