2.4.1 Human Rights Commissions

“Commission style” models share the following attributes:

• They are State-sponsored, with the explicit mandate to protect and promote human rights; however, some may focus only on a specific area, such as women’s rights.
• They are typically headed by a number of members, full and/or part-time, who are decision-makers.
• Investigation is a core function, and many can receive individual complaints.
• Many have the authority to make recommendations only, following investigation (the more typical model), while some have quasi-jurisdictional competence, i.e., can make decisions that are enforceable directly through the courts or specialised tribunals.

Human rights commissions tend to have sufficient numbers of members to assure pluralism. Members may be full or part-time, although as a rule, the Chief Commissioner is a full-time position.

Plurality helps ensure the credibility of the organisation, but it has implications for the speed of decision-making and for cost.

The fact that human rights commissions usually – but not always - have the mandate to investigate human rights complaints presents both benefits and difficulties. It benefits individuals who suffer human rights abuses who may be unable to access other venues or achieve redress. Commissions fill this void. This is especially true for commissions with the power to make or seek enforceable orders. The investigation function, therefore, can enhance the public’s confidence in the NHRI and shore up its credibility. Investigations can serve other purposes as well: information acquired through the investigation process and the examination of complaints trends can inform programming in other areas, for example, public education.

At the same time, the sheer demands of investigation can be overwhelming. Backlogs in complaints handling are not uncommon, and where they grow large can undermine the institution’s ability to devote resources to other programme areas or to deal with systemic issues. Ultimately, large backlogs and delays can lead to a total loss of credibility for the institution since investigation timelines will become unreasonable. Even if the institution manages to contain the volume of complaints, its credibility, in large part, will come from success in providing remedy, not with the speed at which it investigates matters.

If a commission with recommendatory powers only cannot find ways to ensure that its recommendations are accepted and acted on, they, rather than the State, might be seen as weak and ineffective.

While the power to investigate brings benefits, commissions whose decisions or investigations are subject to judicial review tend to be very cautious and careful in investigations, which can lead to delays and overly formalistic approaches: this undermines the relative advantages that the Commission is supposed to offer. It is also true that the costs of Commissions with this authority may also be quite high, especially if they offer free legal services to complainants in cases that go to court or a specialised tribunal.

A number of human rights commissions have mandates that focus on equality rights and anti-discrimination, with the power to accept complaints only in the area of equality and discrimination law. Examples of this are found in many Commonwealth countries, including the U.K., North America (Canada and the U.S.), Australia and New Zealand.

In most cases, however, the promotional aspect of the mandates of such NHRIs is not restricted in the same way.

Some examples of “A” status institutions with an equality and anti-discrimination mandate are:

Many more human rights commissions can investigate a wider group of issues and, in some instances, investigate individual complaints, across the full range of human rights recognised by the State.

Examples include: