OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights selection committee, which would be limited to selecting from among the candidates already proposed by the nominating bodies. 54. The Draft Amendments include a provision on the appointment process, which shall be done through a committee of the National Council that has responsibility in the ‘area of human rights’. Two proposals are made for each position by the 7 entities entitled to nominate members: the Public Defender of Rights, the Commissioner for Children and Commissioner for Disabilities (a joint nomination), the President of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, the board of directors of the Slovak Bar Association, the Slovak Syndicate of Journalists, one jointly by the Chairman of the Association of Towns and Municipalities of Slovakia and the Chairman of Association of self-governing regions, and the Prime Minister following the proposal of NGOs, using a procedure determined by the Prime Minister. The Explanatory Report gives the rationale for the inclusion of these five nominating entities. The Committee of the National Council then selects one candidate from each of the two proposals (§ 3 a (3) of the Draft Amendments). 55. The absence of any detail on the selection process to be followed by the nominating bodies means that this provision is unlikely to be in compliance with the Paris Principles. Furthermore, the use of nominating bodies here may be problematic as it may not meet the requirements of the process set out under SCA General Observation 1.8 (see below). The SCA previously raised concerns about both of these issues in relation to the SNCHR.80 56. The SCA recommended that the Centre advocate for the formalisation of a Paris Principle’s compliant selection process in laws, regulations or binding administrative guidelines.81 It is unlikely that the provisions proposed in the draft law are sufficient to meet these requirements. 57. The SCA has been robust in its recommendations to NHRIs on the selection and appointment process for NHRI leadership, particularly board members. SCA General Observation 1.8 provides that ‘[i]t is critically important to ensure the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process of the NHRI’s decision-making body in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate. A process that promotes merit based selection and ensures pluralism is necessary to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the senior leadership of an NHRI.82 It requires a selection process that is ‘characterized by 80 The SCA stated ‘The SCA understands that the administrative board, the decision making body of the SNCHR, is made up of members selected by nine separate appointing authorities, each of which can define its own selection criteria. It is critically important to ensure the formalization of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process of the NHRI’s decision-making body in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate. A process that promotes merit-based selection and ensures pluralism is necessary to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the senior leadership of a NHRI’ Op. cit. fn 7, p. 8 (2014 ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report. 81 Ibid, p. 9. 82 The SCA stated that ‘Such a process should include requirements to: a) Publicize vacancies broadly; b) Maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups; c) Promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process; d) Assess applicants on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria; and Select members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.’ Op cit. fn 7, SCA General Observation 1.8 19