A/66/44 including any steps taken to investigate their claims, the body that undertook the investigation, and the outcome of that investigation. National human rights institution (12) While noting the State party’s response to the recommendation to establish an independent national human rights institute made in the course of the universal periodic review (A/HRC/10/79), the Committee is concerned that no such institute has been established in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles). The Committee regrets that the existing national protection mechanisms within the Office of the President, including the National Institute for Democracy and Human Rights and the State Commission to Review Citizens’ Complaints on the Activities of Law Enforcement Agencies do not comply with the Paris Principles, especially in respect of their composition of membership and lack of independence (arts. 2, 11 and 13). The State party should proceed with the establishment of an independent national human rights institution, in accordance with the Paris Principles, which is vested with the competence to hear and consider complaints and petitions concerning individual situations, to monitor detention facilities, and to make the results of its investigations public, and should ensure the implementation of the institution’s recommendations with respect to awards of redress to victims and the prosecution of perpetrators, as well as the provision of adequate resources for its operation. The Committee recommends that the State party establish a national preventive mechanism as a part of a national human rights institution. It also invites the State party to consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Human rights defenders (13) The Committee notes with concern numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of intimidation, reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, journalists and their relatives, as well as the lack of information provided on any investigations into such allegations. The Committee also expressed its serious concerns about reports that human rights defenders have faced arrest on criminal charges, apparently in retaliation for their work, and trials in which numerous due process violations have been reported. The Committee expresses its grave concern that on 30 September 2010, President Berdymukhamedov instructed the Ministry of National Security to lead an “uncompromising fight again those who slander our democratic... secular state” following a satellite television station’s broadcast of an interview with Farid Tukhbatullin, an exiled Turkmen human rights defender, which had aired the previous day. While remaining concerned about reported threats against Mr. Tukhbatullin and attacks against the website he operates, the Committee appreciates the oral assurance given by the State party’s representative that he will not be intimidated or threatened by the Government of Turkmenistan or its agents. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to implement the decision of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (Opinion No. 15/2010) and to reply to the urgent appeals sent by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/4/37/Add.1, paras. 700–704) on behalf of Annakurban Amanklychev, a member of the Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation, and Sapardurdy Khajiev, a relative of Foundation’s director (arts. 2, 12 and 16). The State party should take all necessary steps: (a) To ensure that human rights defenders and journalists, in Turkmenistan and abroad, are protected from any intimidation or violence as a result of their activities; GE.11-45568 129