In order to further improve the compliance of the Draft Constitution with international human rights standards and OSCE commitments and recalling the concerns raised in their 2015 Joint Opinion, the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission make the following key recommendations:

A. to ensure that the ‘highest values’ introduced in Article 1 par 1 cannot be used to restrict human rights and fundamental freedoms; [pars 38 and 100]
B. to abandon the changes to the procedure before the Constitutional Chamber in Article 97 and retain the current wording of this provision; [par 64]
C. to delete the amended Article 96 par 2 specifying the mandatory nature of the Supreme Court’s “explanations”, while retaining the current wording of Article 96 par 3 which states that decisions of the Supreme Court shall be final and not subject to appeal; [par 68 and 70]
D. to reconsider the introduction of mandatory waivers of judges’ privacy rights in Article 94 par 8-1 of the Constitution; [par 81]
E. to retain the current wording of Article 41 par 2 guaranteeing access to effective remedies in cases of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms; [par 109]
F. to clearly circumscribe grounds for the deprivation of citizenship in the new Article 50 par 2, and include relevant safeguards; [par 111] and
G. to delete Article 2 pars 6 and 9 of the Draft Law. [par 113 and 116]

As already recommended in the 2015 Joint Opinion, the constitutional procedure for amendments should be followed, as set out in Article 114 of the Constitution. The initiative for a referendum does not only require adoption by a two-thirds majority, but should also only take place following at least three readings with two months’ intervals in between. In case of doubt, the Constitutional Chamber may need to decide whether this is the procedure to follow.9