Principle 2: Autonomy

The issue of autonomy is intrinsically linked to independence and is perhaps the most important of the principles elaborated in the Paris Principles; it is also arguably the most difficult and controversial. In the final analysis, a NHRI is a state-sponsored body in the sense that its existence depends on an act of the State and on state funding: it is therefore accountable to elected representatives or to the government in terms of reporting on its performance, on the one hand, but is autonomous and independent on the other.

Accountability to the State is generally achieved through annual reports and other types of reports filed with Ministers or, preferably, directly to Parliament.

Interference by government in the activities of NHRIs is unacceptable.

The dependence of NHRIs on government for funding may suggest that they cannot be truly autonomous. It is not unheard of for governments to restrict access to funding quietly – or to threaten to do so – when an NHRI is critical of the government's behaviour. More common is the unspoken pressure on a senior member whose career depends on the good will of the government.

Despite these realities, it is possible for a state-funded entity to exercise autonomy: the courts, for example, are autonomous even though their funding comes from State coffers. It is true that courts have a longer history, more structural guarantees of independence and are not administrative bodies, so there are important practical differences: nonetheless, the point here is that autonomy is possible.

An institution's level of autonomy must be considered in light of a number of structural and procedural factors that should be in place to ensure a high degree of operational independence for an institution. These are presented in the discussion below on "Independence" as well in the discussion of other principles that follow. (A Checklist on "Autonomy and Independence" follows the next section.)