OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Act on the Independent National Human Rights Institution of Iceland 3. The Mandate of the NHRI of Iceland 3.1. The Scope of the Mandate 28. As mentioned above, Article 1 of the Draft Act refers to the mandate to “promote and protect human rights” – this is overall in line with the Paris Principles, which require NHRIs to be vested with competences to both protect and promote human rights (Paris Principles Section A.1). While a simple statement to this effect is appropriate in the early sections of enabling legislation, it may be preferable to include in the Draft Act a broader statement specifying that the NHRI is entitled to look into, investigate or comment on any human rights situation, without any form of prior approval or impediment, to ensure independence and autonomy.28 29. Article 3 then lists a number of tasks that the institution will carry out to fulfil its mandate, including the provision of advice to government authorities, the review of and comments on legislation, draft legislation and administrative practices, monitoring the status of human rights in Iceland, raising awareness about potential violations, partnering with various human rights organizations, either domestic or at the international level, as well as promoting human rights research and education. 30. It is reiterated that according to sections A.1 and A.2 of the Paris Principles, an NHRI should possess “as broad a mandate as possible”. This should include, among others, an explicit mandate to encourage the ratification or accession to international instruments. Indeed, on several occasions, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, when assessing relevant NHRI legislation, has recommended that the law shall expressly include provisions to that effect.29 Moreover, General Observation 1.2 requires that an NHRI mandate shall extend to acts and omissions of both the public and private sectors. It is thus recommended to supplement Article 3 of the Draft Act accordingly. 31. Article 3 (d) of the Draft Act provides that the NHRI will “[p]artner with domestic, overseas and international human rights organisations and provid[e] these with information as requested”. This seems to fall short of what is stated in section A.3 (d) and (e) of the Paris Principles, which specifies that NHRIs should contribute and possibly also, pursuant to their independent mandate, comment on the reports which States are required to submit to UN bodies and committees, and regional institutions. They should also “co-operate with the UN and any other organization in the UN system, the regional institutions and the national institutions of other countries that are competent in the areas of the promotion and protection of human rights” (see also General Observation 1.4). More generally, an NHRI should likewise ensure close cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and conduct training on human rights issues,30 public outreach and advocacy on human rights and fundamental freedoms (see General Observation 1.2), which go beyond the discussions 28 29 30 See op. cit. footnote 14, page 144 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). See e.g., Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Report and Recommendations of the Session (May 2016), pages 19 and 26 (on the accreditation of NHRIs of Montenegro and Canada), available at http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20MAY%202016-English.pdf; and Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Report and Recommendations of the Session (November 2015), pages 10 and 21 (on the accreditation of NHRIs of Ireland and of the Great Britain), available at http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20NOVEMBER%202015English.pdf. Including e.g., capacity-building with regard to other thematic institutions in promoting a human rights-based approach to their work. 11