PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation Paris Principles) when establishing equality bodies.723 Similar recommendations have been made by other treaty bodies724 and special procedure mandate holders.725 The Paris Principles provide international benchmarks against which national human rights institutions can be accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. Although national human rights institutions are functionally different to equality bodies,726 possessing a much broader human rights mandate (although some multi-mandate institutions exist),727 these principles provide a useful framework for assessing the independence of equality bodies. The Paris Principles set out six main criteria against which independence can be measured: (a) mandate and competence; (b) autonomy from government; (c) independence guaranteed by statute or constitution; (d) pluralism; (e) adequate resources; and (f) adequate investigatory powers. Some of these criteria are discussed in further detail below. In its guidance, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance develops this list, making several concrete recommendations, inter alia, relating to the appointment, selection and tenure of staff; human resources management; procurement and office administration; the development and publication of materials; and financial controls and internal governance and accountability measures.728 While it is beyond the scope of the present guide to examine these criteria in detail, good practice in this area, particularly in the European sphere, has been detailed extensively elsewhere.729 2. Adequate resourcing In its general comment No. 6 (2018), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes the importance of ensuring that equality bodies established under the Convention are “adequately resourced to address discrimination”.730 Similarly, in its guidance on article 33 (2), the Committee has called on States to ensure that such bodies “have sufficient funding and technical and skilled human resources” and “autonomy in the management of their budget”.731 In its concluding observations, the Human Rights Committee has observed that equality bodies should be provided with “the financial and human resources necessary to carry out their mandates effectively and independently”.732 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made similar observations.733 Both the guidance of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance highlight the importance of ensuring the appropriate human and financial resourcing of equality bodies. Underresourcing in some jurisdictions has detrimentally affected the ability of equality bodies to discharge their mandates.734 In view of this concern, the Special Rapporteur has recommended that all States ensure that equality bodies “are given the appropriate mandates and resources, both human and financial, to be able to carry out their functions to their full potential”.735 104 723 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 33 (2); and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 17 (1993), para. 1. 724 See, for instance, E/C.12/BGR/CO/6, para. 5; and CCPR/C/MDA/CO/3, para. 8. 725 A/71/301, para. 86. 726 Indeed, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance has called on States “to distinguish [an equality body] from the general national human rights institution”. See A/71/301, para. 86. 727 For further discussion on this point, see Crowley, Equality Bodies Making a Difference, pp. 45–56. 728 Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, “ECRI general policy recommendation No. 2”, paras. 23–36. See also Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies, recommendation 1.2.1. In addition to this list, recommendation 1.2.1 (2) urges States to adopt measures aimed at preventing any conflicts of interest involving the staff, leadership or board members of equality bodies. 729 See, for instance, Crowley, Equality Bodies Making a Difference, pp. 89–101. 730 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 73 (m). 731 Guidelines on independent monitoring frameworks and their participation in the work of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, para. 15. 732 CCPR/C/MDA/CO/3, para. 8. 733 E/C.12/BGR/CO/6, para. 5. 734 See, for instance, A/71/301, para. 47. 735 Ibid., para. 88.