Annual Report 2013–2014 The Paris Principles set out the minimum standards required of NHRIs if they are to be considered credible and to operate effectively. The guidelines were developed at a UN meeting held in Paris, France in 1991, which brought together representatives of NHRIs from all parts of the globe to define the core attributes that all new or existing institutions should possess. The UN General Assembly subsequently adopted the Paris Principles in 1993. The principles identify six criteria that NHRIs should meet in order to be effective, including: • a clearly defined and broad-based mandate based on universal human rights standards • autonomy from government • independence guaranteed by legislation or the constitution • pluralism, including membership that broadly reflects their society • adequate resources, and • adequate powers of investigation. A fundamental role of the APF is to support its members, new NHRIs and governments looking to establish NHRIs, to comply with the Paris Principles. During the reporting period, the APF assisted in the reaccreditation of existing members and assisted the establishment of new complying NHRIs. 3.1. ACCREDITATION EVALUATION FINDINGS Outcome indicator Accreditation Performance rating On track The Paris Principles provide the core framework for assessing the independence and effectiveness of NHRIs. They are used by the ICC to determine the accreditation status of NHRIs. Accreditation assesses the extent to which an NHRI meets the minimum standards set out in the Paris Principles. It is a peer-based evaluation process. NHRIs which are considered to fully comply with the Paris Principles are accredited as “A status” institutions, while those that partially comply are accredited as “B status” institutions. “A status” NHRIs are permitted to participate in the work and discussion of the UN Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies. The APF adopts the accreditation decisions of the ICC to determine APF membership status. • Full members of the APF are NHRIs in the Asia Pacific region that have been accredited with “A status” by the ICC. Each full member is represented on the Forum Council – the APF’s decisionmaking body – by a voting councillor. Full members also nominate a jurist to sit on the APF’s Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ). • Associate members of the APF are NHRIs in the Asia Pacific region that have been accredited with “B status” by the ICC. Associate members are entitled to participate in APF programs and activities, however, they are not entitled to vote on Forum Council decisions or nominate a jurist to the ACJ. Since its inception in 1996, APF membership has steadily risen, as shown in Figure 7. Fifteen out of the APF’s 21 member institutions currently have “A status” and six have “B status”. The APF’s membership increased by two institutions during 2013–14, as the National Human Rights Commission of Oman and the Ombudsman of Samoa, were granted associate member status. 3. Promote compliance with the Paris Principles | 31