b. m odels of NatioNal humaN rights iNstitutioNs According to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, States have the right to choose the framework that best suits them, subject to international human rights standards. Although the Paris Principles set out the minimum standards for the roles and responsibilities of NHRIs, they do not dictate NHRI models or structures. Different institutional structures are evolving rapidly, and there are as many variations as there are geographic regions and legal traditions.20 There are many different kinds of “national institutions” in the broad sense of that term. Auditors-general and “classic” ombudsmen with no human rights mandates in their enabling laws are autonomous, national institutions that may touch on human rights issues in their work, but are not NHRIs. On the other hand, ombudsman institutions often have specific responsibility for human rights. Institutional type 5% 30% 7% 58% Commission Ombudsman Hybrid Other Source: OHCHR, NHRI survey, 2009. Only by carefully reading the enabling law and the mandate can it be determined if an institution is an NHRI. That said, some ombudsman offices take the position that they can handle human rights matters in practice, even if the country has a separate NHRI. In such cases, the institutions should be encouraged to work together to avoid duplication or confusion. It should be noted that some NGOs also have the word “commission” in their name, but an NGO is not an NHRI. Survey results from 2009 show that while NHRIs vary considerably, there are dominant models. Human rights commissions account for more than half of NHRIs. Ombudsman institutions are the next largest group, especially in the Americas, accounting for about a third. The ombudsman model is common in Eastern Europe, Central and South America and in the Commonwealth of Independent States. There has been growing recognition of the role of national human rights commissions and ombudsman institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights at the national, regional and international levels, and increased cooperation among regional and international associations of ombudsmen and NHRIs in the context of the Paris Principles, as well as between these organizations and the United Nations system as a whole, has been encouraged. Reference should be made to the results of meetings of the Human Rights Council in September 2009, on the role of the ombudsman, the mediator and national human rights institutions in the United Nations system of promotion and protection of human rights, as framed by General Assembly resolutions 63/169 and 63/172.21 Hybrid, consultative and research bodies make up a small number of NHRIs. 20 21 Particular models do tend to be found in certain regions and are the product of the legal tradition of that particular area. For example, NHRIs have been described as being in the Hispanic, francophone or Commonwealth tradition, while in most of Africa and Asia there are multi-member institutions that receive complaints, in Latin America single-member defensores del pueblo, in European Nordic countries ombudsmen, and in Europe generally advisory institutions. See International Council on Human Rights Policy and OHCHR, Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions (2005). A/HRC/13/44, para. 109. 15