14 INTEGRATING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INTO THE WORK OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS OF THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION (e.g. rape in marriage should be criminalized, contraception should be freely available). The question did not relate to the work of the institution but only to its view on the identified issue. The relevant results are presented below at Figure 3. In summary, they show there is no clear agreement amongst respondents on all four issues. In particular, they reveal that a significant number of NHRIs record “no institutional opinion” with respect to certain of the contentious statements. Members’ views on contentious issues Figure 3 As seen in the results above, “no institutional opinion” results aside, there was consistent, in principle, support for the following propositions: l Reproductive rights include access to abortion under at least some conditions l Rape in marriage should be criminalized l Contraception should be freely available, e.g. regardless of marital status, to both individuals and couples. The most controversial statement was that adolescent sexuality education should be predominantly focused on abstinence or fidelity. In follow-up discussions, several respondents confirmed that their institution’s views did not necessarily translate into practice. For example, the fact that a NHRI that believes rape in marriage should be criminalized, does not mean it has or intends to take a stand or otherwise engage with this issue. Of those NHRIs that agree or strongly agree that abortion should be available under at least some circumstances, only a few had taken steps to identify abortion as a potential area of interest or concern for the institution. During follow-up discussions, it became clear that those NHRIs recording “no institutional opinion” were generally of the view that the Institution’s legitimacy and position required it to step back from contentious issues. This should be seen not as a failure to respond but as a positive decision to refrain from responding.