13 CDL-AD(2013)019 should be set out clearly in the Law. Such transparency and pluralism could be achieved by creating an open selection process based on applications and/or nominations received from a wide array of stakeholders of diverse backgrounds and professions, possibly by installing an independent selection committee, or by placing this process under the auspices of the National Assembly or Parliament. Such body should then rank incoming proposals to ensure diversity and pluralism, in particular with regard to gender, professional background, and geographical and societal representation. Another way to select members would be for a certain number of members to be appointed by the President, and a certain number by the National Assembly or Parliament; in such situation, the latter should play the main role in selection proceedings. 48. Once a selection has been made, the President or other body could still appoint the members of the Committee, but only following a wider consultative and transparent process. In case the National Assembly or Parliament should elect or appoint members of the Higher Committee, this should be done by qualified majority decision. The main parameters of the appointment process, namely which body shall be competent to appoint members, and the length of their tenure, should be outlined in the Constitution as well. 49. All aspects of this process should be publicized as much as possible, to ensure neutrality and impartiality throughout. Further, members should be selected due to their individual skills and experience, not as representatives of specific organizations or public institutions. This means that also those candidates that are proposed by the parliament, government, or NGOs should be selected for high professional and ethical standards, and not merely to represent their office or organization. Candidates should be assessed on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria. Interviews with candidates may help select the potential members. Civil society and other independent actors should play an active role in suggesting candidates, and challenging or supporting individual candidates. 50. As for the manner in which the Chairman is selected, it would be preferable if the above procedure would merely focus on selecting and appointing members of the Higher Committee, who would then elect their Chairman from the members of the Higher Committee. This is a very important aspect to ensure the independence of this body. 51. To additionally enhance independence and impartiality of the members of the Higher Committee, and reduce the potential for external influence, it is further advised to include in the Law a provision guaranteeing them immunity from legal liability for actions undertaken in their official capacity.19 Both members of the Committee, and support staff acting on behalf of and under the authority of the Higher Committee, shall enjoy such immunity even after the expiry of their terms of office or work contracts. The Law should also specify in which cases such immunity may be waived, and by which body (ideally, provided the Law is changed accordingly so that the Higher Committee is accountable to the National Assembly or Parliament20, it should be the latter, following a fair and transparent procedure, by qualified majority). 52. The immunity granted shall also cover baggage, correspondence, and means of communication belonging to the Higher Committee. In this context, it is stressed that the Law should also include guarantees as to the inviolability of the Higher Committee’s property, documents and premises. 53. The Law should further specify that members of the Higher Committee shall not seek or receive instructions in connection with the performance of their duties from any government and other public body, or public official. 19 See the General Observations of the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation, par 2.5. See also the Reports and Recommendations from the Session of the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation of 19-23 November 2012, Chapter 2, Specific Recommendations, pp. 8, 14, and 17. 20 See, in this context, the Belgrade Principles on the Relationship between National Human Rights Institutions and Parliaments, adopted in Belgrade at the 2012 International Seminar on the relationship between National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and Parliaments (22-23 February 2012), which speak of a closer relationship between NHRIs and Parliaments.