been to create a single institution that combines human rights and traditional ombudsman functions.23 They usually share certain attributes of “ombudsman-like” NHRIs, that is, they are headed by a single person, they have recommendatory powers only, etc.24 They also share relative advantages and disadvantages. Hybrid institutions have the additional advantage of an integrated mandate: they provide a “one-stop” service across a range of issues. They offer economies of scale and avoid additional infrastructure costs. Finally, hybrid NHRIs leverage synergies and can work more cooperatively on complaints that straddle several issues. Their disadvantages stem from the difficulty of handling a multiple mandate effectively, and placing human rights on the same institutional footing as, say, maladministration or corruption. Human rights are fundamental and inalienable. This cannot be said about efforts to combat either maladministration or corruption, regardless of how serious these may be. Integrated mandates may diminish the weight and value given to human rights. 4. Consultative and advisory bodies Consultative commissions tend to have a very broad membership, with participation from many segments of society. While they have the authority to both protect and promote human rights, not all may investigate individual complaints. Consultative commissions tend to focus on advising the Government on major human rights issues and reporting on particularly significant problems. They can make recommendations only and tend to have broad research and advisory mandates across the full range of human rights recognized by the State, but do not generally have authority to entertain or investigate individual complaints. Some operate on a cost-recovery basis (i.e., they sell services), while others extend their work internationally. Other features are: ■■ They are drawn from a plurality of social forces and tend to have a large membership; ■■ They are usually not mandated to investigate cases, but may advise or consult broadly on a wide range of human rights issues; ■■ They focus on advising the State on human rights issues and/or conducting human rights research. These NHRIs are highly pluralistic, which can lend them credibility with both the population and the Government, with the latter because their opinions will carry the weight of these social forces. A large membership may, however, be expensive and inhibit swift decision-making. The focus that such institutions put on advising and human rights research encourages in-depth analysis and makes for better results. While their research may be more academic in focus, the main concern with such institutions is that they have no direct experience of individual complaints, which distances their work from direct protection of human rights. The absence of a mandate to investigate individual complaints, which is true of many (but not all) such institutions, may be seen as limiting their effectiveness. On the other hand, the institution will have the time and resources to devote to examining broader, systemic human rights issues. As with most other models, these institutions Linda C. Reif, The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System (Leiden, Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004). 24 Many of these institutions are also members of both the International Coordinating Committee and the International Ombudsman Institute, although not necessarily full members of the latter. 23 18