OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 61. NHRI membership requirements should not be unduly restrictive. The requirement of ‘unimpeachable integrity’ is clearly defined in and there are legitimate reasons for the exclusion of certain persons who have obtained a criminal record, particularly where the offence related for example to discrimination or human rights. At the same time, minor violations of an administrative nature, even if regulated by criminal law should not automatically lead to exclusion from candidacy. Additionally, convictions should be legal according to the requirements of international human rights law. . At the same time, minor violations of an administrative nature, even if regulated by criminal law should not automatically lead to exclusion from candidacy. Additionally, convictions for crimes of a political nature handed down before 1989 should not be considered automatic reasons for dismissal of candidacy. In any case, integrity requirements in the Draft Amendments should be similar to those for other, similar senior positions coupling high public exposure with a necessity for a high level of integrity. 5.3 Term of Office and Termination of the Board 62. Term of office of board members is for five years, renewable once, and nonsubstitutable. This term has been increased from three years in the existing law, and is in keeping with SCA requirements for length of terms of office. 63. § 3 (a) 11 of the Draft Amendments provides for termination by expiration of term of office, resignation, death, “by effectiveness of a decision of conviction of a member of the Administrative Board for a deliberate crime or crime in case the court has not ruled on suspension of sentence of imprisonment”, or “recalling of a member of the Board”. § 3 a (12) provides that recall of a member may be done by the rest of the Board for failure to participate in three consecutive meetings without serious justification, hurting the “good name and interests” of the SNCHR by their conduct or statements, for reasons of health, or failure to comply with sub-section 8 of the same. 64. Provisions for dismissal of NHRI board members must be independent and objective, set out in the enabling law, and “similar to that accorded to members of other independent State agencies”.87 65. The SCA states that ‘[m]embers may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the national law.’88 In this regard, the Draft Amendments may fail to meet the requirements of the Paris Principles. The provision in § 3 a (12) of the Draft Amendments allowing for the board to remove another member for ‘hurting the good name’ of the Centre is likely to be insufficiently clear and defined to comply with 87 . The SCA requires that: • The dismissal must be made in strict conformity with all the substantive and procedural requirements as prescribed by law. • The grounds for dismissal must be clearly defined and appropriately confined to only those actions which impact adversely on the capacity of the member to fulfil their mandate. • Where appropriate, the legislation should specify that the application of a particular ground must be supported by a decision of an independent body with appropriate jurisdiction. Dismissal should not be allowed based solely on the discretion of appointing authorities - SCA General Observation 2.1 88 Op. cit. fn 9, SCA General Observation 2.1, justification. 21