Conducting a National Inquiry into Systemic Patterns of Human Rights Violation 2.4.4. The appropriateness of the NHRI Finally, the NHRI needs to consider whether it is the appropriate organisation to conduct an inquiry on this issue and whether conducting an inquiry would position it well within its society. Because of the high profile that national inquiries attract, they increase the profile of the NHRI itself. They can place the institution in a different light and so change people’s perceptions of its role. Because a national inquiry is well suited to the consideration of economic, social and cultural rights, an NHRI conducting one will be seen as having an interest in those kinds of rights, with broad public appeal, rather than being concerned solely with the civil and political rights of a small group. An NHRI must have a concern for the rights of prisoners – for example, including their humane treatment and freedom from torture – but these issues do not touch directly the great majority of the population. The right to health and the right to education do. Undertaking a national inquiry on an issue in these areas, therefore, can lead to the NHRI being seen as concerned about, and important to, a much greater proportion of the population. Not only does it change popular conceptions of the nature of human rights, it also changes perceptions of the nature of the NHRI. An NHRI that may have been seen as a “prisoners’ rights institution” is transformed in the minds of the public into a broad “human rights institution” in which they have a stake. A national inquiry should not be undertaken when these factors cannot be satisfactorily addressed: if the NHRI is not the organisation best placed to examine the issue; if there are no realistic prospects of making a useful contribution for victims and their families; if the issue is not one that lends itself to public inquiry; or if the available resources are inadequate. Criteria for deciding whether to conduct a national human rights inquiry11 Developed by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Uganda Human Rights Commission in 2000 and expanded at a workshop in Kampala, Uganda, in 2003. Criteria related to the Commission as an institution • Whether the Commission has the necessary public credibility (including independence) • Whether the Commission is the appropriate body or the only body responsible for the subject matter • Whether the Commission is able to manage public expectations • Whether the Commission can accommodate a variety of interests and views on a topic Criteria related to the significance of the topic • Whether there are strong community stakeholders for the topic • Whether requests have been received for the inquiry from the relevant sector • Whether the topic is ground-breaking or has already been well-covered • Whether the public agrees generally that the topic is a relevant one • Whether the subject can sustain public interest • Whether the topic would attract widespread public empathy or, alternatively, would be controversial 11 10 Public Inquiry Planning Model Guidelines for Commonwealth Human Rights Commissions; Workshop for Commonwealth Human Rights Commissions, sponsored by the British Council; Kampala, Uganda; 25–27 February 2003.