OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights openness and transparency’, and under the control of ‘an independent and credible body and involve open and fair consultation with NGOs and civil society’.83 58. The provisions for the selection and appointment process must be enshrined in law even where the practice meets the Paris Principles requirements,84 preferably this should be in the enabling legislation. 85 Where appointments are made by a committee, such as a parliamentary committee, the process by which names are obtained by that committee still needs to be set out in a legal document.86 The SCA has criticized the existing NHRI law of Slovakia for having ‘nine separate appointing authorities, each of which can define its own selection criteria’. The fact of reducing the number of nominating bodies via the Draft Amendments, will not remedy this. Nor will the fact that some of these bodies are independent bodies that form part of the national human rights system. The draft law fails to set out any procedure which the nominating bodies should follow in making their nominations. Additionally, some of the nominating bodies could potentially be subject to investigation by the SNCHR, the very entity they nominate to, in the future, creating a conflict of interest in the nomination process. 59. The current provisions in the Draft Amendments do not meet the Paris Principles requirements for selection and appointment of members of the board. Ensuring a Paris Principle compliant selection and appointment process is critical to obtaining A-Status. To comply with the Paris Principles, the requirements for the selection and appointment process for board members must be explicitly set out in the legislation. §3a of the Draft Amendments should be significantly changed, setting out a procedure that is publicly advertised, merit-based, open and transparent, and participatory and consultative including with civil society. 5.2 Composition and Membership Requirements of the Board 60. There are two specific provisions for membership included in § 3 a (4) of the Draft Amendments. The proposed provisions require that to be appointed, a person must have ‘unimpeachable integrity’, and has been for at least for five years active in the area of human rights or in the area of non-discrimination’. ‘Unimpeachable integrity’ in this case, per sub-section 5, means that the person ‘has not been lawfully sentenced for a deliberate crime or crime for which he/she was imposed an unconditional sentence of imprisonment… to be showed [sic] by an extract from the Criminal records’. ‘Active’ is defined in sub-section 6 as ‘a person is considered active in line with para. 4 subpara. b) if he/she is active in public sector, nongovernment sector, in science, research and education or legal profession, mediation and other forms of provision of legal aid.’ An additional requirement is set in sub-section 8 whereby membership is incompatible with ‘a function in a public body or membership in a political party or a political union’ and requiring termination of such position within 30-days of appointment. 83 Op. cit. fn 7, SCA General Observation 1.8, justification. SCA Report, New Zealand, May 2016, pp. 42-43. SCA Report, Zimbabwe, May 2016 p. 22. See also, SCA Report, Canada, May 2011 p. 12. 85 SCA Report, Mauritania, November 2009 p. 4; SCA Report, Belgium, March/April 2010 p. 11; SCA Report, Switzerland, March/April 2010, p. 12; SCA Report, Congo, October 2010, p. 4. 86 SCA Report, South Africa, November 2017, p. 31. See also, SCA Report, Denmark, November 2017, pp. 3940. 84 20