National human rights institutions that are ombudsmen (defensor del pueblo in Spanishspeaking countries or public defenders in parts of Central and Eastern Europe) are generally structured around a single head of the institution, similar to its counterpart in “classic” ombudsman offices. However, these institutions specifically promote and protect human rights, and are not principally focused on promoting good governance in public administration. This model is heavily dependent on the reputation, integrity and leadership of the ombudsman herself or himself, as well as on the authority that the position exercises in society. “Ombudsman-like” NHRIs generally have the following features: ■■ They are State institutions, with a mandate to protect and promote human rights; ■■ They are usually headed by a single member, who is the decision maker (although some have deputies); ■■ They have a mandate to deal principally with human rights, although they may be specialized in single human rights issues such as women’s rights. ■■ They investigate human rights and can often receive individual complaints; ■■ They are generally limited to making recommendations. More recently, however, some have been given authority to go to court or to a specialized tribunal in specific instances where their recommendations have been ignored or rejected. So this distinction does not always hold. Ombudsman institutions with powers to make recommendation—the majority—may be more flexible and faster in handling complaints. While their decisions must be reasoned and supported by evidence, they are not generally binding. Having a single member at the helm complicates the requirement for pluralism; a single member from the majority or dominant group may diminish the institution’s credibility among other parts of society. There are ways to get around this, for instance with advisory boards or councils. Their importance was emphasized in General Assembly resolution 63/169 on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other NHRIs in the promotion and protection of human rights. In it, the General Assembly underlined the importance of the autonomy and independence of the ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions. It also encouraged Member States to consider the creation or the strengthening of independent and autonomous ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions, and to develop, where appropriate, mechanisms of cooperation between these institutions in order to coordinate their actions, strengthen their achievements and exchange lessons learned. More recently, the General Assembly, in its resolution 64/161, encouraged increased cooperation between national human rights institutions and regional and international associations of ombudsmen. It also encouraged ombudsman institutions to actively draw on the standards enumerated in international instruments and the Paris Principles to strengthen their independence and increase their capacity to act as national human rights protection mechanisms. 3. Hybrid institutions “Hybrid” NHRIs are single State institutions with multiple mandates. They deal with human rights, but may also address maladministration, corruption or environmental matters. In Spain and some Latin American jurisdictions, for instance, the practice has 17