■■ The removal of commissioners, all of which would undermine their ability to function effectively. In the NHRI context, “early warning” means that there is a threat to its viability based on good field intelligence. It is possible that outsiders may be aware of potential problems before the institution itself. Sometimes, “early warning” will involve actions that the Government is contemplating, such as: ■■ Suggesting that the enabling legislation should be amended in a way that might impact on a national institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles; ■■ Suggesting that the nominating process for commissioners should be less transparent or should otherwise be carried out in ways that might lead to suspicions about their independence (it is possible that these concerns come to light during the nomination process itself); ■■ Suggesting that commissioners or key officials should be removed from the institution because of actions taken that might be viewed as contrary to Government policy. The International Coordinating Committee has developed guidelines on the action it should take in the event of such threats to remove them.47 The early warning mechanism can, therefore, be seen as a step to prevent “changed circumstances” that might lead to a review of accreditation. 7. A checklist for assessing compliance with the Paris Principles The following checklist may be helpful in assessing an institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles. It identifies the Paris Principles and the minimum requirements to satisfy them. If the principle or requirement, or any part of it, is not directly taken from the Paris Principles, it is italicized. Compliance cannot be assessed by a simple “yes” or “no” response. The principle requiring an institution to have “a broad mandate” is one such example. The checklist attempts to develop a hierarchy of possibilities in such cases so that the degree to which an institution meets the standard can be assessed, which in no way implies that a relatively low degree of compliance will be non-conforming. This checklist is not exhaustive: an examination of an institution’s responsibilities should not end with whether it can carry out a given function. Much more important than the capacity to do something is actually carrying out the work in a way that demonstrates the institution’s fundamental independence and professional competence. The checklist includes activities that are central to its responsibilities. For the same reason, the responsibilities of NHRIs with quasi-jurisdictional competence are formulated to ask whether these institutions actually carry out the activities as opposed to whether they have the authority to do so. 47 “National institutions in need: guidelines for early warning”, available from www.nhri.net. 49