Of particular interest here are specialized ombudsman institutions for the protection of minority communities. The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) recommended that states establish specialized bodies (in 1997) and enact legislation (in 2002) to combat racism and racial discrimination. That obligation is mirrored in two EU Non-Discrimination Directives from 2000. The new EU Constitution enumerates respect of minorities as a foundational value for the EU. In Europe, however, there are only two countries with specialized ombudspersons in the area of the protection of minorities, namely Hungary and Finland. Sweden has an Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination; Germany has established a Commissioner for Matters Related to Repatriates and National Minorities at the federal level and, in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, a Commissioner of the Minister President for Minority Affairs. Other countries, including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom have specialized bodies for combating racism or ethnic discrimination, not based directly on an ombudsman model, but with some similar functions. In some of these countries these discrimination bodies are developing their mandate so as to be able to accept individual complaints. PART I of institutions with a specific human rights mandate, including not only national human rights commissions, but also human rights ombudsman institutions, or a hybrid mix of the two. This makes the field very dynamic because the full mandate of an ombudsman now also entails not only a reactive investigation of complaints but also a proactive protection of rights, where the ombudsman’s office is involved in ex officio investigations, studies, public awareness campaigns and sometimes even lobbying. A specialist mandate prominently featuring minority protection can be created in various ways. Options include the creation of a separate thematic institution, establishing a minority issues department or focus group within a more general institution, or appointing a responsible deputy ombudsman or special officer, again, within a more general institution. The potential usefulness of such structures in the field of minority protection, particularly in states going through, or having recently been through, the process of democratization, is not really in question. Nevertheless, while there is a general trend towards specialization of institutions across all thematic areas, the pros and cons of such an approach are often disputed. For a number of reasons, including financial factors, administrative and resource burdens, and the importance of the maintenance of institutional identity, having one strong general ombudsman is the preferred approach of many states. In such a case, and given the importance of minority issues to both the minority and the majority communities in a state, the appointment of an officer or establishment of a specialized department in the field of minority protection can only be welcomed. Although in this Guide the term ‘specialized minority ombudsman’ is often referred to, this should be interpreted to also cover a specialized officer, department or deputy ombudsman within a general ombudsman institution as is appropriate. 7