ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015
Figure 1: Growth in APF membership
25
“A status”
20
6
“B status”
15
12
10
7
4
5
5
5
7
14
2
15
2
15
3
15
4
15
15
15
8
5
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Another challenge relates to the provision of advice
to NHRIs that may be subject to, or threatened with,
reprisals for raising concerns about human rights
violations. In these cases, it is important that advice is
constructed and provided in a way that is most likely to
promote a positive outcome.
LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH OR RE-ESTABLISH
NHRIs
The APF provided advice to government ministers and
OHCHR on the application of the Paris Principles and
General Observations as they relate to proposals to reestablish an NHRI in Fiji.
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN
EXISTING NHRIs
The APF provided advice to member institutions on
amendments to their NHRI’s enabling legislation to
address concerns about compliance with the Paris
Principles and General Observations as they relate to
the selection of Commissioners in Palestine and Korea.
INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION OF NHRIs
The Paris Principles provide the core framework
for assessing the independence and effectiveness
of NHRIs. In particular, they are used by the ICC to
determine the accreditation status of NHRIs.
1
1
13
2
15
10
5
0
1
13
2
7
The APF provided advice on international standards
and accreditation to Bangladesh, the Maldives,
Myanmar, Nepal, Iraq, Palestine and Jordan.
This advice related primarily to an NHRI’s legislative
or practical compliance with existing international
standards, highlighting those issues that were likely
to impact on the effectiveness and efficient operation
of NHRIs, as well as the practice and procedure of the
ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation.
In the reporting period, decisions on the accreditation
status of four APF members and one non-member
NHRI were finalised (Afghanistan, Iraq, Mongolia, Nepal
and Bangladesh). A comparison of the APF’s advice
against the issues raised in decisions of the ICC SubCommittee on Accreditation shows a direct correlation
in 19 out of 22 issues. This is seen to reflect very high
quality and relevant advice.1 Three APF members were
re-accredited as “A status” by the ICC and one was reaccredited as “B status”.
The APF was represented on the ICC Sub-Committee
on Accreditation by the Independent Commission
for Human Rights of Palestine. The APF secretariat
attended meetings of the Sub-Committee as an
observer, along with the regional coordinating bodies
of NHRIs from Africa, the Americas and Europe.
The correlation of advice against issues raised by the ICC is an indicator of its quality and relevance. Whether the advice is taken up by an
NHRI and the actual accreditation outcome is a matter of the degree to which the country or NHRI takes up the advice. For example, high
quality advice might be given to a “B status” institution but the ICC decision may not be to elevate the status to “A status”, even though the APF
advice correlates exactly with the issues raised by the ICC.
9