2.2 Geographic Jurisdiction and Extraterritorial Effect2

Since human rights laws apply across the country, NHRIs should have broad jurisdiction or geographic reach across the national territory. According to a recent survey, most NHRI respondents (58) covered the whole country. Only Southern Sudan, Mexico City, Great Britain and Northern Ireland indicated that they had a limited geographic jurisdiction. In all of these cases, complementary jurisdiction is vested with other institutions.

Almost all respondents indicated their jurisdiction cover all those residing in the country, regardless of nationality.

A number of respondents (14) also indicated that their institution has extra-territorial jurisdiction. Examples include:

• The protection of citizens overseas;
• One NHRI from the Asia Pacific region has jurisdiction in a territory that has been designated by the UN as a non-self-governing territory;
• One European NHRI, which works on foreign policy issues, e.g. extraterritorial obligations resulting from ratified HR treaties; and
• Another European NHRI, which supervises the work of the country’s administration outside the territory, such as embassies and consulates.

Just under 40% of the respondents indicated that other organizations with human rights mandates existed in the country. Examples include: human rights institutions at the state or territorial level (e.g. two NHRIs from the Americas) or with particular geographic responsibility (e.g. a European NHRI); ombudsmen and public mediators (e.g. four from Africa and one from Europe); and specialized agencies for rights of particular groups (e.g. two from the Asia Pacific, one from Africa and two from Europe).

2 This section is drawn from OHCHR, Survey of National Human Rights Institutions: Report on the Findings and Recommendations of a Questionnaire Addressed to NHRIs Worldwide. 2009.