types of mandates, such as maladministration or anti-corruption, resulting in “hybrid” institutions. In some countries, States have divided human rights responsibilities among several bodies with different mandates—gender commissions, for example. The second challenge is thematic diversity. NHRIs are expected to be the “key elements” of a strong and effective national human rights protection system, helping to ensure the compliance of national laws and practices with all international human rights norms; supporting Governments to ensure implementation; monitoring and addressing at the national level core human rights concerns such as torture, arbitrary detention, human trafficking and the human rights of migrants; supporting the work of human rights defenders; and contributing to eradicating all forms of discrimination.4 As new instruments are adopted, NHRIs are frequently called on to play a role. For example, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities gives an explicit role to NHRIs under its article 33. National human rights institutions are also expected to interact with an ever-growing group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens, networks and regional bodies, and to take on new issues: transitional justice, climate change and development, for example. The third challenge is the need for minimum standards so that NHRIs, regardless of their structure or mandate, can be assessed fairly and accredited. The Paris Principles play this role. Accreditation under the Paris Principles is the responsibility of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The fourth challenge relates to the importance of core protection activities. These include general activities relating to the prevention of torture and arbitrary detention, detention monitoring and the protection of human rights defenders. This work cannot be overemphasized: it is the most scrutinized function of NHRIs, especially in countries with serious human rights issues. In the face of this complexity and rapid change, NHRIs and those who work with them need to understand the broader context in which they operate. Targeted and effective support for NHRIs is more important than ever. Responses from more than 60 NHRIs to the above-mentioned OHCHR survey identified challenges and weaknesses, including inadequate funding, a need for technical assistance related to organizational and resource management, knowledge of the international human rights system, the importance of fostering relationships with public bodies and civil society, and the follow-up to NHRI recommendations by their Governments. In the survey many NHRIs called, among other things, for greater action and support from UNDP and OHCHR on these and other related matters. The General Assembly recognizes these needs and, in its resolution 63/172 (see annex VII below), it encouraged the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “in view of the expanded activities relating to national institutions, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made and budgetary resources provided to continue and further extend activities in support of national human rights institutions” and invited Governments “to contribute additional voluntary funds to that end”. 4 A/HRC/13/44, para. 108. 3