Funding from external sources, such as from development partners, should not compose the core funding of the NHRI as it is the responsibility of the State to ensure a minimum activity budget in order to allow it to operate towards fulfilling its mandate. Financial systems should be such that the NHRI has complete financial autonomy. This should be a separate budget line over which it has absolute management and control. The source and nature of funding for an institution should be identified in the founding law and it should, at a minimum, cover basic functions. Some NHRIs can draw up their own budgets, which are then submitted directly to parliament or the national legislative body and defended before that body. Parliament is then responsible for reviewing and approving the budgetary allotment as well as reviewing and evaluating financial reports submitted to justify the use of those funds. It is less advisable to link an institution’s budget to the budget of a government ministry. Even if there is no actual interference, it may give the impression of a lack of independence. This is especially so if the institution may hear complaints, as the financial connection may give rise to a real or apparent conflict of interest. The funding should also be secure, that is, protected against arbitrary reduction for the period it covers. This will prevent the institution’s decisions or actions being used to justify cuts. Obviously, parliament is the final authority on spending matters and, when faced with difficult financial circumstances, has both the duty and the responsibility to oversee spending and to limit State spending if necessary. In such circumstances, at a minimum, a budget reduction should not be disproportionate to that of other core functions, especially in the area of rule of law. Independence through appointment and dismissal procedures Institutions are only as independent as their members. The appointment and dismissal procedures are thus crucial. The terms and conditions that govern appointments and dismissals should, therefore, be set out in the constitutional provision and/or founding law.44 Method of appointment: see the previous section. Criteria for appointment: members should have the professional qualifications and experience to perform their jobs. The criteria for appointment should be clear and well known. There should be recognized competence and experience in human rights and a personal history that demonstrates integrity, competence and independence. The terms and conditions that govern the appointment of members should be transparent, i.e., set out in the constitutional provision or law (or both) that establishes the NHRI. They should include: – Method of appointment; – Criteria for appointment (professional qualifications, recognized competencies, personal history of integrity and independence, etc.); – Duration or term and possibility of reappointment (guaranteed, fixed-term appointments, which may be renewable). Duration of appointment and possibility of reappointment: members of NHRIs should be granted guaranteed, fixed-term appointments. The length of the term may vary, but it should be sufficient to ensure that the institution can function effectively. In some cases, the term is longer than the normal term of Government (five to seven years) and this creates secure, long-term and stable leadership. Where there are a number of See also the Sub-Committee’s general observations (para. 2.9). 44 41