OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Act on the Independent National Human Rights Institution of Iceland over budgetary decisions raises concerns with respect to the NHRI’s financial independence.111 To sustain this independence, these considerations should be reflected in the Draft Act. 76. Additionally, to increase the NHRI’s financial independence, some additional safeguards may also be contemplated. For instance, the Draft Act may specify that the budgetary process should not be used to allocate/reduce funds from the budget in a manner that interferes with the NHRI’s independence.112 The relevant legislation could also prescribe that the institution itself should submit its budget proposal to the parliament and that this proposal should be included in the national budget without changes.113 In addition, legal provisions against unwarranted budgetary cutbacks could be introduced, including but not limited to the principle that compared to the previous year, any reductions in the NHRI’s budget should not exceed the percentage of reduction of the budgets of the Parliament or the Government.114 The NHRI should also be allowed to receive additional funding from external sources.115 In any case, the NHRI has the obligation to ensure the coordinated, transparent and accountable management of its funding through regular public financial reporting and a regular annual independent audit,116 and needs to follow the existing domestic regulations on proper and efficient budgetary planning. 77. Further, as mentioned in par 21 supra, the new NHRI of Iceland will serve as the NIMM for the UN CRPD, although the Explanatory Note to the Draft Act concludes that “[n]o additional administrative costs are expected”. However, it is essential for the independence of the institution that sufficient funding is provided to allow this body to have the adequate human, financial, material and technical capacity to guarantee the proper implementation of its mandate both as NHRI and as NIMM. The question of adequate resources should thus be reviewed carefully. Also, if in the future Iceland ratifies the Optional Protocol to the UNCAT and decides to appoint the NHRI as the NPM, additional funding and human resources would need to be allocated for that purpose. 78. Under General Observation 1.10, several elements need to be taken into account to define what constitutes “adequate funding” and when drawing the annual budget for the NHRI. In addition to an appropriate level of salaries and benefits (see pars 58, 60 and 70 supra), these should include the allocation of funds for the NHRI’s own premises (separate from the Government’s premises) that are accessible to the wider community, including persons with disabilities, and the establishment of well-functioning communications systems including telephone and internet. The Draft Act could specifically list them. 111 112 113 114 115 116 See e.g., op. cit. footnote 29, page 12 (SCA Report and Recommendations of November 2015). See e.g., op. cit. footnote 68, pars 74-75 (2015 Venice Commission’s Opinion on the Law on the People's Advocate of Moldova). 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 45, par 69 (2016 Venice Commission Opinion on the draft Constitutional Law on the Human Rights Defender of Armenia). See General Observation 1.10 and its justification. See General Observation 1.10 and its justification. 24