They require national institutions to promote teaching and research on human rights and organise public awareness and education programmes. The Paris Principles also address methods of operation and, by implication, the powers of national institutions. They are entitled to consider any issue falling within their competence without authorisation from any higher authority. They are entitled to hear any person or gather any evidence needed to consider ­matters falling within their competence. National institutions are called on to publicise their decisions and concerns, as well as meet regularly. The Principles do not require NHRIs to have a “quasi-jurisdictional” function – that is, to handle complaints or petitions from people whose human rights are alleged to have been violated. However, where NHRIs do have this function, the Principles list particular obligations: ▪ To seek an amicable settlement through conciliation, a binding decision or on the basis of confidentiality; ▪ To inform petitioners of their rights, and available remedies, and promote access to them; ▪ To hear complaints and transmit them to competent authorities; and ▪ To make recommendations to competent authorities. Elements contributing to the effectiveness of NHRIs Performance & Legitimacy noted that the formal structure of a national ­institution did not determine its performance on the ground. Many NHRIs that formally respected the Paris Principles were not particularly effective in guaranteeing human rights. Others, less numerous, failed to comply with the Paris Principles but still achieved reasonable results. This suggested that a range of factors determined effectiveness. It must be underlined that the report did not conclude that the formal criteria contained in the Paris Principles were not significant. On the contrary, when NHRIs had been effective without meeting these criteria, it found that this was despite, not because, of their absence. In short, national institutions tend to be more effective when they: ▪ Enjoy public legitimacy ▪ Are accessible National institutions win public or popular legitimacy when they are seen to stand up for the right of the powerless against powerful interests and act fairly in treating issues within their purview. An institution’s legitimacy is also always partly rooted in its formal or legal status. National institutions should make known what they do, and how they can be contacted, to the general public and non-governmental bodies. Their offices should be accessible. Disadvantaged groups in society should be encouraged to use them. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions