OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 18. As mentioned above, 24 the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (hereinafter “SNCHR” or “Centre”) is currently accredited with B-Status by the SCA. The stated purpose of the Draft Amendments, according to its Explanatory Report is to “establish the compliance of the legal regulation of the Slovak national human rights institution (hereinafter the „NHRI“) with the requirements of the … Paris Principles...”. 25 In particular, the Explanatory Report mentions that the aim of the amendments is for the Centre to achieve A-Status accreditation. 3. Mandate 19. The Draft Amendments provide for a broadened mandate for the Centre, which is explicitly stated in the law, in order to bring the Centre’s legislation more closely into line with the Paris Principles. 3.1 Explicit Human Rights Mandate 20. The SCA, in its 2014 review of the SNCHR, recommended that the Centre seek legislative changes to broaden its mandate26. The UN Human Rights Committee also recommended that the Centre’s law be amended “so as to expand the scope of its mandate and competence to effectively promote and monitor the protection of human rights, including through reporting on national human rights issues to the legislature”.27 21. The explicit inclusion in §1(2) of the Draft Amendments of the ‘promotion and protection’ of human rights is welcome, as it clearly establishes that the Centre is intended to be a Paris Principles’ compliant NHRI. General Observation 1.2 of SCA, states that the protection mandate of NHRIs should include functions such as “those that address and seek to prevent actual human rights violations [including] monitoring, inquiring, investigating and reporting on human rights violations” and may also include individual complaints handling, including the ability to seek enforcement through the court system of its decision on the resolution of complaints,28 something that could additionally be considered by the drafters. At the same time, if such functions are included, it would be all the more important to carefully craft legislation to avoid that mandates and responsibilities overlap with those with the Public Defender of Rights (see par 26 infra) .29 22. § 1 (4) of the Draft Amendments states “[i]n exercising its tasks the Centre cooperates with national and foreign institutions and organisations active in the area of human 24 See fn 7supra. Explanatory Report p. 1. 26 Op. cit. fn 7, p. 8 (2014 ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report). 27 Concluding observations on the fourth report of Slovakia, CCPR/C/SVK/CO/4, 22 November 2016, para 9. 28 See also General Observation 2.9: “The quasi-judicial competency of NHRIs (complaints-handling): When an NHRI is provided with a mandate to receive, consider and/or resolve complaints alleging violations of human rights, it should be provided with the necessary functions and powers to adequately fulfil this mandate. Depending on its mandate, such powers and functions might include:… the ability to seek enforcement through the court system of its decisions on the resolution of complaints;” 29 Available a <https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/GANHRIAccreditation/General%20Observations%201/Forms/Default%20 View.aspx>. 25 8