be done in the minority language(s) present in the country. Such an approach has, in line with Article 10(4) of the Charter, implications for the employment policy of the institution and its financial resources. The ombudsman should maintain close links with other bodies or mechanisms available to assist with minority protection, however, the different jurisdiction and mandate of each body or organization must also be heeded. Minority rights are not a self-contained set of rights, totally distinct from other rights. Indeed, many principles relevant to the protection of minorities, such as non-discrimination, have a much wider application, and many such principles are to be found in norms, whose implementation may be overseen by other domestic bodies. Thus, with respect to many rights which a member of a minority may want to rely upon, there may be a range of enforcement options available, including courts of law, bodies such as human rights commissions, general parliamentary ombudsperson institutions and specialist bodies, such as those involved in the protection of women’s or children’s rights. Where such options are available, conflicts might arise between the minority ombudsman institution and those other bodies as to which body has the jurisdiction/competence to deal with the matter. In some cases, the domestic legislation which creates the right may specify which body is to have primary jurisdiction/competence, but this is not always the case. PART III Management of Relationships with Analogous Domestic Bodies Where the domestic law is unclear, it is important that the minority ombudsman develop a set of policies for dealing with such jurisdictional issues. In general, the institution will want to maintain good relations with such other bodies, and as a starting point, it may be advisable for representatives to meet on a regular basis to discuss a range of matters of mutual concern. When, for example, the minority ombudsman institution is considering a program of research, or a topical investigation, it should consider the extent to which similar work is already going on within other bodies, and whether any possibility of joint programming exists. It may, therefore, be advisable for the minority ombudsman institution to designate a speci��c officer or employee as having responsibility for liaising with such other bodies, and to report regularly to the board of the institution on such matters. With regard to the narrow issue of possible jurisdictional conflicts, whenever the minority ombudsman institution considers a complaint brought by a member of a minority community, it should determine whether the person has begun any formal legal process or lodged a similar complaint with another body. Generally, it is undesirable for the same complaint to be pursued in two or more different fora, and the institution should resist such forum shopping. So, if a decision has been rendered by another body, it would generally not be advisable for the minority ombudsman institution to investigate the same complaint in respect of the same matter, and the institution should refuse to investigate. If, on the other hand, a complaint or other process has been started in another forum but has not yet been completed, the 63