OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Federal Law on the Support to the National Human Rights Institution of Switzerland any outside influence, including the public’s perception thereof, it would be preferable if the relationship with the above-mentioned educational entities would be limited to that which is important for the performance of the NHRI’s mandate, particularly in the field of research. In contrast, the connection mentioned in the Draft Act suggests the existence of a special relationship, and a potential risk of dependence, as also noted in the Explanatory Statement to the Draft Act.48 This is reinforced by the fact that Article 2 par 2 requires the educational institutions to provide the NHRI with the necessary basic infrastructure free of charge (including premises and equipment), thus implying some form of material dependency. In that respect, the Paris Principles require the NHRI to have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding to enable it to have its own premises and staff (Paris Principle B.2) as a key guarantee of its independence. The obligation to assure the necessary infrastructure, including appropriate facilities enabling the NHRI to perform its tasks, should be a natural consequence of the State’s decision to establish such a body and should rest primarily with the State and not with other entities. 39. Moreover, it is worth referring to the example of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, which was accredited with B status in 2012,49 because the SCA considered that the strong affiliation of the Centre to a university could call into question the independence of the institution. Indeed, the connection with a university can cause several problems regarding institutional independence both at the substantial and at the structural levels, including potentially conflicting methodologies, the lack of visibility to the public, and the setting of priorities for research and studies, which may then be influenced by an academic research community and not based on a thorough analysis of domestic human rights issues, among others.50 The lack of pluralism in the governing body and the lack of collaboration with civil society when carrying out its role could also be issues of concern.51 In light of the above, and as already stated in Sub-Section 2.2 supra, the Swiss legislator should reconsider the contemplated scheme, and particularly the connection with universities and higher education institutions, and rather provide for the establishment of an autonomous and independent entity. 40. In addition, Paris Principle C (a) states that an NHRI must be able to “freely consider any question falling within its competence […] on the proposal of its members or of any petitioner”. By clearly promoting independence in the NHRI’s method of operation, this provision seeks to avoid any possible interference in the institution’s assessment of the human rights situation in a given state and the subsequent determination of its strategic priorities.52 This means that external entities should not be in a position to influence the work and operation of the NHRI.53 This is important to ensure that this body is fully independent in its decision-making and its operation, and to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The Draft Act could be supplemented by adding that the NHRI will base its strategic priorities and activities solely on its determination of the human rights priorities in the country, in co-operation with diverse societal groups as 48 49 50 51 52 53 ibid. Sub-Section 1.3 on page 13 (Explanatory Statement to the Draft Act). See Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Report and Recommendations of the Session (November 2012), pages 19-20, Sub-Section 3.7 on the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, <https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/GANHRIAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20Report%20November%202012%20(English).pdf>. See particularly, UNDP, Study for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of Viet Nam on Building a National Human Rights Institution (July 2012), Section 3.1.7 on page 11, which refers to the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, <http://www.vn.undp.org/content/vietnam/en/home/library/democratic_governance/Building-a-National-Human-Rights-Institution-Astudy-for-the-Ministry-of-Foreign-Affairs-of-the-Peoples-Republic-of-Viet-Nam.html>. ibid. Section 3.1.7 on page 11. Op. cit. footnote 9, Justification to General Observation 1.9. ibid. General Observation 1.9. 14