CHAPTER 2: MODELS OF NHRIS example. Some ombudsman-style offices have multiple deputy ombudsmen, much like a commission, etc. 11 While there are many different names for NHRIs (see Figure 1: Names of NHRIs), the name itself is of little consequence provided that it clearly communicates to the public (1) what the NHRI does and (2) the fact that it is a public institution and not an NGO. For example, it has been noted in one country that the name “Centre for Human Rights” for a NHRI is misleading because it sounds like a NGO. FIGURE 1: NAMES OF NHRIS What’s in a name? NHRIs have different names, depending on the region, legal tradition and common usage: 11 civil rights protector 11 commissioner 11 human rights commission 11 institute or centre 11 ombudsman 11 parliamentary ombudsman or commissioner for human rights 11 public defender / protector 11 parliamentary advocate 11 Your best guide is always the enabling statute of the institution, which sets out the powers and functions of the institution. one looks at powers and functions, there is a range, or continuum, of powers consistent with being Paris Principle compliant, including institutions that are: 11 If •• headed by a single individual or by a more representative body of members; •• able to undertake investigations and make recommendations; •• “quasi-jurisdictional”, with the power to receive individual complaints and to render decisions with binding effect, or that enforce decisions through the courts or specialised tribunals; •• Is responsible for the concerns of a single group of people or a single issue, or has a wider mandate, and finally?; •• Has authority over human rights concerns only, or can deal with other matters such as those more usually understood as belonging to a classic Ombudsman such as maladministration? These and other examples and approaches show that the line between NHRIs and other types of national bodies is starting to blur, and disagreements about the “proper” model are not productive beyond the minimum criteria set by the Paris Principles. Because of the practical nature of this Toolkit, we have chosen to address areas of classification from a functional and pragmatic perspective, while at the same time mentioning legal and structural issues, including regional specificities. 2.2 Geographic Jurisdiction and Extraterritorial Effect2 Since human rights laws apply across the country, NHRIs should have broad jurisdiction or geographic reach across the national territory. According to a recent survey, most NHRI respondents (58) covered the whole country. Only Southern Sudan, Mexico City, Great Britain and Northern Ireland indicated that they had a limited geographic jurisdiction. In all of these cases, complementary jurisdiction is vested with other institutions. Almost all respondents indicated their jurisdiction cover all those residing in the country, regardless of nationality. A number of respondents (14) also indicated that their institution has extra-territorial jurisdiction. Examples include: 11 The protection of citizens overseas; 11 One NHRI from the Asia Pacific region has jurisdiction in a territory that has been designated by the UN as a non-self-governing territory; 11 One European NHRI, which works on foreign policy issues, e.g. extraterritorial obligations resulting from ratified HR treaties; and 11 Another European NHRI, which supervises the work of the country’s administration outside the territory, such as embassies and consulates. This section is drawn from OHCHR, Survey of National Human Rights Institutions: Report on the Findings and Recommendations of a Questionnaire Addressed to NHRIs Worldwide. 2009. www.nhri.net 2 21