OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Act on the Independent National Human Rights Institution of Iceland 72. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation has also noted positively cases where NHRIs have adopted policies to promote greater gender balance, diversity and opportunities for advancement within their institutions.102 These include, for instance, measures to ensure equal opportunities for promotion, supporting professional development of underrepresented persons103 and human resource policies that take into consideration the needs of pregnant women and persons with parental and/or caretaking responsibilities, as well as promote work-life balance for all employees, more broadly.104 Additionally, NHRIs should pay particular attention to the special requirements for employees with disabilities, in line with Article 27 of the UN CRPD,105 and should ensure that its human resources policies106 accommodate such persons as far as reasonably possible. It is recommended to supplement the Draft Act accordingly. 6.2. The NHRI’s Budget 73. The Draft Act does not provide information on the institution’s budget and more generally on modalities to ensure its financial and operational autonomy. The Paris Principles provide that an NHRI should be provided with “adequate funding” to ensure the smooth conduct of its activities and enable the institution to have its own staff and premises. General Observation 1.10 specifies that an appropriate level of funding also helps guarantee an NHRI’s independence and allows it to freely determine its priorities and activities, and to allocate funding according to its priorities. Thus, it is recommended to include in the Draft Act specific provisions regarding the NHRI’s budget and financial autonomy. Such provisions should prescribe that the budgetary allocation of funds for the operations of the institution shall be adequate to the need to ensure full, independent and effective discharge of the responsibilities and functions of the institution.107 The Draft Act should also provide for the autonomous management, by the NHRI, of the budgetary allocation at its disposal.108 74. National law should also indicate the relevant budget source.109 When deciding on the accreditation of NHRIs, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation reviews whether the underlying legislation provides that an NHRI’s funding is allocated to a separate budget line applicable only to the NHRI.110 It is recommended to supplement the Draft Act accordingly. 75. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation has stated that situations where the NHRI’s budget is subject to Government approval or where the executive has substantial control 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), Report and Recommendations of the Session (October 2014), page 17, available at http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20OCTOBER%202014%20FINAL%20REPORT%20%20ENGLISH.pdf. See e.g., the good practice of special programmes for professional development addressed to women, which use different selection criteria for recruitment and then provide training and development prior to accessing permanent employment, see op. cit. footnote 14, page 174 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). Op. cit. footnote 16, pages 9, 78 and 80 (2012 OSCE/ODIHR Handbook for NHRIs on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality). See also ibid. pages 174-175 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13 December 2006 during the sixty-first session of the UN General Assembly by resolution A/RES/61/106; the Convention was ratified by Iceland on 23 September 2016. Op. cit. footnote 14, page 175 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). See e.g., Venice Commission, Opinion on the possible reform of the Ombudsman Institution in Kazakhstan, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 71st Plenary Session (Venice, 1-2 June 2007), CDL-AD(2007)020, pars 8 and 30.VI, available at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2007)020-e. See e.g., op. cit. footnote 67, pars 74-75 (2015 Venice Commission’s Opinion on the Law on the People's Advocate of Moldova). See Justification to General Observation 1.10. See e.g., op. cit. footnote 29, pages 19 and 26 on the accreditation of NHRIs of Montenegro and Canada (SCA Report and Recommendations of May 2016). 23