OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights additional funding’.58 It would not be sufficient for the state to keep funding at current levels with the argument that the Centre has been carrying out some of these functions already, of its own volition. 43. There is no mention in the Draft Amendments, of the appropriate or progressive nature of funding, despite the level of concerns previously raised about funding for the Centre. It is recommended to modify the Draft Amendments to explicitly state the obligations to provide the Centre with an appropriate level of funding to cover its operations and activities, as per SCA General Observation 1.10. 4.2. Financial Autonomy 44. Financial autonomy is critical to NHRI independence and needs to be made explicit in the Draft Amendments. According to the SCA, national law should state the source of the funds for the NHRI’s budget.59. National law should ensure that there is provision for appropriate timing for the release of funding. In managing the money allocated to it, the NHRI should have ‘absolute management and control’. The NHRI should also be in a position to present its budget (needs) without interference from a government department.60 Government interference in the financial affairs of NHRIs are of particular concern to the SCA. § 2 of the Draft Amendments should be amended accordingly to make the financial autonomy of the NHRI explicit. 45. In particular, § 2 (2) provides that the Centre will be “funded by grants from the public budget of the Slovak Republic”. The Explanatory Report indicates that this grant is provided through the Ministry of Finance. This provision does not appear to be in line with the Paris Principles. In its 2014 recommendations, the SCA explicitly referred to this issue in relation to the Centre, noting that ‘Government funding should be allocated to a separate budget line applicable only to the NHRI. Such funding should be regularly released in a manner that does not impact adversely in its functions, day-to-day management and retention of staff.’61 The SCA is clear that NHRIs should be funded by a separate budget line within the national budget that is applicable only to the NHRI.62 The use of ‘grants’ does not appear to meet this requirement as the SCA has specifically commented where ‘grants’ are used that the NHRI should have a separate budget line in the national budget.63 The SCA has also expressed concern where funding for an NHRI was provided through a government Ministry where the NHRI did ‘not appear to have full and independent access, or management and control over their dispersal.’64 To meet the requirements of the Paris Principles, the NHRI should be funded from a 58 CRI(2018)06 ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 2: Equality Bodies to Combat Racism and Intolerance at National Level, Adopted on 7 December 2017, para 28. 59 SCA Report, Namibia, November 2016 p. 23 “In accordance with section 9 of the existing Act, the budget of the Ombudsman is paid from moneys appropriated for that purpose. The Act does not specify the source of the funds. The SCA notes that the draft proposed amendments to the Act provide that the budget of the Ombudsman is paid from monies appropriated by government for that purpose. […] The SCA encourages the Ombudsman to advocate for appropriate amendments to its enabling law in order to ensure the adequacy of the Ombudsman’s funding and safeguard its financial independence.” 60 SCA Report, Cote d’Ivoire, May 2016 p. 13. 61 Op. cit. fn 7, p. 11 (2014 ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report). 62 Op. cit. fn 9, SCA General Observation 1.10. 63 For example, SCA Report, Bangladesh, March 2015 pp. 14-15; SCA Report, Greece, March 2015, pp. 32-33. 64 SCA Report, Mali, March 2012 p. 13. See also, SCA Report, Greece, March 2015 pp. 32-33; SCA Report, Myanmar, November 2015 pp. 12-13. 15