Human Rights Action (HRA) believes that the amendments to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (the Ombudsman) of Montenegro, that are on the Parliament’s agenda, have not fully responded to the Paris Principles of the United Nations, setting minimum standards to be met by institutions for the protection of human rights, or to the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee.

HRA submitted a total of 16 substantiated amendment proposals to the responsible ministry, based on comparative practice and international recommendations, in order to enhance the independence and effectiveness of the Ombudsman and strengthen his position. Only one of these amendments was partially adopted in the debate before the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee.

HRA proposed that the law provides that the Ombudsman has at least 4 deputies specialized in certain areas, of whom one would be responsible for protecting children’s rights, in accordance with the recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Unfortunately, the proposal was not adopted, and this matter is to be regulated by secondary legislation.

Following examples of countries in the region and the European Union, HRA proposed that NGO’s representatives with years of experience in the field of prevention of torture become members of preventive mechanism for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture, also in accordance with the Paris Principles. The proposal was not accepted.

Given the limited scope of the Law on Free Legal Aid and a large number of citizens who cannot afford legal representation, we advocated that the Ombudsman be authorized to initiate court proceedings or intervene in the ongoing proceedings, which was rejected. Such authority of the Ombudsman is in line with the UN Paris Principles, and it is recognized by the laws of Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Following the example of State Audit Institution, HRA submitted a proposal that the Ombudsman be obliged to file a criminal charge if he/she becomes aware of a violation of human rights indicating that a crime was committed. This proposal was also rejected.

The same happened to the proposal to set a deadline for the state authorities to respond to Ombudsman’s demands, i.e. submit a report on actions taken in line with Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Existing legal provisions have even been set back by the proposed amendments. For example, contents of official identification of the Ombudsman and his deputies shall no longer be determined by the Ombudsman, but the executive power, which symbolically diminishes Ombudsman’s independence from the government, as Ombudsman is not a part of government but should supervise it.

HRA notes that the amendments to the Constitution to ensure the independence of institutions should have stipulated that the Ombudsman, as the Supreme State Prosecutor, be appointed by a two thirds majority, so that the opposition too is included in the appointment of this institution, which should provide key contribution to the protection of human rights in the country.