1. Character of the national institution A. Independence Independence is the attribute that most clearly underpins a national institution’s legitimacy and credibility, and hence its effectiveness. An institution’s organic law should set out its appointment mechanisms, terms of office, mandate, powers, funding and lines of accountability. It should ­guarantee the institution’s independence and powers, and make it more ­difficult to undermine its status in future. Good appointment mechanisms are vital to achieving an independent and diverse membership. The law should include the following provisions, as appropriate: Answerable to Parliament – Like any public body, NHRIs should be ­accountable. They should not answer to the government of the day, but to an authority other than the executive, most usually the legislature. In practice, of course, legislatures may not be genuinely separate from government or from (vested) political and other interests. However, the creation of an institution presumes that the executive is prepared to recognise a separation of powers between different public bodies. Terms of office of members – Members of national human rights institutions should have clearly defined terms of office (even if they are indefinite, as for judges, or renewable). Terms should not be too short. Longer non-renewable terms are a better guarantee of independence than renewable shorter terms. Five years is a reasonable period within which members can be effective but not too influenced by concerns about future job prospects. Members should not fear dismissal (or non-reappointment) if they displease powerful interests. Adequate remuneration – The independence and integrity of members may be reinforced if they are properly remunerated. This will also ensure that members will be professional and work full-time. No instruction from the government – The law should clearly state that members and staff of NHRIs will not receive instructions from government ministers or other public officials, directly or indirectly, and that public officials should not attempt to issue such instructions. Similarly, they should not receive ­instructions from private entities, especially when their activities fall within the national ­institution’s purview. Avoidance of conflicts of interest – Where the mandate of NHRIs includes ­ rivate companies and other private actors, members should not expose p ­themselves to conflicts of interest. Equally they should not serve on the board of other public bodies. Either they should sever their connections to public and private organisations on taking office, or they should clearly declare an interest and remove themselves from areas of activity and decisions where conflicts of interest may arise. No legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity – Members should be immune from legal action arising from actions they take in good faith in 12 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions