Advancing Domestic Standards: The Ombudsman’s Impact on Legislation PART I The ombudsman institution should channel its expertise and information as much as possible to the policy-making process. Through summarizing the concerns of individuals and looking at the general trends as shown by individual complaints and general own-initiative investigations, the minority ombudsman institution will have the most comprehensive view of the workings of the existent minority policy of a given country. In view of the relatively recent development of minority rights, and the lack of consensus about their meaning even at the international level, the institution will play an active part in finding adequate solutions for the implementation of these rights at the national level. The power of the institution to refer beyond national law to universal standards will give the minority ombudsman an even better understanding of the directions for necessary change in protection of minority rights at the national level. Furthermore, unlike courts or government departments, minority ombudsman institutions have the capacity to link individual complaints to inadequacies of policy and therefore have the possibility to make recommendations regarding legislation and policy to government departments and the legislative power. Thus they are in the exceptional position to see the workings of the relevant existing laws and policies and also to recommend their amendment if necessary, thus channeling information between the enforcement of legislation and other state powers. In the 1997 ECRI Recommendation, policy-making and legislative functions include tasks such as monitoring the content and efficiency of relevant existent legislation and governmental policies, and making recommendations concerning their amendment or modification, as well as counseling the legislative and executive branches of government concerning improvement of legislation and policies in the field, or concerning the making of new laws and policies. If the policy-making and legislative role of the minority ombudsman institution is recognized, there are cases in which the executive model of minority ombudsman comes to be favored as being more efficient in the policy-making process. In the case of an executive ombudsman, the relevant state department recognizes the role this institution can play not only in handling individual complaints but also in summarizing issues arising in complaints or in investigations undertaken on its own initiative, in making recommendations concerning the development of policies and legislation in the field, and also in the promotional work needed for efficient enforcement of minority rights. The advantage of the executive ombudsman is its place within the executive, meaning that it has the necessary leverage, while also remaining outside executive control. As such, it can deal with rights issues in a technocratic and expert way, thus separating them from the political realm. Annual reports of the ombudsman institution can make recommendations concerning legislation and policy. In this way, the institution can provide feedback on existing laws, policies and practices, and give recommendations for amendments and new legislation, or highlight issues that need addressing. Variations may occur between different national cases as to how much weight is given to the policy-relevant recommendations of the minority ombudsman. A fre24