OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights requirements regarding pluralism, the selection and appointment procedure, membership requirements, terms of office and removal. 52. An over-arching issue relating to the membership of the board and staffing of the NHRI is that of pluralism. This is of considerable importance, with the SCA noting that it ‘considers the pluralistic composition of the NHRI to be fundamentally linked to the requirement of independence, credibility, effectiveness and accessibility.’ 76 It is positive that § 3 a (7) of the Draft Amendments, requires that the appointment Committee shall pay ‘due attention to secure independence and pluralistic participation of experts active in the area of human rights or in the area of non-discrimination, reflecting different parts of society.’ However, overall the provisions in the draft law are unlikely to meet the Paris Principles requirements for pluralism. The SCA requires that the board and staff are representative of the national society, with consideration to ensure representation of gender, ethnicity and minority status, including through the equitable participation of women.77 53. While the explanatory note to the amended legislation suggests that the proposed appointment criteria are sufficient to meet the SCA requirements on pluralism set out above, this is not the case and indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of pluralism as defined by the SCA. It is through the NHRI’s enabling legislation, particularly regarding selection and appointment of leadership, as well as through NHRI practice, that pluralism is implemented. Pluralism should be explicitly dealt with in the enabling law. 78 The SCA has previously raised concerns regarding pluralism of the Centre’s board, finding in 2014 that ‘[t]he current arrangements for the appointment of members do not ensure pluralism in the composition of the Administrative Board…The SCA encourages the SNCHR to ensure that its membership and staff complement is representative of the diverse segments of society’.79 The provisions proposed in the draft law are likely insufficient to meet the Paris Principles’ requirements. The principle of pluralistic representation as defined by the SCA should be explicitly included in the requirements for selection and appointment of board members, in the Draft Amendments. If the use of nominating bodies is to be retained (see further, below), at a minimum, provision must be made to require each of these bodies to also ensure pluralism and gender-balance in their selection and nomination process. The pluralism requirement should not be confined just to the decision of the 76 Op. cit. fn 9, SCA General Observation 1.7, justification. SCA General Observation 1.7; According to the SCA, pluralism can be ensured through: a) Members of the decision-making body represent different segments of society as referred to in the Paris Principles. Criteria for membership of the decision-making body should be legislatively established, be made publicly available and subject to consultation with all stakeholders, including civil society. Criteria that may unduly narrow and restrict the diversity and plurality of the composition of the NHRI’s membership should be avoided; b) Pluralism through the appointment procedures of the governing body of the NHRIs for example, where diverse societal groups suggest or recommend candidates; c) Pluralism through procedures enabling effective cooperation with diverse societal groups, for example advisory committees, networks, consultations or public forums; or d) Pluralism through staff that are representative of the diverse segments of society. This is particularly relevant for single member NHRIs, such as an Ombudsperson. 78 SCA Report, Luxembourg, March 2009 p. 9; SCA Report, Qatar, March/April 2010, p. 15. See also SCA Report, Costa Rica, November 2016; SCA Report, Mexico, November 2016; SCA Report, Namibia, November 2016, p. 43; SCA Report, Philippines, March 2017, p. 30; SCA Report, Nicaragua, November 2017, p. 47. 77 79 79 Op. cit. fn 7, p. 9 (2014 ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report). 18