UNDP-OHCHR TOOLKIT Examples: Timor Leste Office of the Provedor for Human Rights and Justice A Tanzania Commission for Human Rights A and Good Governance Namibia Office of the Ombudsman A These kinds of institutions are found mainly in Europe, but also in Francophone Africa. These kinds of NHRIs tend to have broad research and advisory mandates across the full range of human rights recognised by the State, but do not generally have authority to entertain or investigate individual complaints. Examples: 2.4.4 Consultative and Advisory Bodies France National Consultative Commission of Human Rights A Greece Greek National Commission for Human Rights A Morocco Human Rights Advisory Council A Consultative/advisory NHRIs share the following attributes: 11 They are State-sponsored, with the mandate to protect and promote human rights; some operate on a cost-recovery basis in that they sell services. Others may extend their work in the international arena; 11 They are drawn from a plurality of social forces and tend to have large memberships; 11 They are usually not mandated to investigate cases, but may advise or consult broadly on a wide range of large issues of human rights and may be able to make recommendations; and 11 They focus on advising the State on human rights issues and/or conducting human rights research. Because these NHRIs are highly pluralistic, this can lend them credibility with both the population and Government, this latter because opinions will carry the weight of these social forces. The number of members may, however, be financially debilitating and can inhibit speedy decision-making. The focus that such institutions put on advice-giving and human rights research encourages in-depth analysis and enhances the quality of results. While research may be more academic in focus, the main concern with such institutions is the absence of direct experience with individual complaints, which distances their work from direct protection of human rights. The absence of a mandate to investigate individual complaints, which is true of many (but not all) such institutions, may be seen as limiting their effectiveness. On the other hand, the institution will have the time and resources to devote to an examination of broader, systemic human rights issues. As with most other models, these institutions can only provide advice or make recommendations. If their advice is not followed or routinely ignored, their credibility will suffer. 2.4.5 Institutes and Centres A few NHRIs, like Consultative Commissions, Human Rights Institutes or Centres tend to have a very broad membership from different levels of society. They do not traditionally deal with individual complaints. They differ from Consultative Commissions in that the broad membership does not usually participate directly in decision-making, which is left to a professional staff, but rather set the general policy framework. Centres also tend to focus more of their efforts towards research in human rights. Denmark The Danish Institute for Human Rights A 2.5 Recent Resolutions of the UN General Assembly In December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly adopted two important resolutions. Of particular interest is Resolution 63/172 on the importance of NHRIs for the promotion and protection of human rights. In addition, Resolution 63/169 addresses the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other NHRIs in the promotion and protection of human rights. These two resolutions are “testimony of the growing importance that the United Nations Member States attach to the role and potential of national human rights commissions and ombudsman institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights at the national, regional and international level.”7 Gianni Magazzeni, Chief of Branch, Americas, Europe and Central Asia, OIC of the National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, OHCHR, “Current Challenges to the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights”, talk given at a ceremony to celebrate the 200 year anniversary of the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman office, 2009. 7 26