Finally, some countries have more than one national institution with human rights responsibilities. In some, the constitutional structure may dictate different commissions for different regions. In others, institutions have a different thematic responsibility (e.g., women’s rights, racial equality or children’s rights). Where this is the case, the sum total of the “coverage” provided by all the institutions may come close to that afforded by a single institution with wide powers. However, it should be noted that a consolidated NHRI with broad promotion and protection powers represents the most effective model and the one to recommend when considering setting up an NHRI in line with the Paris Principles or working with a country to consolidate different institutions. 1. Human rights commissions “Commission-style” models share the following attributes:22 ■■ They are State institutions with an explicit mandate to protect and promote human rights. While many have broad mandates, others have a specific focus, such as women’s rights; ■■ They are typically headed by a number of full-time and/or part-time members, who are decision makers; ■■ Investigation is a core function; ■■ Many can receive individual complaints (this is referred to as “quasi-jurisdictional competence” in the Paris Principles); ■■ Many have the authority to make recommendations only, following investigation (the more typical model). Human rights commissions generally have several members. This ensures pluralism or diversity of membership, a basic standard in the Paris Principles. Members may be fulltime or part-time, although the chief commissioner is a full-time position. While pluralism is a plus, a diffuse leadership may slow down decision-making and increase cost. The power to investigate human rights issues and/or individual complaints is obviously central to addressing human rights concerns in a meaningful manner. At the same time, commissions whose decisions or investigations are subject to judicial review in the courts tend to be very cautious in their investigations, which can lead to delays and formalistic approaches. This undermines the relative advantages that a commission is supposed to offer. It is also true that the costs of commissions with such authority may be quite high, especially if they offer free legal services to complainants in cases that go to court or a specialized tribunal. A number of human rights commissions focus only on equality rights and antidiscrimination work. Examples are found in the United States and in many Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In most cases, however, NHRIs have a broad mandate to promote all human rights. 2. Human rights ombudsman institutions The long ombudsman tradition significantly pre-dates NHRIs. Ombudsmen have existed for centuries in Nordic countries such as Sweden. They focus on mediation, use “good offices” to investigate and resolve complaints, and they prize confidentiality. They favour quick resolution and so generally are not as focused on formal legal investigations. It should be noted that some institutions use the term “commission” even though they are not commissions in the sense used here. 22 16