C. R eviewing existing legislation , policy or practice National human rights institutions should systematically review existing law, policy and practice “to preserve and extend the protection of human rights”. This responsibility extends to all laws and situations and not just those specifically intended to preserve and protect human rights. Moreover, the Paris Principles authorize institutions to recommend either the adoption of new or the amendment of existing legislation or administrative arrangements without qualification. The Paris Principles provide that an institution should make known its advice on violations of human rights which it decides to take up, without limitation. They go on to give NHRIs responsibility for giving advice on local situations of human rights violations, including “the positions and reactions of the Government” to them. In either case, the advice is likely to result from the institution’s investigation and/or monitoring activities. The process is likely to involve some or all of the following: ■■ Selecting the laws, policies and practices that are to be reviewed and examinin where responsibilities for them rest; ■■ Identifying national and international human rights standards; ■■ Assessing the degree to which the laws, policies and practices ensure the rights at issue are being enjoyed; ■■ Identifying the ways in which the law, policy or practice might be improved and who has the responsibility for this; ■■ Identifying the general public’s expectations of the proposed changes and indicators of success (to assist in subsequent reviews); ■■ Preparing a report with recommendations; ■■ Issuing the report; ■■ Lobbying to ensure that the report is reviewed and the recommendations adopted; ■■ Reporting publicly on the degree to which the recommendations have been adopted. National human rights institutions may use research studies, public enquiries, national seminars or workshops, applied research, comparative studies and reports to publicize their work. Some institutions have the—express or implied—mandate to offer detailed drafting advice when making legislative recommendations. Not all institutions, however, have such specific expertise or feel it is their role to do so. It is, of course, up to the institution to decide on its approach, but unless its staff have legislative drafting expertise, it would seem prudent to limit comments to the general thrust of the legislation rather than the drafting details. The requirement to cooperate with civil society is greater when dealing with this kind of review, partly to ensure that a wide range of perspectives is brought to bear on the exercise and partly to benefit from the views of experts and NGOs that work with victims. Providing advice is only the beginning: the NHRI should monitor and, if necessary, follow up on its recommendations. This can be done through: ■■ Its annual report or special reports; ■■ Monitoring; ■■ Lobbying the Government for change, including new or amended legislation or policy; ■■ Press releases and press conferences. 105