OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Act on the Independent National Human Rights Institution of Iceland notice, including those belonging to military, police and security services (see also par 39 infra). 20. If relevant stakeholders decide to make the NHRI the future NPM, then the underlying legislation should specify this. Moreover, relevant provisions should allow the NHRI free access at any time to all places where individuals are or may be deprived of their liberty, without the need for consent from any agency and without prior notification (General Observation 2.9). This is an important safeguard that allows an NHRI to effectively protect the rights of detainees or prisoners (see also par 77 infra on the allocation of additional resources and capacities). Additionally, Guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms (2010)21 of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provide useful guidance on how to comply with international standards pertaining to NPMs. 21. Further, it is understood from the Explanatory Report to the Draft Act that the new NHRI of Iceland will serve as the National Implementation and Monitoring Mechanism (NIMM) for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), which has just been ratified by Iceland, as per Article 33 of the UN CRPD.22 At the same time, the Draft Act does not specifically provide for a formal legal mandate as NIMM, as recommended by General Observation 2.9. The Draft Act should be supplemented accordingly, while specifying that such a mandate encompasses the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and the monitoring of the implementation of the CRPD (Article 33 par 2 of the CRPD). Moreover, additional resources and capacities should be allocated to the NHRI, to ensure that its staff possesses the appropriate skills and expertise to fulfil this part of its mandate (see par 77 infra). 22. As it stands, the Draft Act does not specify the relationship between the NHRI and the other existing human rights bodies in Iceland. In this context, General Observation 1.5 specifies that “NHRIs should develop, formalize and maintain working relationships, as appropriate, with other domestic institutions established for the promotion and protection of human rights, including […] thematic institutions, as well as civil society and non-governmental organizations”. This means that NHRIs should co-operate with and support the functions of other institutions that work on human rights issues, directly or indirectly.23 The Draft Act should thus specify the relationships between the NHRIs and the other domestic institutions in charge of the promotion and protection of human rights, the division of competences between them and modalities of their co-operation. 23. It should be highlighted that generally, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of NHRIs encourages a strong national human rights protection system in a State by having one consolidated and comprehensive NHRI.24 At the same time, the Paris Principles do not prescribe any specific type of NHRI, but rather the basic necessary elements to ensure functioning NHRIs and guarantee their independence. There are thus a variety of different NHRI models all over the world. 24. The Icelandic authorities may plan to first set up the new institution and then revisit the issue by carrying out a more in-depth review of the overall institutional framework for 21 22 23 24 Available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT/OP/12/5&Lang=en. The 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, was ratified by Iceland on 23 September 2016. See op. cit. footnote 14, page 144 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). General Observation 6.6. 9