OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Federal Law on the Support to the National Human Rights Institution of Switzerland balance and diversity at all staff levels.115 Alternatively, a reference to secondary legislation that will specify the procedure and modalities for ensuring pluralism could be included.116 To ensure an inclusive process, the legal drafters should consult with various stakeholders, including civil society, when determining the most appropriate criteria and procedures for that purpose.117 This can help strengthen the visibility of an NHRI’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity, positively influence the institution’s overall credibility and effectiveness, and may also serve as a model for other public bodies.118 5.3. The NHRIs’ Autonomy in Human Resources Management 80. The employment status of the NHRI’s staff is not clear. In that respect, it is noted that most countries have human resources policies that apply to all public agencies and entities, including NHRIs.119 These types of institutions should nevertheless benefit from a certain flexibility with respect to public service rules on recruitment and career advancement.120 In any case, the Draft Act, or other relevant legislation, should clarify the employment status of the NHRI’s staff. 81. Regarding staff salaries and benefits, General Observation 1.10 provides that they should be “comparable” to those of civil servants performing similar tasks in other independent state institutions. In many countries, however, public sector salaries may not always be adequate or appropriate and it is thus recognized that so-called “comparable” salaries should only be a minimum criterion.121 In such situations, it is considered good practice to provide salaries that are rather at the upper end of the public sector’s salary scale, particularly for professional expert staff, while taking into account similar levels of responsibilities and experience. This is useful not only to attract and retain competent staff,122 but also to ensure their independence from the executive when carrying out their work. The Draft Act, or other legislation, should be supplemented accordingly, while ensuring that the NHRI has some flexibility to set the levels of 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 See e.g., op. cit. footnote 18, pages 9, 78 and 80 (2012 OSCE/ODIHR Handbook for NHRIs on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality); Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Report and Recommendations of the Session (March 2015), page 23 on the Staffing of the Protector of Citizens (PCRS) of Serbia, <http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20MARCH%202015%20FINAL%20REPORT%20%20ENGLISH.pdf>; and Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Report and Recommendations of the Session (March 2012), pages 8 and 10 on the Staffing of the Commissioner for Human Rights of Kazakhstan and of the Ombudsperson (Akyikatchy) of the Kyrgyz Republic (OKR), <http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20MARCH%202012%20FINAL%20REPORT%20ENG%20 WITH%20ANNEXURES.pdf>. Such procedure and modalities should at a minimum provide that vacancies are advertised broadly to maximize the potential number of candidates (see Justification to General Observation 1.8). Other tools to ensure pluralism in the composition of NHRIs could be to provide for the establishment of an independent selection committee, whose composition should reflect diverse societal groups (see op. cit. footnote 16, page 248 of the 2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions); or to provide that such groups (e.g., non-governmental organizations, universities, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations) could also be invited to suggest or recommend candidates (see General Observation 1.7). In any case, the rules and procedures should promote broad consultation and/or participation of these diverse societal groups throughout the application, screening, selection and appointment processes (see General Observation 1.8). Op. cit. footnote 9, General Observation 1.7 and its Justification. See also OHCHR, Handbook on National Human Rights Institutions - History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities (2010), pages 39 and 173, <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1-NHRI_en.pdf>. See also e.g., Amnesty International, National Human Rights Institutions: Amnesty International’ Recommendations for Effective Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (2001), page 10, Recommendation 2.4, <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/007/2001/en/>. See op. cit. footnote 109, pars 19-22 (2016 OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Civil Service of Ukraine). See also ibid. page 156 (2010 OHCHR Handbook on NHRIs). ibid. page 156 (2010 OHCHR Handbook on NHRIs). See also op. cit. footnote 16, pages 173-174 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). ibid. page 156 (2010 OHCHR Handbook on NHRIs); and page 174 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). ibid. pages 123 and 152 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). 26