■■ Is there another, more appropriate avenue through which the allegation may be resolved? ■■ Was the complaint filed in a timely manner? All of these factors should be addressed in the founding legislation. Jurisdiction For a discussion on the restrictions on the competence and mandate of NHRIs with regard to subject matter, geographic limitations, time limitations and the type of organization that can be investigated, see chapter III. Should the matter be referred elsewhere? Some jurisdictions also allow the rejection of a complaint that is otherwise within the mandate of the institution if there are other mechanisms that may more appropriately deal with it. The enabling legislation should clearly set out an institution’s legal powers to ensure that there is no duplication of effort between organizations that have remedial powers. But the requirement is not merely a passive one: an institution must refer a client to the appropriate agency if it does not have jurisdiction. For example, a matter that should have been dealt with through a union grievance procedure first may not be dealt with but referred back if that process was not engaged. Where such restrictions apply, the institution should have some flexibility and discretion. It may be that the “other mechanism” does not work and so is not really appropriate. This is a judgement call, unless the statute is clear about rejecting complaints. Time limitations Time limitations are addressed in chapter III. Frivolous, trivial and vexatious complaints National human rights institutions are also generally empowered to reject cases on a preliminary basis that are considered frivolous or in bad faith. In some cases, the NHRI can also dismiss complaints that are, on their face, unwarranted or have no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The language of the statue will determine these powers. Decision not to investigate If any of the conditions described in this section apply, an NHRI is entitled to decide not to investigate the complaint. It is essential that the institution should inform the complainant of the reasons for the rejection and of the existence of any alternative procedures that may be available. Any delay in formulating or communicating a decision to reject a complaint should be avoided. Quick action at this preliminary stage will ensure that the complainant is able to take full advantage of alternative means of redress. It will also enhance the public image of the institution as a competent and helpful body. 3. The investigation An investigation is the formal examination of an allegation to determine whether or not the evidence available supports it. The powers related to investigation, as well as the investigative process, or at least parts of it, are often set out in the enabling law. In the most general terms, investigation involves the collection of evidence, the analysis of that evidence to form an opinion and the preparation of a report to facilitate a decision based on that evidence. 84