Human Rights and Disability A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions Second, in some cases, the Committee actually specified the body it thought should form part of the framework or the independent mechanism in the framework. For example, with respect to the Czech Republic, the Committee concluded (para. 61) that “the office of Ombudsman should be entrusted with the mandate as the independent national monitoring mechanism”.99 Similarly, and with respect to Mexico, the Committee (para. 62) urged “the State party to ensure that the National Human Rights Commission and the 32 state human rights commissions, as the independent monitoring mechanism for the Convention”.100 Likewise, with respect to Kenya, the Committee concluded (para. 60) that the State party “establish a national mechanism to monitor the implementation of the convention, with the participation of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights as an institution in compliance with the Paris Principles”.101 The Committee repeatedly referred to the Paris Principles in most of its concluding observations. Third, in at least two sets of concluding observations, the Committee stressed the importance of a formal process of designating the framework (Croatia and El Salvador). With respect to El Salvador, the Committee recommended (para. 70) “that the State party officially designate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the Convention involving both civil society and in institutions fulfilling the Paris Principles regarding independent human rights institutions”.102 Fourth, the Committee repeatedly stressed the importance of civil society involvement in the monitoring framework, as well as in the work of the independent mechanisms (NHRIs). This arose, in particular, with respect to Croatia, Dominican Republic, Mongolia, Denmark and China. For example, and with respect to Croatia, the Committee recommended that the State party (para. 53) “provide DPOs and other civil society organisations with adequate resources for full and effective participation in the national implementation and monitoring process.”103 With respect to the Dominican Republic, the Committee recommended that the State party (para 63) “involve organisations of persons with disabilities … in the mechanism established under Article 33 paragraph 2 of the Convention”.104 And with respect to China, the Committee “strongly” recommended (para. 50) that the State party revise its laws to allow, “non-governmental organisations other than the China Disabled Persons’ Federation to represent the interests of disabled people in the State party and to be involved in the monitoring process. It further recommends the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism in line with Article 33(2) and in accordance with the Paris Principles.”105 Fifth, in the concluding observations made to Germany, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Austria and Qatar, the Committee the stressed the importance of NHRIs having sufficient material and human resources to perform their tasks. For example, with respect to Germany, (para. 62) the Committee recommended the State party to “strengthen the capacities of the independent monitoring mechanism …[by ensuring the] availability of resources for more comprehensive and effective monitoring at the Lander and municipal levels”.106 With respect to Mongolia, the Committee recommended (para. 52) that the State party provide the independent mechanism “with adequate human, technical and financial resources”.107 50 99 CRPD/C/CZE/CO/1. 100 CRPD/C/MEX/CO/1. 101 CRPD/C/KEN/CO/1. 102 CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1. 103 CRPD/C/HRV/CO/1. 104 CRPD/C/DOM/CO/1. 105 CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1. 106 CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1. 107 CRPD/C/MNG/CO/1.