avoided. Broad restrictions of this kind can in fact lead to impunity and the acceptance of gross violations of human rights. Institutions that are restricted in these ways should try to minimize the impact, including by proposing legislative change or seeking court orders to broaden their mandate, depending on the country’s constitution. Time limits. Most NHRIs can address only matters that arose after their establishment. This restriction is relatively common. It allows the institution to focus on the future and helps ensure that it is not paralysed by a rash of old complaints. For institutions whose mandate extends to human rights violations that also constitute criminal acts, prospective operation also avoids the issue of retroactivity. Many enabling laws set a time limitation of six months, a year or two years, after which the claim is time-barred, although, in some cases, NHRIs may retain jurisdiction to hear out-of-time cases, but, again, this depends on the statute. The rationale for the limitation is twofold. First, it helps to ensure that parties are not dealing with cases where evidence has disappeared or memories have faded. The preferred approach is to leave it up to the institution to decide which cases it will investigate and when. This gives it a margin of discretion, since there may have been legitimate reasons for the delay. Second, in post-conflict situations, NHRIs may be given a mandate to inquire into past abuses in order to prevent impunity. However, consideration should be given to creating special bodies to deal with past abuses or to ensure that a transitional justice mandate is legally conferred on the NHRI. Responsibilities and methods of operation The Paris Principles describe the range of responsibilities that should be within the operational mandate of an institution. National human rights institutions can consider any question falling within their competence, regardless of the source of the question. They should not need the approval of a higher authority before deciding to consider a question. An NHRI should have the following responsibilities: – Providing opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports to the Government, parliament or other responsible organs on: ●● L egislative or administrative provisions, as well as provisions relating to judicial organizations; ●● The general situation of human rights or more specific human rights issues; ●● Situations of violations in any part of the country. – Encouraging the harmonization of national legislation and practices with international human rights instruments, as well as their effective implementation; – Encouraging the ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments; – Contributing to national human rights reports, including, where necessary, by expressing an independent opinion on matters discussed in them; – Cooperating with international and regional human rights organs, and other NHRIs; – Assisting and taking part in the development of human rights education and research programmes; – Raising public awareness about human rights and efforts to combat discrimination, especially racial discrimination, through publicity, information, education and the use of press organs. With regard to the responsibility to provide “opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports”, the Paris Principles make clear that an institution must, first, have the power to advise on its own initiative and not merely at the request of the authorities. Second, 34