1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE National Human Rights Institutions and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Macedonia and the Western Balkans What NHRI Model for Macedonia? Bekim Kadriu, PhD

2. The reasoning behind Human Rights - Condition for the functioning of any democratic state; - For Macedonia, also an EU membership condition; - One of the modes of promotion is through the establishment of NHRIs; - The obligation of establishing such bodies in provided with the international organizations: UN, CoE, EU;

3. The Paris Principles - Adopted by the UN; - Represent the ‘soft law’ for the establishing of NHRIs; - Taking into account local context;

4. The Paris Principles (selection) 1. As wider a mandate as possible (Ombudsperson and CPAD don’t have it); 2. Legislation follows, with propositions for the improvement and implementation of international standards; 3. To promote research and Human Rights education; 4. To guarantee pluralism and the representation of all social forces relevant for the protection of Human Rights; 5. To be independent from the government, with special emphasis on financial independence;

5. Institutions in Macedonia 1. Ombudsperson; 2. Commission for the protection against discrimination; 3. Representative for equal opportunities; - All have certain shortcomings regarding their compatibility with the Paris Principles;

6. The Ombudsperson - It is a significant shortcoming that it is not mandated to protect Human Rights when violated by private subjects; - Does not guarantee pluralism; - Is not very focused on the promotion of Human Rights and the prevention (through education and research); the focus is on protection; - Does not insist on international standards (recognition and implementation); - Non-binding recommendation; in an atmosphere of lower political culture, it affects its efficiency; - Human resources issues 1. incapacity to recruit employees personally; 2. lack of professional capacities (lack of knowledge of the concepts of Human Rights and international standards, which affects efficiency);

7. Commission for the protection against discrimination - Narrow protection mandate (only in cases of discrimination); - The legal preconditions for membership are too broad; - No human resources (no administration, the commissioners work part-time); - The independence is questionable, considering that some of the commissioners are part of the executive government; - No financial independence (only for salaries);

8. Two options 1. Strengthening the Ombudsperson 2. Establishing a new institution -depending whether the aim is strengthening the system of protection, or having an institution with ‘A’ status.

9. 1. Strengthening the Ombudsperson - 1. Positive - An already grounded institutions, with the mandate, accessibility etc - No opposition from the government, considering the institution already exists; - 2. Improvement - Extend it to private subjects; - Focus on research, promotion and Human Rights education; - Improvement of the legal framework; - Achieving the international protection standards; - The possibility for the Ombudsperson to recruit employees in person; - To insist on greater pluralism (highly problematic); - To work on the improvement of political culture in the direction of following the Ombudsperson’s recommendations;

10. 2. New institution Negative - The fear of opposition from the government; - Financial repercussions; - The possibility of overlapping of mandates (Ombudsperson and CPAD); Positive 1. Guarantee pluralism; 2. Expert body (consisting of Human Rights experts) to answer to the challenges; 3. The focus on research, harmonization with international standards and Human Rights education; 4. Elevating the degree of respecting the decisions of the body (if it is an expert body);