OSCE ODIHR Comments on the draft Law on the Protector of Human Rights and
Freedoms of Montenegro
(hereinafter “the Paris Principles”)6, as well as international standards on antidiscrimination bodies and national preventive mechanisms under the OPCAT.
The Comments also reflect the contents of previous OSCE/ODIHR Comments
on the then draft Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.
4.
The Comments are based on an official translation of the draft Law.
Nevertheless, errors from translation may result.
5.
In view of the above, the OSCE/ODIHR would like to make mention that
these Comments are without prejudice to any written or oral recommendations
and comments to the draft Law and related legislation that the OSCE/ODIHR
may make in the future.
3.
6.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to ensure the compliance of the draft Law with international
standards, it is recommended as follows:
3.1 Key Recommendations
A. To retain Articles 2 and 3 of the current Law on the Protector of
Human Rights and Freedoms in the draft Law; [par 21]
B. To include in the draft Law a provision on election of the Human
Rights Protector and an obligation for the President of Montenegro to
conduct consultations with various public and non-governmental actors
prior to proposing a candidate for Human Rights Protector to the
Parliament; [pars 28-29]
C. To expand the immunity granted to the Protector and his/her deputies
to cover prosecution, arrest, detention, civil and criminal lawsuits and
to ensure that this immunity also extends to his/her staff; [par 39]
D. To provide the Human Righs Protector with the additional mandate to
monitor and identify patterns of human rights violations, with a view to
influencing government policies and practices to enhance human rights
protection; [par 46]
E. To include relevant provisions in the draft Law reflecting the Human
Right’s Protector’s special competences under the Law on Prohibition
of Discrimination, in particular the mandate to review complaints
against legal and natural persons, and to initiate court and conciliation
proceedings; [pars 73-75]
F. To review Article 29 of the draft Law in its entirety, in particular with
a view to clarifying the mandate and composition of the working body
and its relationship to the Human Rights Protector; [par 89]
G. To provide sufficient funding to ensure that the Human Rights
Protector will have sufficient and well-trained staff and facilities to
properly exercise his/her functions as a human rights protection
mechanism, anti-discrimination body and national preventive
mechanism under the OPCAT; [par 94]
6
Defined at the first International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights in Paris 7-9 October 1991, adopted by Human Rights Commission Resolution
1992/54, 1992 and General Assembly Resolution 48/134, 1993.
4