The next question is whether the appointment is done by legislative Act, or by executive decision. If the appointment is finalized/realized by an Act of parliament, this would mean that the parliament has a major say over the appointment of the ombudsperson, which augurs well for its independence from government. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the coming about of an Act generally requires a ratification by the executive. If the appointment is realized by Act, it also matters where the right of initiative lies regarding the Act appointing an ombudsperson. In general, government/the executive has the power of initiative in the general legislative process. PART II The legislative Act establishing the office should clarify the following issues concerning the appointment. If there is a nomination procedure, a first issue that needs to be considered is who can nominate? The national Acts of legislation on this topic do not always make reference to nomination, while those that do reveal a wide variety of mechanisms. In any event, a cross-reference needs to be made to the issue pertaining to the possible involvement of minority communities. Secondly, it needs to be determined how many persons are to be nominated and whether there is a minimum and/or maximum number? If more than one person can be nominated, it is important to decide what body has the power to determine who will actually be appointed. Once again, considerations of independence call for minimal interference by the executive authorities. If the appointment is finalized by an executive decision, it is important to see whether this is a discretionary decision of the executive or whether the executive can only execute a decision already taken by the parliament. In the latter case, the actual damage to the (perceived) independence of the institution is minimal. If the appointment is realized by an executive decision, another option is that parliament has to give its advice, which can be accepted but also rejected by the executive. This last option is obviously the least desirable from the angle of the necessary independence of the body. Regarding the involvement of parliament, it should be decided whether the decision is taken by simple or special majority. A heightened majority would increase the legitimacy of the person appointed, but could also frustrate the entire appointment process when certain political parties are against the office. Most national legislation concerning ombudspersons does not require a heightened majority. 43