7.7 Pitfalls and Strategies to Avoid Them

There are several recognised pitfalls that can be planned for and addressed at the pre-establishment phase.

7.7.1 Managing Expectations

NHRIs are an important part of a State’s human rights apparatus, but cannot be a panacea for all human rights issues. NHRIs operate within existing socio-political and legal contexts, and will face challenges and constraints. Especially at the outset, they will lack experience and expertise. It is important, therefore, to be realistic about what an institution can accomplish within the short run when its doors open and people come forward with their human rights problems expecting solutions. UNCTs must have a good understanding of current conditions, as well as the capacities of the new institution.

They should attempt to ensure that stakeholders appreciate that institutions cannot do it alone and will require support and encouragement.

It is crucial that the State not attempt to establish an institution as a form of “window dressing” by establishing a powerless institution that will avoid taking necessary action.

Clear, measured and attainable objectives that “start small” are much preferable than grand and ambitious announcements that are not matched by legislative powers and planned resources.

Expectations regarding complaint-handling in particular must be realistic. If the institution has recommendatory power only, it will be dependent on government to act. There are mechanisms available to help ensure that governments do act - keeping issues in the public record over time; enlisting other stakeholders to support remedial action; and ensuring that Parliament debates the matter. But in the final analysis, ‘hard’ results depend on government’s good will for NHRIs without quasi-jurisdictional powers.

Moreover, it must be remembered that the institution’s investigatory responsibilities will impose on the institution the requirement to be fair, balanced and impartial, as well as to base decisions and recommendations on the basis of ‘proof’ uncovered within the investigation process. They cannot represent a constituency and advocate on their behalf in the same way that NGOs do. Their decisions, therefore, will not always please everyone.