Human Rights and Disability A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions A SAMPLE OF ARRANGEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 33.2 • The New Zealand Government designated the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Ombudsman and the ‘Convention Coalition’ group of six national DPOs as the ‘framework’ under article 33(2) • The Spanish Government designated the Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities (CERMI), which is the national DPO for Spain, and the Spanish Ombudsman, which is an ‘A status’ NHRI, as the ‘independent mechanism’ • The Danish Government designated the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), the Danish Disability Council and the Parliamentary Ombudsman as the framework to promote, protect and monitor the Convention, with the DIHR occupying the role of ‘independent mechanism’. NHRIs SHAPING THE WIDER MONITORING FRAMEWORK The Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (HRCSL) urged its national government to establish and then assisted them in establishing the National Commission for Persons with Disability, a specialist body. The HRCSL has worked in partnership with the new Commission to support its activities, including joint handling of complaints and celebrating the International Day of Persons with Disability, and to provide technical advice. 7.4. THE PROCESS OF BECOMING DESIGNATED AS THE ‘INDEPENDENT MECHANISM’ Article 33(2) of the UN CRPD obliges States to “maintain, strengthen, designate or establish a framework including one or more independent mechanisms”. The Convention does not provide further guidance on what action, processes or practices might make up each option. The answer to this question is therefore a matter for States to determine in the current absence of specific guidance from the CRPD Committee. In its Note to the 2014 Conference of States Parties, the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities advised that “few States have taken formal steps to designate their national human rights institutions as the independent mechanism of the framework”. It goes on to suggest that: The process of formally designating a national human rights institution can reflect the adequacy of the mandate of the institution for the purpose of article 33, which, in some cases, might reveal opportunities for strengthening compliance with the Paris Principles. In other cases, a review of how persons with disabilities participate in existing national human rights institutions can highlight the need to revise the composition of the institution and strengthen pluralism. It should also be noted that the designation of a national human rights institution as the independent mechanism will most likely require internal structural changes and that additional financial and human resources will almost always be required.249 Based on this advice and the language of article 33(2), it might reasonably be expected that governments will take the following steps: • Conduct a public consultation, especially with persons with disabilities and with the NHRI and other ‘implicated organisations’, regarding proposed arrangements under article 33(2) • Make a public statement, including a written statement to the parliament, regarding arrangements under article 33(2) 249 98 Ibid.