OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Federal Law on the Support to the National Human Rights Institution of Switzerland authorities to provide requested information and above-mentioned access.86 To ensure this, the power to request information, which is central to the proper execution of the NHRI’s mandate, should be supported by specific sanctions for non-compliance, which should be set out in the Draft Act.87 Such sanctions should be adequate, meaning that they should not be excessive, and should at the same time be serious enough to dissuade public officials (and possibly representatives of other entities) from ignoring the NHRI’s requests. Alternatively, at a minimum, other applicable legislation could be cross-referenced in the Draft Act. 5. The Leadership, Staffing, Operation and Funding of the NHRI 5.1. Governing Body 64. Nothing is said in the Draft Act as to the composition of the NHRI’s governing body or the modalities of its members’ appointments and terms and conditions of office, as well as their dismissal. Aspects concerning the institution’s organisation and structure, in particular that of its governing bodies, their tasks and personnel, are key to determining whether an entity is independent or not, and to assess compliance with the Paris Principles. The Draft Act (or a new, separate act) should specify the composition of the NHRI’s governing body, the modalities of its members’ selection/appointment and termination of mandate or dismissal, as well as the terms and conditions of office. 65. There are many different governance models for NHRIs. Whichever option is chosen, it must guarantee the NHRI’s independence, as well as a high level of professionalism, and needs to ensure public trust in the institution. Generally, NHRIs follow different variants of a two-level structure consisting of a management board in charge of key strategic decisions, financial matters and the administration of the NHRI, while a director conducts the daily management of the institution.88 In the case of NHRIs in the United Kingdom and Ireland, for instance, the governing body or members of the NHRI are commissioners, whose appointment is confirmed by the Parliament. They deal with general policy and governance issues, and have a secretariat to deal with the daily management of the institution. In addition, many NHRIs have established an advisory committee consisting of representatives of various social forces, including representatives of disadvantaged or marginalized groups, to ensure input from a larger group of stakeholders.89 66. The Explanatory Statement to the Draft Act specifies that the policy-makers have chosen the option “status quo +”, meaning that they will adopt a model similar to the existing SCEHR, while addressing some of the shortcomings identified when evaluating this structure.90 It is therefore likely that the organizational structure of the SCEHR will be retained, meaning that there will be a Board of Directors composed of representatives from partner Universities and chaired by a Director, as well as a Manager with an 86 87 88 89 90 See op. cit. footnote 16, page 149 (2010 UNDP-OHCHR Toolkit for Collaboration with National Human Rights Institutions). See e.g., Venice Commission, Opinion on the Draft Constitutional Law on the Human Rights Defender of Armenia, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 109th Session (Venice, 9-10 December 2016), CDL-AD(2016)033, par 29, <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)033-e>. See <http://www.legislationline.org/topics/topic/82>. See op. cit. footnote 9, General Observation 1.7. Op. cit. footnote 19, page 2 (Explanatory Statement to the Draft Act). 21