an institution must be free to publicize its advice without restraint and without requiring prior approval. It should also be understood that the first responsibility listed (to advise on legislation and human rights violations and situation) generally includes: – Receiving, investigating and issuing opinions and recommendations regarding alleged human rights violations (although it may not include the specific power to receive individual human rights complaints); and – Monitoring and reporting on human rights issues in general and on the situation of detained individuals in particular. The Paris Principles do not say that the above-listed requirements are a definitive list of NHRI responsibilities; rather they constitute the minimum or basic level of responsibilities. That said, the Paris Principles have not been interpreted as requiring an institution to actually carry out all of the listed responsibilities, but rather as requiring there to be no statutory or constitutional limitations that would prevent an institution from engaging in them if it chooses to do so. An institution may, for strategic or financial reasons, decide to prioritize some responsibilities over others. An institution operating in conformity with the Paris Principles will also have the authority to “hear any person and obtain any information and any documents necessary” for examining the questions it takes up. National human rights institutions should have the power to inquire into or investigate any question. This reinforces the principle of independence: it is the institution itself that will set the agenda for inquiries. National human rights institutions should also have the capacity to compel a person to give evidence or testimony and to protect individuals from retaliation for having done so. The authority to obtain any information or document also implies that the institution will have the authority to compel the production of documents and to use—or cause the responsible authorities to use—search and seizure powers. As with the authority to hear any witness, it also presupposes that there will be some penalty for refusing to produce, destroying or falsifying information and documents. Regular meetings. The Paris Principles require that NHRIs should hold regular meetings and convene all their members to these meetings. The requirement to meet regularly and whenever necessary is meant to ensure that the institution is active and responsive to need. Institutions whose members do not meet regularly or that fail to meet when critical situations arise will be open to accusations of ineffectiveness or even irrelevance. The authority to meet either regularly or as the need arises presupposes that the institution has a fixed venue as well as the capacity to set its own agenda. Both are central to its independence. Establishing working groups. Many institutions create working groups to take responsibility for certain core functions. These groups usually report back to the full membership so that all members remain aware of what is happening and can have a say in the process. Some issues, like establishing corporate policy, for example, should be carried out by the members themselves or a subset of members. The full membership need not be involved in all programme activities and decision-making, especially when these activities are either highly specialized or routine. As with the requirement to meet regularly, the authority to create working groups also underscores that the institution is master of its own procedures and therefore independent. Regional and local offices. In many countries, it is necessary to establish a presence that is close to the people, because of the sheer size of the country, the complexity of the issues it faces at local levels or the difficulty, financial or otherwise, of requiring individuals to come to the centre to receive services. Whatever the reason, many NHRIs decentralize their services to bring them closer to the people. 35