members, consideration should be given to staggering the end of the terms so as to guarantee continuity. The Paris Principles provide that terms should be renewable. Terms that are too short—two years, for example—may limit independence or be seen as limiting it. Members may feel that their reappointment is dependent on how acceptable they have been to the Government of the day. Moreover, short terms of two years or less do not give members the time to both enunciate a vision and put it into effect and therefore may impact negatively on the institution’s potential effectiveness. Who may dismiss members and on what grounds? Freedom from arbitrary dismissal is crucial to independence. Since institutions have authority to comment on governmental action, they should be shielded from retaliation. For this reason, the founding legislation should specify, in detail, the circumstances under which a member may be dismissed. Dismissals should be limited to serious wrongdoing, clearly inappropriate conduct or serious incapacity. Mechanisms for dismissal should be independent of the executive, such as a committee of senior judges, a court or a vote of parliament. When parliament is entrusted with this authority, a majority vote is often insufficient to cause dismissal. This is to minimize the possibility of a governing party acting arbitrarily. In its general observations, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation has further noted that: (a) The dismissal or forced resignation of any member may result in a special review of the accreditation status of the NHRI; (b) Dismissal should be made in strict conformity with all the substantive and procedural requirements as prescribed by law; (c) Dismissal should not be allowed based on solely the discretion of appointing authorities. Quick facts about independence, terms of office and dismissal In an OHCHR survey almost 80 per cent of respondents indicated that the terms of their members were between three and five years, which is reasonable to ensure tenure of membership. Nevertheless, barely 70 per cent of respondents’ founding laws state the grounds on which members may be dismissed and even fewer (just under 60 per cent) included a procedure for the dismissal of members. Independence through privileges and immunities NHRI members should enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for acts performed in an official capacity. Such privileges and immunities help secure independence by giving members a legal guarantee that they will not face retaliation from disgruntled parties, for example. Hence, privileges and immunities may be especially important for institutions which are granted the authority to receive and act on complaints of human rights violations. The Sub-Committee has strongly recommended provisions to be included in national law to protect against legal liability for actions undertaken in the official capacity of the NHRI (general observations, para. 2.5). Moreover, members and staff should be held inviolable and immune from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation or any other form of interference in their archives, files, documents, communications, property, funds and assets of the office or in their possession. This immunity is important to protect the ability of the NHRI to gather and maintain evidence and documents, and is vital to ensuring the safety of complainants and witnesses. This, in turn, is a requisite for the NHRI to undertake its responsibilities, which will often involve dealing with allegations of violations concerning individuals in positions of power, including the police, the armed forces and the security services. 42