Part I NHRIs and the Paris Principles 3.3.2. Operational independence NHRIs need independence to determine their own priorities, programs and projects; that is, all aspects of their operations, subject to the law and available resources. They should be empowered to “[f]reely consider any questions falling within [their] competence”.55 They should also be empowered to determine freely which of their functions should be given priority in the performance of their mandates. If governments can interfere to direct NHRIs what to examine or what to do, including in relation to priorities, the NHRIs will be prevented from identifying areas and issues of concern and acting on the basis of their own decisions. For example, governments are generally less threatened by human rights education than by human rights investigations and so they may wish to direct NHRIs to focus their attention, and their staff and financial resources, on education, thereby minimising their investigative work. There is no independence where an NHRI can be directed what to do. 3.3.3. Policy independence There is no independence where an NHRI can be directed what to think. Policy independence means that NHRIs themselves determine their policies and their findings, conclusions and recommendations in the course of their work, whether in providing advice to parliaments and governments,56 in undertaking broad investigations and inquiries57 or in handling individual complaints of human rights violations.58 NHRIs are the human rights experts in their countries. They have the status and the authority to accompany their expertise so that their advice should be sought and heeded by all other State institutions, as well as by civil society and others, when a human rights issue or a human rights case is being considered. For example, when parliament is considering legislation, the view of the NHRI on the consistency of the legislation with human rights obligations is important. However, those views will be of no worth if they only repeat the Government’s views or the view of a particular political party and are not the considered, independent conclusions of the NHRI itself. Similarly, where the NHRI is investigating a complaint of human rights violation, the complainant, other parties, including the Government and its agents, and the broader community, are all entitled to have the investigation conducted objectively according to law and to have the matter decided by the NHRI independently, on the basis of the law and the evidence. Policy independence is critical to the effectiveness of NHRIs. 3.3.4. Financial independence59 NHRIs are not entirely independent financially. They are State institutions, like courts, and, like courts, they rely on States to provide their core operational budgets. The Paris Principles recognise clearly the connection between independence and funding. They provide that an NHRI should have “adequate” funding “to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the Government and not subject to financial control that might affect its independence”.60 The nature of financial independence is complex. States – governments and parliaments – determine State budgets according to their own priorities and to the resources available to them. NHRIs do not replace governments and parliaments. An NHRI cannot require its government or its parliament to allocate a specific proportion of State funds or a specific amount to it, only an amount that is “adequate” to its needs. The requirement of independence, however, entitles NHRIs to have control over their budgets once they are allocated. 55 Paris Principles, ‘Methods of operation’, para (a). 56 Paris Principles, ‘Competence and responsibilities’, para. 3(a). 57 Paris Principles, ‘Competence and responsibilities’, para. 3(a). 58 Paris Principles, ‘Additional principles concerning the status of commissions with quasi-jurisdictional competence’. 59 See chapter 8 of this manual for further discussion of financial independence. 60 Paris Principles, ‘Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism’, para. 2. Chapter 3: The Paris Principles | 19