UNDP-OHCHR TOOLKIT INTRODUCTION According to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, each State has the right to choose the framework for the NHRI that best suits its particular needs at the national level in order to promote human rights in accordance with international human rights standards. Although the Paris Principles set out the basic norms for the roles and responsibilities of NHRIs, they do not dictate models or structures. Attempts have been made to classify and categorise NHRIs, but none has been entirely successful. That is at least in part because there is no universally accepted and applied ideal “model”. Different models, approaches and structures are evolving rapidly, and there are as many variations as there are geographic regions and legal traditions. It has been said that there are as many typologies of NHRIs as papers written about them! While acknowledging that there is no definitive classification, the models discussed in this document presume that NHRIs identified as such are in full compliance with the Paris Principles. 2.1 Different Approaches: Form and Function There is no ideal or single accepted structure for NHRIs, beyond compliance with the Paris Principles. The Principles do not impose a uniform model for carrying out these responsibilities and exercising these powers. The best strategy for working effectively with an NHRI – or helping to establish one – is to understand the surrounding legal, political and regional institutional culture or the country and region. How one categorises a NHRI will depend greatly on regional practice and accepted terminology from a legal or structural perspective, as well as what functions the NHRI will have. Historically, the distinctions are made between institutions that are “Ombudsman-like” and institutions Commissions. As a generality, Ombudsman institutions were headed by a single person, used moral persuasion rather than legal enforcement, and applied to public sector activity only. 11 Commissions, on the other hand, tended to be a more representative group, with several members, and could have enforcement powers to deal with abuses http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/NHRIen.pdf 1 20 and could apply to both the public and private sector. Given the evolution in the development of institutions, and in the nature and function of Ombudsman institutions, this twofold distinction is not very helpful. Legal and Structural Approach The Paris Principles help to ensure a minimum set of standards and therefore that NHRIs share certain similarities as regards powers and responsibilities. Moreover, even though institutions may share certain similar core responsibilities, the emphasis they put on these may differ markedly. Some institutions may emphasise their advisory, monitoring or promotion function, for example, while others may put a greater emphasis on investigation. Nonetheless, it is possible to distinguish between the national institutions that have been accredited by the international network of national institutions and to categorise them as being of one type or another, if at times somewhat imperfectly. one looks at legal tradition, particular models tend to be found in certain regions. In the International Council on Human Rights Policy’s publication “Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions”, NHRIs are described as being in the “Hispanic, Francophone or Commonwealth tradition”, or as being organised by continent: “multi-member institutions that receive complaints in most of Africa and Asia, single-member Defensores del pueblo in Latin America, Ombudsman [offices] in European Nordic countries, and advisory institutions in Europe”.1 These divisions reflect regional differences to some extent, but there is often great variety within regions. 11 If one looks at structure, one might refer to institutions being either “ombudsman-like” or “commission-like”, depending on whether the organisation is structured around a single person or office-holder, or based on the more corporate and multi-member structure of a commission. Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, for example, tend to favour an ombudsman style model. 11 If 11 Even so, care should be taken because classifications are at best approximate, and the names can be misleading: the fact that a “commission” usually investigates complaints does not prevent a purely advisory body from calling itself a “commission”. Similarly, some commissions are, in fact, structured as ombudsman offices - the Mexican Human Rights Commission, for