OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights the Paris Principles. 89 It may be noted in this regard that removal from the board (council) of an NHRI ‘as a result of acts or practices that are inconsistent with the obligations associated with membership in the Council’ has previously been by the SCA considered overly vague and open to misuse.90 Therefore, it is recommended to revise § 3 a (12) of the Draft Amendments with a view of clarifying actions or statements potentially leading to such as severe consequences as dismissal. Further, where removal can be made for reasons of ‘incapacity’, such determination should be made by an independent tribunal or medical professional.91 There should also be a possibility to appeal decisions to an independent body. 66. According to § 3 aa (4) of the Draft Amendments, the procedure for recalling of Board members and the Executive Director shall be governed by the rules of procedure of the Board, which the board prepares and adopts (§ 3aa (1) (g)). Such an approach may lack sufficient clarity and transparency to comply with the Paris Principles. It also means that the procedure may be open to change during the term of office of members. The absence of a clearly stated procedure in the Draft Amendments, or even of any guiding principles for the removal of members, may not meet the Paris Principles’ requirements for a stable mandate for members. The Draft Amendments should clarify both the procedure for removal of a member, or at a minimum the principles governing such a procedure to be used by the board, and ensure that the grounds for dismissal are sufficiently defined and confined, avoiding the use of vague terminology. Further, where removal of a board member takes place under this section, the same procedure must be required as if a new board member is being appointed, in line with SCA General Observation 1.8, and § 3 (13) should be amended to specifically include this requirement. 67. Where a vacancy arises pursuant to § 3 a (13) of the Draft Amendments, another two candidates shall be proposed by the original proposer and that ‘[i]n other cases of termination of the membership under para. 2, this shall be done by the Executive Director.’ It is not clear what is meant by the reference to the Executive Director, and this may benefit from clarification. Further, as noted above, any filling of vacancies needs to be done in conformity with the Paris Principles requirements for the selection and appointment of members of the board. 68. Finally, it is recommended for the draft to mention the right of members of the Board who work in the public sector, to resume a former function after having fulfilled their mandates. 5.4 Compensation and Full-Time Membership of the Board 69. Under § 3 a (10) of the Draft Amendments, no compensation is provided for Board Members as it is an ‘honorary function.’ However, there is provision for compensation of Member’s costs ‘under a special act’. The SCA considers that NHRI board members 89 The Explanatory Report states that this ground ‘must be reasonably substantiated. Focusing to prove the relationship between the behaviour and statements, respectively activities of the board member and harm to the good reputation or interests of the Centre.’ 90 Morocco, November 2015, pp. 33-34. 91 See for example, SCA Report, Malaysia, November 2015 pp. 31-32, SCA Report, Qatar, November 2015, p. 38. There must at least be appropriate medical evidence. See, SCA Report, South Africa, November 2017, p. 32. 22