27/40 Activities of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in accrediting national institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles - Report of the Secretary-General

GE.14-06883 (E)

*1406883*

Human Rights Council Twenty-third session Agenda items 2 and 8 Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

Activities of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in accrediting national institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles

Report of the Secretary-General*

Summary The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 23/17 of 23 June 2013 and contains information on activities carried out from May 2013 to March 2014 by the Subcommittee on Accreditation of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in considering and reviewing applications for accreditation and reaccreditation of national human rights institutions.

* The annex to the present report is circulated as received, in the language of submission only.

Contents Paragraphs Pages

I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1–4 3

II. Improvement of the International Coordinating Committee accreditation process ............................................................................................................... 5–12 3

III. Accreditation process in 2013 and the first session of 2014 .................................. 13–22 5

IV. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 23–31 7

Annex

Status of national institutions accredited by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ................................... 8

I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to paragraph 29 of Human Rights Council resolution 23/17, in which the Council requested the Secretary-General to report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session on the activities of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in accrediting national institutions in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles).

2. The report includes activities and achievements since the report issued in 2013 on the accreditation of national human rights institutions (A/HRC/23/28). 3. The statute of the International Coordinating Committee mandates the Subcommittee on Accreditation to review and analyse the applications for accreditation submitted by national human rights institutions and to make recommendations to the Bureau of the International Coordinating Committee on the compliance of applicants with the Paris Principles. The Subcommittee comprises one representative of an “A” status national human rights institution from each of the four regional groupings of the International Coordinating Committee: Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific and Europe. The members of the Subcommittee are appointed by each regional grouping for a renewable term of three years. The members designate the Chair by consensus, from among themselves, for a renewable term of one year. In accordance with article 6 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee, meetings of the Subcommittee on Accreditation shall be held under the auspices of, and in cooperation with, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 4. During the period covered by the report, the Subcommittee members were from Canada, France, Mauritania and Qatar. The Chair of the Subcommittee was the chair of the national human rights institution of Qatar. In May 2013, a representative of the national human rights institution of Germany substituted for a representative of the national human rights institution of France, since the latter institution was under consideration for reaccreditation during the Subcommittee session.

II. Improvement of the International Coordinating Committee accreditation process

5. The International Coordinating Committee has introduced various measures to improve its accreditation procedures:

(a) The review of national human rights institutions, which is aimed at assessing their effectiveness and performance, has become more rigorous, as it is based on documented evidence provided by the institution under review, as well as on information received from civil society organizations and other stakeholders. The review has also become fairer, since an appeals procedure was included to give institutions an opportunity to challenge the recommendations issued by the Subcommittee on Accreditation;

(b) The Subcommittee on Accreditation issues a number of focused and tailored recommendations to the national human rights institution under review, even when it recommends an “A” status;

(c) Recommendations by the Subcommittee on Accreditation, once adopted by the Committee Bureau, are made public in the report of the Subcommittee, which is posted on the International Coordinating Committee website (nhri.ohchr.org).

6. Where, in accordance with article 16.2 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee, it appears that the circumstances of any national human rights institution accredited with an “A” status may have changed in a way which affects its compliance with the Paris Principles, the Chair of the Committee or the Subcommittee on Accreditation may initiate a special review of the accreditation of that institution. Further to special review, the status of national human rights institution can be either maintained or downgraded.

7. With regard to flagrant cases, where the independence and credibility of “A” status national human rights institutions come under threat due to exceptional circumstances, and pending the conclusion of the special review process, article 18.2 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee stipulates that where, in the opinion of the Chair of the International Coordinating Committee, an exceptional circumstance exists necessitating the urgent consideration of immediate suspension of an accredited “A” status institution, the [Committee] Bureau may decide to immediately suspend accreditation classification of that institution and initiate a special review, pursuant to article 16.2. Article 18.3 describes the procedure to be followed for the immediate suspension of accreditation in exceptional circumstances. As stipulated in article 18.4:

for the purposes of article 18.2 and 18.3, an “exceptional circumstance” refers to a sudden and drastic change in the internal political order of a State such as: a break in the constitutional or democratic order; or a declared state of emergency; or gross violations of human rights; and is accompanied by any of the following: there is a change in the [national human rights institution] enabling legislation or other applicable law that is contrary to the Paris Principles; or there is [a] change in the composition of the [national human rights institution] that is not undertaken in accordance with the established selection and/or appointment process; or the [national human rights institution] acts in a way that seriously compromises its compliance with the Paris Principles.

8. In accordance with the accreditation procedure stipulated in article 12 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee, the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Accreditation are submitted to the Committee Bureau for it to make the final decision on the accreditation status of the national human rights institutions reviewed, subsequent to the following process:

(a) The recommendation made by the Subcommittee on Accreditation is forwarded to the applicant;

(b) Within 28 days of receipt of the recommendation, the applicant may challenge it by submitting, through OHCHR, a written communication to the Chair of the International Coordinating Committee;

(c) The report of the Subcommittee, including the recommendation, is subsequently forwarded for decision to the Committee Bureau. If any challenges have been received from the national human rights institution reviewed, the challenges, together with the statements of compliance and the summaries prepared by OHCHR of all the documents submitted by the institutions concerned, are sent to the Bureau members to enable them to assess the validity of the challenges;

(d) If within 20 days of receipt of the report and the challenges at least four members of the Committee Bureau from no fewer than two regional groups notify the secretariat that they support the objection to the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Accreditation, the recommendation is referred to the Bureau at its next meeting for decision;

(e) If at least four members from two or more regional groups do not raise any objection to the recommendation within 20 days of its receipt, the recommendations will be deemed approved by the Committee Bureau;

(f) The accreditation decision of the Bureau of the International Coordinating Committee is final.

9. In accordance with the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Accreditation, the classifications for accreditation are:

• “A” status: Compliant with the Paris Principles

• “B” status: Not fully compliant with the Paris Principles

• “C” status: Non-compliant with the Paris Principles

10. The Subcommittee on Accreditation also welcomes reports from civil society organizations on the functioning and efficiency of national human rights institutions under review. Such reports are shared with the institutions concerned for their comments or clarification. Summaries of all documentation received from institutions are prepared by the secretariat and shared with the relevant institutions prior to review. National human rights institutions are given one week to point out any factual errors in the summaries. The summaries and comments are subsequently brought to the attention of the members of the Subcommittee.

11. The following may attend meetings of the Subcommittee as observers: representatives of the secretariat of the Network of African national human rights institutions; the secretariat of the Asia Pacific Forum of national human rights institutions; the secretariat of the European Network of national human rights institutions; the Network of the Americas; and the representative of the International Coordinating Committee.

12. The Subcommittee on Accreditation acknowledges the dedicated professionalism demonstrated by OHCHR in assuming the secretariat function and successfully servicing two sessions per year.

III. Accreditation process in 2013 and the first session of 2014 13. The General Assembly, in its resolution 67/163, encouraged the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions to request, in cooperation with OHCHR, their accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee in order to enable them to interact effectively with the relevant human rights bodies of the United Nations system.

14. By 23 May 2014, the number of accredited national human rights institutions had reached 106. Of these, 71 had “A” status, 25 “B” status and 10 “C” status (see annex).

15. During the three sessions under review, the Subcommittee on Accreditation issued recommendations emphasizing the need for a clear, transparent and participatory selection process of members of national human rights institutions, as required by the Paris Principles and by the Subcommittee in its general observations on the International Coordinating Committee. It also stressed the importance of the provision of adequate core funding by the State to ensure the independence and financial autonomy of such institutions. In addition, the Subcommittee recognized the importance of members of national institutions being granted immunity against legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity. It furthermore stressed the need for greater cooperation by and engagement of national human rights institutions with regional and international human rights systems.

16. In March 2014, the Subcommittee on Accreditation initiated the practice of deliberating in camera, without the presence of OHCHR, which serves as the secretariat of the Subcommittee meetings. In accordance with article 6 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee, general meetings of the International Coordinating Committee and meetings of the Subcommittee on Accreditation shall be held under the auspices of, and in cooperation with, OHCHR. Accordingly, OHCHR ought to be present in decision- making meetings of the Sub-Committee.

New applications

17. During the two sessions of 2013 and the first session of 2014, the Subcommittee considered six new applications for accreditation. Further to the Subcommittee’s deliberations, the Office for the Protection of Citizens of Haiti and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights were accredited with “A” status. The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, the Oman National Human Rights Commission and the National Centre for Human Rights of Slovakia were accredited with “B” status. The decision on accreditation for the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary has been deferred to the second session of 2014, pending the receipt of clarification from the institution.

Applications for reaccreditation

18. The Subcommittee on Accreditation reviewed 22 national human rights institutions for reaccreditation, from Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Croatia, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Malawi, Mongolia, Paraguay, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine and Venezuela.

19. The national human rights institutions of Armenia, Croatia, France, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda and Venezuela were reaccredited with “A” status.

Deferrals

20. The reaccreditation decisions for the national human rights institutions of Albania, Afghanistan, Egypt, Germany, Malawi, Mongolia, Paraguay, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Thailand and Ukraine have been deferred to future sessions of the Subcommittee on Accreditation, pending receipt of clarification from the institutions.

Special review

21. During the period under review and in accordance with articles 16.2, 17 and 18 of the statute, the Subcommittee on Accreditation conducted a special review of the national human rights institutions of Indonesia and Nepal. Further to its deliberations, the Subcommittee decided that the national human rights institution of Indonesia should retain its “A” status. The A special review of the national human rights institution of Nepal has been deferred to October 2014.

22. In March 2014, the Subcommittee on Accreditation decided to conduct a special review of the national human rights institution of Venezuela in October 2014.

IV. Conclusions and recommendations 23. The Secretary-General commends the Subcommittee on Accreditation for its performance and underscores the dedicated and professional support provided by OHCHR to its work and in the accreditation process.

24. The Paris Principles and the general observations adopted by the International Coordinating Committee which interpret those principles, remain the basis on which the Subcommittee accredits national human rights institutions. In order to do so, in addition to legislation and other documentation submitted by institutions, the Subcommittee invites civil society organizations to provide input on the functioning of institutions under review.

25. With the enhanced role of “A” status national human rights institutions in the proceedings of the Human Rights Council, the Subcommittee on Accreditation is more vigilant and rigorous in granting “A” status, to ensure that only institutions fully compliant with the Paris Principles can make use of the benefits granted to “A” status national human rights institutions in their interaction with the Human Rights Council mechanisms, including the universal periodic review process.

26. The role of OHCHR in acting as secretariat for the Subcommittee and in the holding of the Subcommittee’s meetings under its auspices, enhances the credibility of the accreditation process before the international and regional human rights systems. The presence of OHCHR during the decision-making process is instrumental to attesting the compliance of this process with the established rules of procedure, and contributes to its transparency, fairness and rigour.

27. National human rights institutions are urged to implement recommendations emanating from the Subcommittee on Accreditation with a view to enhancing their compliance with the Paris Principles and their effectiveness in discharging their mandate. Governments and other stakeholders, including United Nations entities, are encouraged to assist the national human rights institutions in implementing those recommendations

28. Newly established national human rights institutions are encouraged to request accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee in order to interact effectively with peer institutions as well as the regional and international human rights system.

29. The interdependence and indivisibility of human rights require that the broad mandate of national human rights institutions, as set out in the Paris Principles and emphasized by the Subcommittee, include the promotion and protection of all rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

30. The Paris Principles require that the composition of national human rights institutions and the appointment of their members, by means of election or otherwise, ensure the pluralistic representation of social forces (civil society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Subcommittee on Accreditation interprets that provision as requiring a clear, transparent, merit-based and participatory selection and appointment process. It is recommended that the selection and appointment process, be formalized in the legislation establishing national human rights institutions and/or in binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate.

31. The Secretary-General encourages Member States and other stakeholders to guarantee through financial contribution the continuation of high-quality servicing of the Subcommittee on Accreditation by OHCHR.

Annex

[English only]

Status of national institutions accredited by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Accreditation status as of 23 May 2014 In accordance with the Paris Principles and the Statute of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the following classifications for accreditation are used by the Committee:

A: Compliant with the Paris Principles;

B: Not fully compliant with the Paris Principles;

C: Non-compliant with the Paris Principles.

*A(R): The category of accreditation with reserve, previously granted where insufficient documentation had been submitted to allow for conferral of “A” status, is no longer in use by the International Coordinating Committee. It is used only for those national human rights institutions which were accredited with this status before April 2008.

Human Rights Council

“A” status institutions (71)

National institution Status Year reviewed

Asia and the Pacific Afghanistan: Independent Human Rights Commission

A October 2007 – A* November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission

A 1999 October 2006 May 2011

India: National Human Rights Commission

A 1999 October 2006 May 2011 – A*

Indonesia: National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM)

A 2000 March 2007 March 2012* November 2013 – special review in March 2014 March 2014 – A*

National institution Status Year reviewed

Jordan: National Centre for Human Rights

A April 2006 (B) March 2007 (B) October 2007 – A* October 2010 – A

Malaysia: Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM)

A 2002 April 2008 – recommended to be accredited B November 2009 – A* October 2010 – A

Mongolia: National Human Rights Commission

A 2002 – A(R) 2003 November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

Nepal: National Human Rights Commission

A 2001 – A(R) 2002 – A October 2007 – A* November 2008 – A* March 2010 – recommended to be accredited B May 2011 – A November 2012 – special review in May 2013 May 2013 – deferred to November 2013 November 2013 – deferred to March 2014 March 2014 – deferred to October 2014

New Zealand: Human Rights Commission

A 1999 October 2006 May 2011

State of Palestine: Independent Commission for Human Rights

A 2005 – A(R) March 2009 – A

Qatar: National Committee for Human Rights

A October 2006 (B) March 2009 – A* March 2010 – A* October 2010 – A

Philippines: Philippines Commission on Human Rights

A 1999 March 2007 – deferred to October 2007 October 2007 March 2012

Republic of Korea: National Human Rights Commission

A 2004 November 2008 March 2014 – deferred to October 2014

Thailand: National Human Rights Commission

A 2004 November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to March 2014 March 2014 – deferred to October 2014

National institution Status Year reviewed

Timor-Leste: Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice

A April 2008 November 2013

Africa Burundi: Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l’homme

A November 2012

Cameroon: National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms

A 1999 October 2006 – (B) March 2010 – A

Egypt: National Council for Human Rights

A April 2006 (B) October 2006 – A October 2011 – deferred to November 2012 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013 – deferred to November 2013 November 2013 - deferred

Ghana: Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice

A 2001 November 2008 March 2014

Kenya: National Commission on Human Rights

A 2005 November 2008

Malawi: Human Rights Commission

A 2000 March 2007 March 2012 – deferred to November 2012 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013- deferred to November 2013 November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

Mauritania: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

A November 2009 (B) May 2011 – A

Mauritius: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

A 2002 April 2008 – A*

Morocco: Conseil nationale des droits de l’homme

A 1999 – A(R) 2001 October 2007 – A* October 2010 – A*

Namibia: Office of the Ombudsman

A 2003 – A(R) April 2006 May 2011

Nigeria: National Human Rights Commission

A 1999 – A(R) 2000 – A October 2006 – A October 2007 – B May 2011 – A

National institution Status Year reviewed

Rwanda: National Commission for Human Rights

A 2001 October 2007 March 2012 – recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles May 2013 – A

Sierra Leone: Human Rights Commission

A May 2011

South Africa: Human Rights Commission

A 1999 – A(R) 2000 October 2007 November 2012

Togo: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

A 1999 – A(R) 2000 October 2007 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013 – A

Uganda: Human Rights Commission

A 2000 – A(R) 2001 April 2008 May 2013 – A

United Republic of Tanzania: Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance

A 2003 – A(R) October 2006 – A October 2011 – A*

Zambia: Human Rights Commission

A 2003 – A(R) October 2006 October 2011

Americas Argentina: Defensoría del Pueblo de la Nación Argentina

A 1999 October 2006 October 2011

Bolivia (Plurinational State of): Defensor del Pueblo

A 1999 (B) 2000 – A March 2007 March 2012

Canada: Canadian Human Rights Commission

A 1999 October 2006 May 2011

Chile: Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos

A November 2012

Colombia: Defensoría del Pueblo

A 2001 October 2007 March 2012 – A*

National institution Status Year reviewed

Costa Rica: Defensoría de los Habitantes

A 1999 October 2006 October 2011

Ecuador: Defensor del Pueblo

A 1999 – A(R) 2002 April 2008 – A; recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles March 2009 – A

El Salvador: Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos

A April 2006 May 2011

Guatemala: Procuraduría de los Derechos Humanos

A 1999 (B) 2000 – A(R) 2002 April 2008 May 2013 - A

Haiti: Office for the Protection of Citizens

A November 2013

Mexico: Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

A 1999 October 2006 October 2011

Nicaragua: Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos

A April 2006 May 2011

Panama: Defensoría del Pueblo

A 1999 October 2006 November 2012

Paraguay: Defensoría del Pueblo

A 2003 November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to March 2014 March 2014 – deferred to October 2014

Peru: Defensoría del Pueblo

A 1999 March 2007 March 2012

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Defensoría del Pueblo

A 2002 April 2008 May 2013 March 2014 – special review in October 2014

Europe

Albania: People’s Advocate

A 2003 – A(R) 2004 November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

National institution Status Year reviewed

Armenia: Human Rights Defender of Armenia

A April 2006 – A(R) October 2006 – A October 2011 – deferred to November 2012 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013 – A

Azerbaijan: Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman)

A October 2006 October 2010 – deferred to May 2011 May 2011 – recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles March 2012 – A

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Institution of Human Rights Ombudsmen

A 2001 – A(R) 2002 – A(R) 2003 – A(R) November 2009 – recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles October 2010 – A

Croatia: Ombudsman

A April 2008 May 2013

Denmark: Danish Institute for Human Rights

A 1999 (B) 2001 October 2007 – A November 2012

France: Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme

A 1999 October 2007 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013 - A

Georgia: Public Defender’s Office

A October 2007 November 2012 – deferred to May 2013 May 2013 - A

Germany: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte

A 2001 – A(R) 2002 – A(R) 2003 November 2008 November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

Great Britain (United Kingdom): Equality and Human Rights Commission

A November 2008 – A October 2010, special review – A

Greece: National Commission for Human Rights

A 2000 – A(R) 2001 October 2007 – A* November 2009 – A* March 2010 – A*

National institution Status Year reviewed

Ireland: Irish Human Rights Commission

A 2002 – A(R) 2003 – A(R) 2004 November 2008

Luxembourg: Commission consultative des droits de l’homme du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

A 2001 – A(R) 2002 March 2009 – A* November 2009 – A* October 2010 – A

Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

A March 2014

Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

A 2001 (B) May 2011

Poland: Human Rights Defender

A 1999 October 2007 November 2012

Portugal: Provedor de Justiça

A 1999 October 2007 November 2012

Russian Federation: Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation

A 2000 (B) 2001 (B) November 2008 – A November 2013 – deferred to October 2014

Scotland (United Kingdom): Scottish Human Rights Commission

A November 2009 – deferred to March 2010 March 2010 – A

Serbia: Protector of Citizens

A March 2010

Spain: El Defensor del Pueblo

A 2000 October 2007 November 2012

Ukraine: Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights

A April 2008 (B) March 2009 – A March 2014 – deferred to October 2014

“B” status institutions (25)

National institution Status Year reviewed

Americas Honduras: Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

B 2000 October 2007 (A) October 2010 – special review; recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles October 2011 – B

Asia and the Pacific Bangladesh: National Human Rights Commission

B May 2011

Maldives: Human Rights Commission

B April 2008 March 2010

Oman: National Human Rights Commission

B November 2013

Sri Lanka: Human Rights Commission

B 2000 October 2007 March 2009

Central Asia Kazakhstan: The Commissioner for Human Rights

B March 2012

Kyrgyzstan: The Ombudsman

B March 2012

Tajikistan: The Human Rights Ombudsman

B March 2012

Africa Algeria: Commission Nationale de Promotion et de Protection des Droits de l’Homme

B 2000 – A(R) 2002 – A(R) 2003 – A March 2009 – B March 2010 – deferred to October 2010 October 2010 – B

Chad: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

B 2000 – A(R) 2001 – A(R) 2003 – A(R) November 2009 – B

Congo: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

B October 2010

Mali: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

B March 2012

National institution Status Year reviewed

Senegal: Comité Sénégalais des Droits de l’Homme

B 2000 October 2007 – A* October 2010 – deferred to May 2011 May 2011 – deferred to October 2011 October 2011 – recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles November 2012 – B

Tunisia: Comité supérieur des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales

B November 2009

Ethiopia: Ethiopian Human Rights Commission

B November 2013

Europe

Austria: The Austrian Ombudsman Board

B 2000 May 2011

Belgium: The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism

B 1999 March 2010

Bulgaria: Commission for Protection Against Discrimination

B October 2011

Bulgaria: The Ombudsman

B October 2011

Norway: Norwegian Centre for Human Rights

B 2003 A(R) 2004 A(R) 2005 A(R) April 2006 May 2011 – deferred to October 2011 October 2011 – recommended to be accredited B; given one year to establish compliance with Paris Principles November 2012 – B

Republic of Moldova: The Centre for Human Rights

B November 2009

Slovakia: Slovak National Centre for Human Rights

B 2002 – C October 2007 March 2012 – Accreditation lapsed due to non-submission of documentation March 2014 – B

Slovenia: Human Rights Ombudsman

B 2000 March 2010

Sweden: Equality Ombudsman

B May 2011

National institution Status Year reviewed

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: The Ombudsman of the Republic of Macedonia

B October 2011

“C” status institutions (10)

National institution Status Year reviewed

Africa Benin: Commission béninoise des droits de l’homme

C 2002

Madagascar: Commission nationale des droits de l’homme

C 2000 – A(R) 2002 – A(R) 2003 – A(R) April 2006 – status withdrawn October 2006 – C

Americas Antigua and Barbuda: Office of the Ombudsman

C 2001

Barbados: Office of the Ombudsman

C 2001

Puerto Rico (United States of America): Oficina del Procurador del Ciudadano del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

C March 2007

Asia and the Pacific Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China: Equal Opportunities Commission

C 2000

Iran (Islamic Republic of): Islamic Human Rights Commission

C 2000

Europe

Romania: Romanian Institute for Human Rights

C March 2007 May 2011

Switzerland: Federal Commission for Women’s Issues

C March 2009

Switzerland: Federal Commission against Racism

C 1998 (B) March 2010 – C

Suspended institutions

National institution Status Year reviewed

Asia and the Pacific

Fiji: Human Rights Commission

Suspended Note: Commission resigned from the International Coordinating Commission on 2 April 2007

2000 (A) March 2007 – accreditation suspended; documents to be submitted at October 2007 session 2 April 2007 – Commission resigned from the International Coordinating Commission

Africa Niger: Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales

Removed Note: dissolved in February 2010

March 2010 – removed further to its dissolution in February 2010

Institutions whose accreditation has lapsed

National institution Status Year reviewed

Africa Burkina Faso: Commission nationale des droits humains

B 2002 – A(R) 2003 – A(R) 2005 – B March 2012 – Accreditation lapsed due to non-submission of documentation

Europe

Hungary: Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights

B May 2011 The institution ceased to exist further to the establishment of a new institution – Commissioner for Fundamental Rights

Netherlands: Equal Treatment Commission

B 1999 2004 March 2010 The institution ceased to exist further to the establishment of a new institution – The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

Institution whose application has been deferred

National institution Status Year reviewed

Europe Hungary: Commissioner for Fundamental Rights

November 2013 – deferred to October 2014