ANNEX I. >> Metadata sheets on selected indicators Rationale  The creation and fostering of an NHRI indicates a State’s commitment to promoting and protecting the human rights set out in international human rights instruments. The Paris Principles vest NHRIs with a broad mandate, competence and power to investigate, report on the national human rights situation, and publicize human rights through information and education. While NHRIs are essentially State-funded, they are to maintain independence and pluralism. When vested with quasi-judicial competence, NHRIs handle complaints and assist victims in taking their cases to courts, making them an essential component of the national human rights protection system. These fundamental functions of NHRIs and their increasing participation in the international human rights forums make them important actors in the improvement of the human rights situation. In addition, the better its accreditation classification, the more the NHRI is shown to be credible, legitimate, relevant and effective in promoting human rights nationally. This indicator can be considered as a structural or process indicator. While the setting-up of an NHRI captures a “commitment” of a State to implementing its human rights obligations (structural indicator), its status of accreditation, which has to be reviewed periodically, will provide an indication of its continual efforts to set up independent watchdogs, key elements of a strong national human rights protection system (process indicator). Method of computation  The indicator is computed as the NHRI accreditation classification, namely A, B or C. Data collection and source  The main source of data on the indicator is the administrative records of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation. A global directory of NHRI status accreditation is available at www.ohchr.org/ EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/NHRIMain.aspx (accessed 28 June 2012). Periodicity  The global directory of NHRI status accreditation is updated every six months, after the Sub-Committee on Accreditation submits its report. This information can be accessed at any time. Disaggregation  While disaggregation of information is not applicable, it may be desirable to highlight the type of NHRI, whether ombudsman, human rights commission, advisory body, research-based institute, etc. Comments and limitations  In his reports to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/13/44) and to the General Assembly (A/65/340), the Secretary-General highlighted the value of the overall human rights work by NHRIs and stated that: “National human rights institutions compliant with the Paris Principles are key elements of a strong and effective national human rights protection system. They can help ensure the compliance of national laws and practices with international human rights norms; support Governments to ensure their implementation; monitor and address at the national level core human rights concerns such as torture, arbitrary detention, human trafficking and human rights of migrants; support the work of human rights defenders; and contribute to eradicate all forms of discrimination” (A/HRC/13/44, para. 108). He also encouraged cooperation and constructive relationships between NHRIs and Government, parliaments, civil society and other national institutions with a role to promote and protect human rights in his 2010 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/16/76). The important and constructive role of NHRIs has also been acknowledged in different United Nations instruments and resolutions, including the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, and General Assembly resolutions 63/172 and 64/161. In addition, the creation and strengthening of NHRIs have also been encouraged. For example, in 1993 the General Assembly in its resolution 48/134 affirmed the priority that should be “accorded to the development of appropriate arrangements at the national level to ensure the effective implementation of international human rights standards” while in 2008 in its resolution 63/169 it encouraged States “to consider the creation or the strengthening of independent and autonomous Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions”. The Human Human Rights Indicators 147