Guidebook As shown in Annex 2, in the European Union, the majority of EU NHRIs or equivalent bodies is composed by ombudsperson institutions (14); but there are also consultative bodies (3); centres/institutes (3 + Denmark); commissions (1 + UK) and specialised bodies with a specific mandate (2). Including Denmark and UK, there are 17 NHRIs accredited with A status (Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain); 6 NHRIs with B status (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden);215 and 5 Member States that do not have an accredited NHRI. 3 of them have nonetheless national equivalent institutions in place (Czech Republic, Estonia and Romania).216 Italy and Malta have no comparable institution in place. 2.2. Although in the EU the great majority of NHRIs are Ombudsinstitutions, it is important to remember that the two institutions are different in purpose; the classical ombudsman institutions having as a main focus maladministration instances. Moreover, even when Ombudsinstitutions have been given the mandate to protect and promote human rights under national law, there are cases in which this mandate was not accompanied by the additional powers necessary to effectively carry out the NHRI functions, such as for example contestation of laws or application for authentic interpretation before the constitutional court, constitutional appeals for violation of human rights, rights to file applications before courts due to human rights violation.217 The difference has been recently acknowledged by the Council of Europe,218 which adopted principles specifically targeting Ombudsinstitutions: the Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution (the “Venice Principles”).219 Firstly, in terms of functional independence the Paris Principles prescribes that NHRIs should be anchored in a constitutional or legislative text regulating their mandate and “specifying its composition and its sphere of competence”.222 Such legal foundation serves as a safeguard against interference by government.223 Moreover, many EU NHRIs are also entrusted with additional specialised mandates. Including Denmark and the UK, out of the existent 25 EU NHRIs or equivalent bodies, 13 have an NPM mandate and 16 have a CRPD mandate (see Annex 2). Depending on the model and the additional specialised mandates enjoyed, the powers, functions and aims of NHRIs may vary considerably. 50 THE MANDATE AND ROLE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS NHRIs independence One of the key features of an NHRI and a necessary condition of its effective functioning is its independence from the government. The SCA emphasised that a NHRI shall be independent “in its structure, composition, decisionmaking and method of operation. It must be constituted and empowered to consider and determine the strategic priorities and activities of the NHRI based solely on its determination of the human rights priorities in the country, free from political interference”.220 The Paris Principles not only clearly stipulate that a NHRI must be able to “freely consider any question falling within its competence”,221 but also indicate a number of guarantees of the independence. Secondly, to ensure the financial independence of NHRIs, the State must provide the core funding of the NHRIs, whereas additional funding from external sources can be accepted in exceptional circumstances unless they impact the independence of the NHRI. 224 The SCA recommends that NHRIs have financial autonomy on a budget line controlled by them.225 Such an own budget line further empowers the NHRIs to have their own staff and premises226, which is crucial to ensure their real and publicly perceived independence.227 Thirdly, independence is to be understood in a way that NHRIs have the mandate to choose their own staff. The appointment and dismissal procedure of the NHRI members should be prescribed by a legal or even constitutional statute clearly defining the criteria for appointing and dismissing NHRI members, determining the length of term in office and shielding the members against arbitrary dismissal.228 Both procedures must be subject to due process of law to guarantee the personal independence of NHRI members. The selection and appointment process should be merits- 51