OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Act on Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights meaningful consultation presupposes that any comments received are duly taken into consideration during the subsequent revision of the draft legislation. Pursuant to the Recommendations on Enhancing the Participation of Associations in Public DecisionMaking Processes (2015), state authorities are encouraged to develop a mechanism whereby decision-makers shall report back to those involved in consultations by providing, in due time, meaningful and qualitative feedback on the outcome of public consultations, including clear justifications for including or not including certain comments/proposals. 104 Moreover, to guarantee effective participation, consultation mechanisms must allow for input at an early stage and throughout the process, meaning not only when the draft is being prepared by relevant government entities but also when it is discussed before the Parliament (e.g., through the organization of public hearings). 105 Throughout the lawmaking process, these commitments and recommendations should be adhered to. 80. As a general point, where NHRI laws are amended, an open, transparent and consultative process should be undertaken. It is recommended that consultation take place between the SNCHR, the relevant government office responsible for developing the Draft Amendments, civil society, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ unit responsible for NHRIs, and the European Network of NHRIs (ENNHRI). It may be noted that where an NHRI’s legislation is in the process of being amended, SCA re-accreditation may be delayed at the request of the NHRI. 6. Issues not Addressed in the Draft Law 6.1 Functional Immunity 81. There is no reference in the Draft Amendments, to protection from criminal and civil liability for official actions and decisions undertaken in good faith (functional immunity) for the board members or staff. This was an explicit recommendation of the SCA in its previous comments on the Centre.106 SCA General Observation 2.3 requires that such protection be given to members and staff of the NHRI as “[e]xternal parties may seek to influence the independent operation of an NHRI by initiating, or by threatening to initiate, legal proceedings against a member of the decision-making body or a staff member of the NHRI. For this reason, members and staff of an NHRI should be protected from both criminal and civil liability for acts undertaken in good faith in their official capacity. Such protections serve to enhance the NHRI’s ability to engage in critical analysis and commentary on human rights issues, safeguard the independence of senior leadership, and promote public confidence in the NHRI”.107 This immunity should also include baggage, correspondence, and 104 Recommendations on Enhancing the Participation of Associations in Public Decision-Making Processes (from the participants to the Civil Society Forum organized by the OSCE/ODIHR on the margins of the 2015 Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association), Vienna 1516 April 2015, par 16 (e), <http://www.osce.org/odihr/183991>. 105 See e.g., OSCE/ODIHR, Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (2014), Section II, SubSection G on the Right to Participate in Public Affairs, <http://www.osce.org/odihr/119633>. 106 Op. cit. fn 7, p. 10 (2014 ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation Report). 107 SCA General Observation 2.3; In its justification, it notes that ‘[i]t is now widely accepted that the entrenchment of these protections in law is necessary for the reason that this protection, being one that is similar to that which is granted to judges under most legal systems, is an essential hallmark of institutional 26