C. A lternative dispute resolution The Paris Principles state that NHRIs with quasi-jurisdictional competence should seek “an amicable settlement through conciliation”. Although only “conciliation” is mentioned, it is generally recognized that amicable settlements can be achieved through several alternative dispute resolution techniques. Alternative dispute resolution refers to a collection of processes and techniques that take place outside formal legal processes and that seek to address the interests of parties and solve the dispute. It is less adversarial and usually informal. It is especially effective if used early in the process. It gives an opportunity to the parties to tell their story and to take responsibility for the settlement of their differences. National human rights institutions are themselves a form of alternative dispute resolution: many were created to offer alternative redress mechanisms to the courts. In the event, many institutions, even those that do not handle complaints, use conciliation and/or mediation. Alternative dispute resolution, if successful, is documented in a settlement agreement. In most cases, a neutral third party (facilitator, mediator or conciliator) helps the parties to find mutually acceptable solutions. Alternative dispute resolution is not generally suited for complaints based on gross violations of human rights or the commission of a crime, such as sexual assault or violations of core civil and political rights such as torture, forced disappearances, etc. This section will focus on mediation and conciliation, which are increasingly popular strategies to address human rights complaints. 1. Defining mediation and conciliation Mediation in the human rights process requires the NHRI to take an active role in settling the dispute. The mediator has a structured role in allowing the parties to tell their side of the story, ensuring that the balance of power between the parties is equitable and facilitating the resolution of the dispute. Conciliation is another form of alternative dispute resolution that NHRIs use. The conciliator gives the parties more space and opportunity to reach a settlement themselves. Often conciliation occurs later in the investigation process and the conciliator has a role in explaining to the parties the relative strengths of their positions. Early resolution processes tend to be more interest-based, since the respective rights of the parties have not been ascertained by an investigation. The institution can take a more neutral position in such cases. Further down the line, when conciliation may be more appropriate, the institution will have amassed evidence, and will have some basis for taking a position on the strength of the allegation and, consequently, a rightsbased perspective that is informed by the evidence and that determines the public interest at stake. To adopt a purely interest-based approach in those circumstances would be to ignore the evidence at hand. Some institutions may carry out conciliation after an investigation is completed, and might even include it as a compulsory step when they find that an allegation has merit. Adopting an interest-based approach in such circumstances is inappropriate, unless the result satisfies the human rights concerns raised by both parties. Interest-based approaches are highly successful when mediated early in the process: some institutions report a 75 – 80 per cent success rate for voluntarily mediated cases. 93