Guidebook THE MANDATE AND ROLE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS based and ensure pluralism in order to strengthen real and publicly perceived independence.229 Personal independence also includes working in a pressure-free environment 230 and proper remuneration of personnel to protect it against dependency on external sources.231 Lastly, privileges and immunities are key to prevent undue exertion of influence by the government and should be provided for by national law as well.232 In addition, for NHRIs with specialised mandates additional guidance on independence may also be found on their respective treaties, including e.g. OPCAT (Art 18);233 CRPD (Art 33 (2)).234 More recently, the issue of independence from political pressure and other forms of intimidation was raised by the UN Human Rights Council that stressed that “national human rights institutions and their respective members and staff should not face any form of reprisal or intimidation, including political pressure, physical intimidation, harassment or unjustifiable budgetary limitations, as a result of activities undertaken in accordance with their respective mandates, including when taking up individual cases or when reporting on serious or systematic violations”.235 The question of independence is also emphasised in the Venice Principles, adopted “following threats to these institutions in recent years”. 236 Already in the very first principle, they call States to “support and protect the Ombudsman Institution and refrain from any action undermining its independence”,237 including adequate resources, stable mandate and immunity.238 In its resolution endorsing the Venice Principle, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe explicitly called member states to “refrain from any action aiming at or resulting in the suppression or undermining of the Ombudsman institution and from any attacks or threats against such institutions and their staff, and protect them against such acts”.239 2.3. The role of NHRIs vis-à-vis public authorities To protect and promote the procedural rights effectively it is important that the NHRIs have the power to address the police, prosecutors and judges on matters concerning human rights. 52 According to the Paris Principles, NHRIs are allowed to address their recommendations to all public authorities. Their mandate should extend ‘to protect the public from acts and omissions of public authorities, including officers and personnel of the military, police and special security forces. Where such public authorities, who may potentially have a great impact on human rights, are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NHRI, this may serve to undermine the credibility of the Institution.’240 The Paris Principles and the SCA General Observations, however, make no explicit reference to the judiciary, except when regulating the quasi-judicial function.241 Thus the question arises whether and to what extent NHRIs are mandated to address the judiciary. In this regard, some international guidance was put forward by the OHCHR, which affirmed that NHRIs, although they should always respect the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, are not prevented from ‘monitoring and reporting on court activities, and making independent recommendations meant to improve the application of human rights principles in the court setting or to remove undue delay in judicial proceedings.’242 The same is also emphasised in the Nairobi Declaration of 2008 stating that NHRIs should consider contributing to the promotion of the role of the judiciary in promoting and protecting human rights, by providing recommendations to strengthen the legal system and judiciary, as well as promoting adherence and compliance of the judiciary to international human rights norms, including through amicus curiae and legal education.243 As many NHRIs in the EU are Ombudsinstitutions, it is also worth looking at the standards concerning Ombudsinstitutions. In this regard, the 2019 Venice Principles state that ‘the right to complain to the Ombudsman is an addition to the right of access to justice through the courts’244 and that the ‘competence of the Ombudsman relating to the judiciary shall be confined to ensuring procedural efficiency and administrative functioning of that system’.245 The Venice Principles further add that ‘the Ombudsman shall have the power to address individual recommendations to any bodies or institutions within the competence of the Institution’.246 Yet even the Venice Principles state that Ombudsinstitutions should preferably have 53