OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human
Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro
6.
The Opinion raises key issues and provides indications of areas of concern. The
ensuing recommendations are based on international standards and practices
governing National Human Rights Institutions (hereinafter “NHRIs”), including
relevant Council of Europe6 and OSCE documents.7
7.
The OSCE/ODIHR also reiterates that the recommendations made in the 2011 Joint
Opinion remain valid with regard to Articles not amended by the Draft Law, and that
this Opinion builds upon these recommendations, as appropriate, for the provisions
amended by the Draft Law. The Opinion also reflects the content of other previous
OSCE/ODIHR opinions and comments, as applicable.
8.
This Opinion is based on the English translation of the Draft Law provided by the
Minister for Human and Minority Rights of Montenegro, which has been attached to
this document as Annex 1. Errors from translation may result.
9.
In view of the above, the OSCE/ODIHR would like to make mention that the Opinion
is without prejudice to any written or oral recommendations and comments related to
the legal and institutional framework on protection and promotion of human rights in
Montenegro, that the OSCE/ODIHR may make in the future.
III.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10.
At the outset, it should be noted that this Draft Law contains some important
improvements in terms of compliance with international standards applicable to
NHRIs. The authors of the Draft Law are to be commended for the substantial
amendments to improve the Human Rights Protector Law’s compliance with the
Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment8 (hereinafter “the OPCAT”), as well as for
including clear provisions granting proper remuneration for the Protector, Deputies
and Advisors, thus reinforcing guarantees of their independence and integrity.
11.
At the same time, some key recommendations from the 2011 Joint Opinion have not
been addressed and certain aspects relating to the mandate and responsibilities of the
Human Rights Protector could be enhanced or specified more clearly in the Draft Law.
This relates in particular to the consistency of the Human Rights Protector Law with
the Anti-Discrimination Law, as well as the complaint-handling procedures before the
Human Rights Protector. In order to ensure the full compliance of the Draft Law with
6
7
8
General Policy Recommendation No. 2 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI),
Council of Europe, on Basic Principles concerning Specialised Bodies to Combat Racism, Xenophobia,
Antisemitism and Intolerance at National Level, of 13 June 1997. See also General Policy Recommendation
No. 7 of the ECRI, on National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, of 13 December
2002.
Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE,
Copenhagen, 29 June 1990, par 27; Document of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Ministerial Council, Madrid,
29-30 November 2007, Decision 10/07 on tolerance and non-discrimination: promoting mutual respect and
understanding, par 10; Annex to Ministerial Council Decision 14/04, OSCE Action Plan for the Protection of
Gender Equality, par 42.
The Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(hereinafter “the CAT”) was adopted on 10 December 1984 at the thirty-ninth session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/39/46. Montenegro succeeded to this Convention on 23
October 2006; UN Optional Protocol to the CAT, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199, ratified by Montenegro on 6
March 2009.
4