Guidebook the power ‘to challenge the constitutionality of laws and regulations or general administrative acts’247 and ‘to intervene before relevant adjudicatory bodies and courts’.248 To conclude, it is important that Ombudsinstitutions who are also NHRIs pay sufficient attention to both mandates when thinking about their role vis-à-vis the judiciary. Given their specific mandate to protect and promote human rights and strengthen the legal system, all procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings should fall within the NHRIs’ mandate. Moreover, even when the their mandate is limited in regard to their competence to receive individual complaints, all NHRIs should always be able to tackle the general human rights challenges concerning the rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings (see below, Chapter 5.1). The national laws of the EU Member States regulate the powers of EU NHRIs towards such authorities in different ways. Often NHRIs, especially Ombudstype, have powers vis-à-vis the administrative branch, but their powers are limited when it comes to the judiciary in view of the principle of judicial independence, particularly when it comes to individual complaints (see below, Chapter 5.1). In these cases, the NHRIs powers vis-à-vis the judiciary are often restricted in the national laws to the ‘administration of justice’. The notion of administration of justice is ‘a difficult issue of classification’,249 encompassing e.g. delays in courts proceedings, impolite conduct of officials, defaults in executing judgments, deficiencies in the equipment of courts with resources and staff, as well as judicial supervision. In some States, administration of justice is defined exclusively in a formalistic manner, with the consequence that the powers of NHRIs extend to the judiciary only when judicial authorities conducts activities falling within the notion of ‘administration of justice’.250 Similarly, whether the power of the NHRI extents to the public prosecutor will depend on whether under national law public prosecutors are part of the administrative branch or the judiciary. On the other hand, if a State adopted a functional definition of administration of justice the power vis-à-vis prosecutors may depend on the actual function exercised by the prosecutor.251 The same approach is often adopted vis-à-vis law enforcement authorities, hence, to under- 54 THE MANDATE AND ROLE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS stand the limits of the NHRI’s intervention it will be relevant to know if the law enforcement authorities act with the authorisation of the prosecutors or judges.252 Thus, in these cases, the power of the NHRIs towards the police depends on whether the act is authorised by prosecutors or judges and thereby is part of the administration or the judiciary. In practice, there are several examples of NHRIs, especially those with NPM mandate, addressing the police in regard to procedural rights of suspects and accused.253 One interesting case comes from Slovenia. Slovenia In 2017 the Slovenian Ombudsman addressed a recommendations to the police stating that in every case of restriction of freedom which involves forced detention and consequently deprivation of liberty, police officers must inform individuals of their rights, as stipulated by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. 254 Similarly, in 2016 the Ombudsman pointed out that the police must consistently observe all the rights of suspects deprived of liberty, including the right to counsel. No reference was made to the EU instruments. 255 However, fewer examples of NHRIs addressing the judiciary could be found. This is especially the case for certain functions, such as individual complaints (see below, Chapter 5.1). Some NHRIs have used other tools to address the judiciary and more generally tackle the human rights challenges concerning procedural rights of suspects and accused persons even while there is a case pending before the judicial authorities. Netherlands For example, the Dutch NHRI carried out a dossier study examining pre-trial detention decisions by judges and how these fulfil the requirement of “reasoned” decisions, in light of human rights standards concerning the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. 256 The research included the analyses of around 300 court files from four district courts and two courts of appeal. It additionally envisaged the setting up of an advisory board composed also of judges, in addition 55