Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The text makes it plain that the Guidelines will apply to the relationship between the Committee and NHRIs regardless of whether an NHRI has been formally designated as part of the article 33(2) framework. They would therefore cover the activities of NHRIs who, for one reason or another, are not a member of the relevant ‘framework’ but which nevertheless do important work on disability issues (para. 7). A few things stand out in the Guidelines. First, some ambiguity remains concerning whether the ‘framework’ itself has to be independent – the text explicitly refers to an ‘independent monitoring framework’ throughout – or whether it is the ‘independent mechanism’ within the framework that must be independent. On the one hand, the text contemplates membership of the framework of entities that are part of, or close to, the executive and therefore demands that any potential conflicts of interest be managed or regulated (para. 20). On the other hand, the Committee has specifically ruled against the European Commission being a part of the relevant article 33.2 ‘framework’. Some clarity is therefore needed as to whether the entirety of the framework should be independent, whether membership by executive bodies is permissible provided it is controlled, and when membership by executive bodies, like the European Commission, is precluded altogether. Probably the best interpretation is that while the designated independent mechanism must comply with the Paris Principles, the other entities in the framework have to exhibit some functional independence from the executive in order to be effective. Second, the Committee envisages a robust role for NHRIs to engage in the work of the Committee itself. It encourages NHRIs to submit their own shadow reports to State party reviews, to contribute to framing the list of issues for the review, and to follow up on implementation of the recommendations the Committee makes in its concluding observations to their respective States. NHRIs are encouraged to contribute to the development of the Committee’s general comments on the UN CRPD. There is also useful language in the Guidelines on the engagement of NHRIs in the Committee’s communications procedure and its inquiry procedure. All of this is extremely welcome. Third, the Guidelines endorse OHCHR’s general approach to the development of monitoring indicators, which assess substance (the law), process (implementation) and outcomes (how people actually experience the enjoyment of their rights).145 In addition, the Guidelines deal with the issue of reprisals against human rights defenders, including the role NHRIs can play in highlighting and combating reprisals at the national level. They also address reprisals against NHRIs and their staff. This is extremely welcome as the political environment in which NHRIs work is not always receptive, even though disability is often seen as a ‘neutral’ political issue. Overall, the Guidelines formalise emerging practice and provide a new platform to intensify the engagement of NHRIs with the Committee. 145 OHCHR, Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation, 2012. Chapter 4: International monitoring: The tasks and functioning of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities | 63