4. Principles that apply to national human rights institutions with quasi-jurisdictional competence All NHRIs should have the general authority to protect human rights and the specific authority to take up “any situation of violation of human rights”, as well as to consider “any questions falling within [their] competence”. Some institutions may, in addition, consider “complaints and petitions concerning individual situations”. This authority is referred to as “quasi-jurisdictional competence”. In this regard, the Paris Principles are not as clear as they could be. For the purposes of this discussion, a “quasi-jurisdictional institution” is an NHRI that performs an administrative or quasi-judicial function that has an adjudicative component related to an individual complaint. Institutions that receive individual complaints are bound by general principles of administrative law: these may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they generally include concepts like procedural fairness, due process, and proper delegation of authority and appropriate exercise of discretion. These should be reflected in their enabling legislation and internal processes. The NHRI should also have the legal powers associated with an investigation and be able to exercise these directly. These may include the power to compel witnesses to appear and to require the production of evidence. There are two main types of institutions with complaint-handling functions. The first are NHRIs that can themselves impose a binding decision on the parties following an investigation. The second—more common than the first—can make a finding and refer the matter to a specialized board or tribunal that is independent of the institution or to the courts in order to obtain a binding decision. National human rights institutions may act on behalf of the complainant during the process or on behalf of the public interest, depending on their legal mandate. In some instances, complainants are required to obtain their own representation. Institutions with quasi-jurisdictional competence offer a faster, less expensive and more accessible venue for dealing with human rights violations than traditional court systems. Those institutions that reach their own decisions can resolve matters without reference to the courts. This raises concern about bias however, since the same organization that undertakes investigations should not, generally, render decisions on the same cases. This is why, in many jurisdictions, Governments have created separate boards or tribunals to separate the adjudication from the investigation. Institutions’ processes tend to be more accessible because they are generally free, do not require a lawyer and are more informal. National human rights institutions and specialized tribunals in particular offer a higher degree of expertise and seek to provide remedies that are based on restorative justice rather than punishment, although certain types of behaviours may result in penal sanctions and other orders to ensure compliance. Quasi-jurisdictional NHRIs have the authority to make findings, usually in the form of a final report, after the investigation. They can make recommendations to the authorities proposing amendments or law reform. The parties may choose to comply with the finding or the NHRI can refer the matter to a specialized tribunal or board or to the courts. In many jurisdictions, the case then undergoes a full hearing. 43