National human rights institutions that draw their mandate directly from international treaties and deal with all human rights are the most consistent with the indivisible, interdependent and universal nature of human rights and are considered the “best model”. Nonetheless, some institutions’ mandates are limited to civil and political rights, thus excluding economic, social and cultural rights. However, the limitation often applies to their investigative mandate, with the institutions having full authority to promote all rights. It is true, as noted earlier, that some NHRIs deal only with specific groups, women or children, for example. Others are limited, at least in their investigative role, to cases of discrimination. It is possible to have such a more limited mandate and still comply with the Paris Principles. Mandate set out in constitution or legislation The Paris Principles provide that the NHRI mandate “shall be clearly set forth in a constitutional or legislative text”. According to the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, this is a requirement: executive instruments such as decrees and orders do not comply with the Paris Principles.42 A constitutional or legislative base ensures greater permanence (since the mandate cannot be changed or withdrawn merely by executive order), greater independence (since the mandate is less likely to be changed or withdrawn if the NHRI does something the Government disagrees with) and greater transparency. According to a recent OHCHR survey, roughly a third of NHRIs are created by constitution, a third by legislation, and a further 15 per cent have both a constitutional and a legislative base.43 Where there is a constitutional base, it is advisable to have separate implementing legislation, since the level of detail required to establish and authorize the functioning of an NHRI is not usually appropriate for a constitution. For example, it may be more appropriate to define the nature, purpose and operational powers of an institution in legislation than in a constitution. Additional powers may be provided more readily through a legislative process. National human rights institutions that have only a legislative base still comply with the Paris Principles. However, legislative processes can be used to weaken an institution more readily than had it been protected constitutionally. In some cases, the enabling legislation of a national human rights institution has quasiconstitutional status. This means simply that if laws or Government policies violate human rights, they are considered inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency with the human rights law. In countries that have such a provision (Canada, for example), the institution has a powerful tool to seek adjudication of the issue before a human rights tribunal and to render the impugned law of no force or effect. Jurisdiction The Paris Principles require merely a “sphere of competence”, as set out in a constitutional provision or legislation. Obviously, the breadth of the NHRI mandate is a function of both its competence and its jurisdiction, and these are interlinked concepts. It follows that the NHRI jurisdiction should be as broad as possible, following the standards set out for the mandate. The Paris Principles also state that an institution may examine any matter that is “within its competence”. (There have been instances where the courts have been called upon to interpret the jurisdiction of the institution where it was not explicit.) Sub-Committee on Accreditation, general observations, para. 1.1. 42 This section is drawn from OHCHR, “Survey of national human rights institutions”. 43 32