membership is too large, the sheer cost of running an institution may be too high and diminish the possibility of establishing a full-time cadre of professional staff. The possibility of engaging part-time members on a pro bono or equivalent basis, which may be available to institutions in the developed world, may not be a realistic option elsewhere. Members from Government should participate in an advisory capacity only, so as to remove any suggestion that the institution is not completely independent. The Paris Principles also address the renewal of members’ terms (see sect. 3 below) by stating that renewal should not diminish the possibility of achieving pluralism. Pluralism can also be reflected in the work of the NHRI, for example: in the choice of facilitators and participants for workshops, etc., and in the subjects chosen for research projects, seminars and in public education materials. Appointments. Parliament should be part of the formal selection process to make it more credible and transparent. It can develop a shortlist of candidates which is then submitted to the executive for consideration and final selection, or it could consider and select from a shortlist of candidates prepared by the executive. The Sub-Committee, in its general observations (para. 2.2), notes the critical importance of the following factors in selection and appointment: ■■ A transparent process; ■■ Broad consultation throughout; ■■ Advertising vacancies broadly; ■■ Maximizing the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups; ■■ Selecting members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent. Pluralism is enhanced if social forces are involved in the selection. Responsibility for conducting the nomination and selection process can be delegated to a representative committee of experts, or the Government or parliament can consult with social forces to obtain their input. An expert committee could develop the shortlist from which either parliament or the executive would make the final selections. National human rights institutions usually have one member chosen to head the organization on a day-to-day basis, as well as one or more deputies. The head is usually called chief commissioner, president, chief ombudsman or chairperson. In some cases, this person may also be the chief executive officer. In other cases, the operational head of the organization may have this role, as executive director or secretary-general. The method by which these positions are chosen is also relevant to pluralism and transparency. Parliament or the executive can name these positions on the basis of a recommendation from the executive or through a parliamentary committee. Another option used in some institutions is to have the members themselves select their leaders. Again, this will generally depend on the enabling law, which should clearly set out who the operational as opposed to titular head of the NHRI is. Whatever method is adopted, it must be remembered that the principle of pluralism should apply. The chairperson and vice-chairs of an institution are usually given wide executive powers and have the capacity to shape its character. Moreover, they are typically its main spokespersons. They should be representative of the people they serve. Obviously, for all the reasons set out earlier, this may not be possible at any one point in time, but it should be demonstrably true over time. Women, who are always half the population, should always be represented among the senior membership of NHRIs. 38