Guidebook CONCLUSIONS 6. CONCLUSIONS After an overview of the key standards on procedural rights as well as the mandate and practice of EU NHRIs, this part concludes the Guidebook by identifying the main recommendations for a greater involvement of NHRIs in the promotion and protection of the procedural rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings. 1. Prioritize the rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings in your strategies. Although almost all NHRIs have worked on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings in a way or another, criminal procedural rights do not seem to be among the strategic priorities of NHRIs, and sometimes they are even perceived to fall outside their mandate. • Procedural rights are ‘gateway rights’ or in other words crucial safeguards to ensure the respect of a numerous human rights, including the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, the right to a fair trial, and the right to liberty and security. • The Paris Principles empower NHRIs to deal with all human rights in the widest sense, including the rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings. Moreover, procedural rights are defined as ‘core protection issues’. 2. Make sure that no rights are overlooked and stand up to safeguard the rights of those who fall outside the protection of other institutions or have no other lobby Often the biggest challenge in the promotion and protection of procedural rights is that suspects and accused are seen only as subjects of ‘ordinary criminal law’ but not as human rights holders. There is a risk that those rights are forgotten and overlooked. • Due to their broad mandate, NHRIs are ideally placed to safeguard the rights of those who fall outside the protection of other institutions or those who have no other lobby 106 • NHRIs should promote the universal applicability of human rights standards to all persons and raise awareness on the fact that the procedural rights of suspects and accused are human rights 3. Interpret your mandate broadly - NHRIs are empowered to address all public authorities, including also the police and the judiciary; as well as private entities (e.g. bar associations, interpreters associations etc.) Some NHRIs are reluctant to work on procedural rights as they see it as an interference with the judiciary. • NHRIs with complaints handling mandate should have the power to receive complaints on criminal procedural rights, at a very minimum when they concern the investigation phase, i.e. proceedings before the police and the pre-trial phase. If the national laws limit NHRIs’ competence to receive complaints when the same case is simultaneously pending before a court, the laws should also provide for a number of exceptions, such as ‘excessively long proceedings’, ‘evident abuse of authority’, ‘in cases of manifest abuse of power’, which should be interpreted broadly. • The fact that an individual complaint is inadmissible or that the NHRI does not have a complaint handling mandate should never prevent the NHRI from investigating the more general human rights issues arising from the case. As recommended by Amnesty International, “[t]he fact that a complaint has been charged and a criminal prosecution is under way should not be a pretext for stopping NHRIs from acting on a complaint, or taking any other action within their mandate to address human rights concerns. Where prosecutions are pending, the NHRI should not consider the substance of the criminal charge, but should be able to look at ancillary matters relating to human rights of the accused person, for example, allegations that he or she has been tortured while in custody.” • Further guidance by international bodies on the role of NHRIs vis-à-vis the judiciary is recommended. 107