Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The Committee also stressed the importance of guarantees of independence in the functioning of the independent mechanisms. For example, with respect to Belgium (para. 49), the Committee recommended that “the State party complete the process to ensure the Centre’s compliance with the Paris Principles”.108 Likewise, and with respect to Ecuador (para. 55), the Committee “reminds the State party that the national monitoring mechanism must be independent … In this context the Committee urges the State party to adopt the necessary legal measures to clearly establish the independent mechanism under the Convention in lines with the Paris Principles.”109 The Committee has also been attentive to the complexities of federal arrangements. For example, and with respect to Germany (para. 62), the Committee recommended that the State party “reinforce the necessary resources … including the legal status of Lander Commissioners for matters relating to disabled persons”.110 With respect to Denmark, the Committee recommended (para. 67) that the State should “should also take the necessary measures for the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism in the Faroe Islands. The Committee also recommends that the Government of the Faroe Islands establish a human rights institution for the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles.”111 These are remarkably robust recommendations. They indicate a clear and deep vision of article 33(3). As is obvious from the Committee’s concerns about the legislative designation of independent mechanisms, along with their funding, resourcing and structural guarantees of independence, States still have some way to go. The recommendations also highlight a clear recognition of the ‘added value’ that NHRIs offer, especially when the voice of persons with disabilities is embedded in their work. 112 The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission recently completed a study looking at what sort of monitoring ‘framework’ is best suited to different domestic circumstances, following ratification of the UN CRPD. Establishing a Monitoring Framework in Ireland for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, published in May 2016, summarises how different countries constitute their frameworks and how civil society is generally engaged with these frameworks. The report also considers the Irish context and identifies options for the Irish framework’, including designating the Commission as a ‘single-body independent mechanism and framework’. While the decision is ultimately one for the government, the report provides a useful contribution to the discussion.112 Civil society at the heart of change Article 4(3) demands that the collective voice of persons with disabilities should be an integral part of the policy process and in making decisions that directly affect them. Because of article 4(3) – and even if article 33(3) did not mention civil society – it is beyond doubt that the tasks set out in article 33(1) (‘joined-up government’) and article 33(2) (‘framework to monitor’) cannot be performed without the active consultation and involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations. This specifically includes the work of independent mechanisms like NHRIs. 108 CRPD/C/BEL/CO/1. 109 CRPD/C/ECU/CO/1. 110 CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1. 111 CRPD/C/DNK/CO/1. 112 The report is available at www.ihrec.ie/documents/establishing-monitoring-framework-ireland-united-nations-convention-rightspersons-disabilities/. Chapter 3: Overview of the purpose, content and structure of the Convention | 51