D. Reviewing proposed legislation , policy or practice 1. Institution’s responsibility Even if the enabling legislation does not specifically authorize the NHRI to comment on proposed legislation, it may nevertheless use its general authority to advise the Government to intervene in the discussion on proposed legislative and/or policy initiatives, for a number of reasons: – It is easier to change a draft law than to repeal or amend an existing one, once the Government has decided on a course of action; – Getting legislation, policy and practice right in the first instance prevents problems later on, such as human rights investigations or court interventions after the fact; – Interventions at the drafting stage promote public and open discussions on the aims and expected impact of the legislation, and help to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals are part of this public debate. The Government should be made aware of the advantages of cooperating in such consultations and on carefully considering and acting on an institution’s recommendations. The review process will be similar to the one outlined in the previous section. The sooner the institution becomes involved in the process, the easier it is to positively influence its outcome. This is because officials will not have invested so much of their time and effort towards a certain end—time and energy that they might be unwilling to see wasted. Often, proposals for legislative action start in the line ministry and by the time they reach the ministry of justice, which may be responsible for preparing the legal draft, all the hard thinking on the contents is completed. Entering into discussions at this point may be too late, as positions may have become entrenched. To ensure that it can comment on proposals and do so early in their development, an institution should develop and maintain regular and substantive contact with the staff who are responsible for preparing initial drafts of legislation, regulation, policy and procedures, as well as with more influential officials. Establishing these working relationships helps ensure that the institution is aware of planned initiatives early on and is in a position to effect change as necessary. 2. Advice on incorporating international norms The Paris Principles specifically require NHRIs to incorporate international norms into domestic law. It must be remembered that the obligation to ensure consistency, statutory or otherwise, with international human rights norms falls to the State. The legislature, the judiciary and the executive should facilitate the implementation of these obligations. National human rights institutions can help to ensure that international obligations are implemented at the national level and act as a “friendly critic” or facilitator and supporter, but cannot, obviously, be the implementer of these norms. Institutions are generally responsible for promoting and supporting: ■■ Harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practice with the international instruments to which the State is a party; ■■ Ratification of or accession to human rights treaties that the State has not yet signed;59 Identified as a key function by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (general observations, para. 1.3). 59 106