There are diverse challenges related to NHRIs’ enabling environment. This guidance considers how to best communicate three of these – identified as a priority by members – to national authorities: adequate resources, independence, and cooperation by/with authorities.

Adequate resources

Setting out the relevant standards

The Paris Principles and CM Recommendation on NHRIs outline standards for NHRIs’ resources. They outline that an NHRI should enjoy:

• An appropriate level of funding: an NHRI must be provided with an appropriate level of funding to guarantee its independence and ensure a gradual improvement of the NHRI’s operation and fulfilment of its mandate. Where it receives new mandates, these must be accompanied by additional funding to fulfil these.
• Sufficient staffing resources: an NHRI must be provided with sufficient resources to allow employment and retention of staff that possess the appropriate qualifications and experience to fulfill the NHRI’s mandate, with salary levels comparable to other independent state agencies.
• Financial autonomy: an NHRI should be able to independently determine its priorities and activities and to allocate funding according to its priorities. The institution should be consulted and involved in the determination of its budget allocation.

Examples of key messages for communicating on adequate resources

When communicating on adequate resources – which includes budget, staffing, and financial autonomy – key messages include:

• Adequately funded NHRIs provide strategic value to national authorities, including by supporting them to implement human rights priorities and obligations which are important to individuals across the country.
• Sufficient budget allocation allows for effective action and enables NHRIs to act proactively to prevent human rights violations. This includes violations that would imply a cost for society and the state.
• Insufficient budget prevents NHRIs from properly addressing key or emerging issues, which may have a negative impact on public trust in state authorities.

Independence

Setting out the relevant standards

NHRIs’ independence is outlined in and protected by the Paris Principles, which highlight the key standards in relation to:  

• The process for selection and appointment: a clear, transparent, participatory, pluralist and merit-based process is important for ensuring independence and public confidence in the leadership of an NHRI.  
• A guarantee of tenure for NHRI leadership: to ensure the stability of an NHRI’s mandate, its legislation should contain an independent and objective dismissal process, with grounds for dismissal clearly limited to actions that impact members’ capacity to fulfill the mandate and with appropriate procedural safeguards for due process.  
• Protection from undue interference: NHRIs must be empowered to consider and determine their strategic priorities and activities solely on what they identify as the human rights priorities to address in their country, free from political interference.  

Examples of key messages for communicating on adequate resources

When communicating on independence – which includes in the context of selecting and appointing NHRI leadership and freedom from state interference in or politicisation of the NHRI – key messages may include:  

• An open, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process boosts public trust in the NHRI. This trust contributes to more active engagement with civil society and the wider public and enables the NHRI to be a bridge between these and state authorities.  
• NHRIs are open and transparent in their engagement: their positions and recommendations are evidence-based and centered on the universality of human rights.  
• Threats, attacks, or reprisals against NHRI staff and leadership due to their human rights work are to the detriment of wider society and reduce public trust in state authorities. 

Cooperation with and by national authorities

Setting out the relevant standards

The Paris Principles and CM Recommendation on NHRIs provide safeguards for NHRIs’ cooperation with authorities, including in relation to:

• Access to relevant information: NHRIs should have unannounced and free access to any public premises, documents, or information without prior notice to be able to carry out a credible examination of issues within their mandate.
• Follow-up to recommendations: NHRIs are called to follow up on recommendations to national authorities, including by publicising information on measures taken by authorities to address these. NHRIs also cooperate with national authorities to find practical solutions to recommendations.
• Responsibility of national authorities to respond: while NHRIs may encourage and follow up implementation of their recommendations, public authorities are called to respond to recommendations from NHRIs in a timely manner, and to provide detailed information on practical and systematic follow-up action.
• Cooperation with NHRIs: the CM Recommendation clarifies that states should foster awareness and cooperation of public authorities in relation to NHRIs’ mandate, role, and independence. NHRIs collaborate constructively to seek solutions.

Examples of key messages for communicating on cooperation with and by national authorities

When communicating on cooperation by/with authorities – which includes follow-up to NHRIs’ recommendations, alongside access to information, documents, and relevant authorities – key messages to consider include:

• NHRIs monitor the implementation of their recommendations and are open to further feedback, communication, and cooperation with national authorities on this.
• Dialogue with authorities is crucial to NHRIs’ work. Their recommendations aim to support the state and provide it with solutions on key human rights obligations and challenges nationally.
• Authorities should communicate if they implement NHRI recommendations, including on how they have done so. This allows (gradual) positive developments to be acknowledged and solutions to be sought for issues underlying non-implementation.

Approaches and methods for communicating on adequate resources, independence, cooperation and more

When communicating on all these three aspects (and indeed other challenges to NHRIs’ operation), consider the following communications approaches and methods:

• Make clear that the different elements are interconnected. Strengthening one of these can strengthen other aspects of an NHRI’s functioning (positive reinforcement). For example: 
  • If the NHRI is strong and well resourced, it will be able to independently and effectively engage with and respond to issues impacting individuals, in turn contributing to greater trust in state institutions.  
  • If the selection and appointment process is open and transparent, there will be greater trust in the institution’s independence. This will contribute to greater engagement with the NHRI and make it a stronger partner in linking the issues facing individuals to state authorities.  

• Frame these aspects in terms of impacts and causal relationships. If X is lacking/present or situation Y remains as it is, then Z will be impacted/(not) possible. In doing so, emphasise the societal impact/human element. For example:
  • If the recommendations of the NHRI are followed, this will help prevent potential human rights violations, benefitting individuals and boosting social cohesion. 
  • Use references to past successes and recommendations of the NHRI to support statements such as those above. 

• It can be beneficial to diversify the voices/faces representing an NHRI, e.g. expert staff and people with lived experience, for a few reasons:  
  • It shows you live up to the values/principles of pluralism and diversity that you represent. It also reinforces that your NHRI addresses the rights of all people in your society. 
  • It helps people associate your NHRI/institution with a broad(er) range of people. This helps ensure continuity in the NHRI’s public image, as it avoids that it is only defined through the head of institution (who will eventually move on). 
  • If people’s image/understanding of your institution extends beyond a single person or small group of people, it may help mitigate the potential impact that attacks on NHRI leadership can have on your institution’s wider public reputation. 

• Be aware that having more voices/faces can bring with it a higher risk of mixed messaging and would require more coordination of communications. 
• Use a comparative approach to communicate key challenges to your enabling environment, drawing for example on the situation of other (similar) NHRIs. 
• In-person interaction and relationship building with national authorities can strengthen the NHRI’s position when advocating for key changes or greater enabling space.  
• Develop crisis communication strategies to help tackle sensitive issues, politicisation of your communications, misinformation and disinformation, and threats to your institution. In these, try to address how you will decide which issues you react to and the manner in which you will do so. While proactive communication can be important, weigh up carefully if a quick response – or responding at all – is appropriate in light of your NHRIs’ mandate and objectives.  
• As a last resort, in cases of a lack of follow-up to structural and continuous human rights concerns, NHRIs may rely on ‘naming and shaming’, bringing court cases, or taking administrative measures against authorities. They may also bring the situation to the attention of international bodies.