Limitations in the type of issue. The determination of jurisdiction and its extent is a matter of statutory interpretation. In practice, many enabling laws restrict the types of issues that NHRIs can address. These limitations rarely extend to promotional activities such as public education. But an institution may have limitations placed on the types of rights it can enforce, for example. Some institutions may deal only with civil and political rights; some protect only the rights of a particular group (e.g., minorities or women); some deal only with discrimination. These and similar limitations are common and do not, in and of themselves, prevent an institution from complying with the Paris Principles. In certain cases, if the NHRI believes that its own legislative mandate is too narrow, and if it has standing before the courts, it may be able to seek a judicial review of its enabling legislation so that this can be brought into line with the constitution, where circumstances permit. And, of course, an institution can use its capacity to review and comment on legislation or advise the Government to argue for the removal of the limitations that it considers excessive. Limitations with regard to parliament. National human rights institutions generally have no authority over parliament, nor can they in any way affect the traditional immunities and privileges enjoyed by members of the legislative assembly. These immunities are meant to protect freedom of political discourse and are generally staunchly defended in democratic societies. This does not, however, insulate the work of legislative assemblies from NHRI scrutiny. National human rights institutions can comment on bills to ensure laws meet human rights standards; some may be able to initiate proceedings or to intervene before the courts to question the constitutionality of certain laws. In addition, parliamentarians are not immune from liability for human rights actions arising from the employment of staff in their offices, or from actions outside the conduct of official business or of parliament. The scope of immunities will vary from State to State and an institution would be guided by applicable law and parliamentary procedure. Courts and the judiciary are generally exempt from oversight by NHRIs. Courts, and the judges that serve on them, have an independence that is essential for ensuring full respect of the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law demands that administrative bodies should not sit in appeal or review of the courts. This does not, however, prevent monitoring and reporting on court activities, and making independent recommendations meant to improve the application of human rights principles in the court setting or to remove undue delay in judicial proceedings. Many NHRIs cannot deal with human rights matters involving the private sector (companies and corporations). (For further discussion, see chapter II.) National human rights institutions cannot generally enquire into matters concerning the armed forces, the security services and/or Government decisions on international relations. These restrictions do not contradict the letter of the Paris Principles, but they do go against their spirit. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation’s general observations provide that: the scope of the mandate of many national institutions is restricted for national security reasons. While this tendency is not inherently contrary to the Paris Principles, it is noted that consideration must be given to ensuring that such restriction is not unreasonably or arbitrarily applied and is exercised under due process (para. 5.2). It may be reasonable to place restrictions on who may access sensitive documents in cases where national security is demonstrably at stake, and where a judicial authority has proclaimed such to be the case, but wholesale exclusion of jurisdiction should be 33