OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Act on the Independent National Human Rights Institution of Iceland 7. Other Comments 79. Article 6 of the Draft Act provides for the appointment of an Advisory Committee of Stakeholders composed of 10 members with a two-year term. It is unclear why this advisory body is appointed for such a brief duration, as two years may be too short for it to carry out its functions in a meaningful manner. Also, nothing is said as to whether the mandate of the Committee members is renewable or not. The drafters should consider extending the term for members of this body so that it is similar to that of members of the Board of Directors. The Draft Act is also silent as to the selection criteria and means to ensure pluralism in the composition of the Committee (see also pars 45-46 and 71-72 supra on NHRI pluralism). The Draft Act could be supplemented in that respect. 80. Article 8 of the Draft Act states that the NHRI shall submit to the Althingi an annual report on its activities and the implementation of human rights and make this report public by 1 September. General Observation 1.11 recommends that the enabling NHRI law shall ensure that NHRI’s reports are widely circulated, discussed and considered by the legislature, and the NHRI should be able to table reports directly in the legislature. A respective provision should be introduced to the Draft Act along with an obligation on the side of the Althingi to hold a parliamentary debate on the NHRI report, for instance at the session which immediately follows the report’s submission to the Parliament. At the same time, the parliament should not be required to formally adopt such an annual report since such a vote would indirectly call into question the independence of the institution.117 Indeed, the main purpose of the parliamentary debate should be informational in nature, so as to bring to the parliament’s intention the issues raised by the report and for the parliament to take action to address them, as appropriate. This debate by itself would, however, not replace the need for regular and effective cooperation between the NHRI and the Althingi on an everyday basis (see par 27 supra). 81. Finally, it is understood that the Ministry of Interior has carried out public consultations when drafting the Draft Act, which is welcome. It is worth recalling that OSCE commitments require legislation to be adopted “as the result of an open process reflecting the will of the people, either directly or through their elected representatives” (Moscow Document of 1991, par 18.1).118 Particularly legislation that may have an impact on human rights and fundamental freedoms, as is the case here, should undergo extensive consultation processes throughout the drafting and adoption process, to ensure that human rights organizations and the general public, including marginalized groups, are fully informed and able to submit their views prior to the adoption of the Act. Public discussions and an open and inclusive debate will increase all stakeholders’ understanding of the various factors involved and enhance confidence and trust in the adopted legislation, and in the institutions in general. The Icelandic legislator is encouraged to ensure that the Draft Act is consulted extensively up until its adoption. [END OF TEXT] 117 118 See op. cit. footnote 35, par 82 (2015 Venice Commission Opinion on the Draft Law on Ombudsman for Human Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Available at http://www.osce.org/fr/odihr/elections/14310. 25