1-10. 국가인권기구의 충분한 자금조달
1-10. Adequate Funding of NHRIs
채택일 2018. 2. 21.
G.O. 1.10 Adequate funding of NHRIs
To function effectively, an NHRI must be provided with an appropriate level of funding in order to guarantee its independence and its ability to freely determine its priorities and activities. It must also have the power to allocate funding according to its priorities. In particular, adequate funding should, to a reasonable degree, ensure the gradual and progressive realisation of the improvement of the NHRI’s operations and the fulfilment of its mandate.
Provision of adequate funding by the State should, as a minimum, include the following:
a) the allocation of funds for premises which are accessible to the wider community, including for persons with disabilities. In certain circumstances, in order to promote independence and accessibility, this may require that offices are not co-located with other government agencies. Where possible, accessibility should be further enhanced by establishing a permanent regional presence;
b) salaries and benefits awarded to its staff comparable to those of civil servants performing similar tasks in other independent institutions of the State;
c) remuneration of members of its decision-making body (where appropriate);
d) the establishment of well-functioning communications systems including telephone and internet;
e) the allocation of a sufficient amount of resources for mandated activities. Where the NHRI has been designated with additional responsibilities by the State, additional financial resources should be provided to enable it to assume the responsibilities of discharging these functions.
Funding from external sources, such as from international development partners, should not compose the core funding of the NHRI, as this is the responsibility of the State. However, the SCA recognizes the need for the international community, in specific and rare circumstances, to continue to engage and support an NHRI in order to ensure it receives adequate funding until such time when the State will be able to do so. In such unique cases, an NHRI should not be required to obtain approval from the state for external sources of funding, as this requirement may detract from its independence. Such funds should not be tied to donor-defined priorities but rather to the pre-determined priorities of the NHRI.
Government funding should be allocated to a separate budget line item applicable only to the NHRI. Such funding should be regularly released and in a manner that does not impact adversely on its functions, day-to-day management and retention of staff.
While an NHRI should have complete autonomy over the allocation of its budget, it is obliged to comply with the financial accountability requirements applicable to other independent agencies of the State.
JUSTIFICATION
Section B.2 of the Paris Principles addresses the requirement for NHRIs to be adequately funded as a guarantee of their independence. The purpose of such funding and a definition of what it entails is stated as follows: “The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding. The purpose of this funding should be to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the Government and not be subject to financial control which might affect its independence.”
While the provision of “adequate funding” is determined in part by the national financial climate, States have the duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society, who are often the victims of human rights violations, even in times of severe resource constraints. As such, the SCA believes that it is nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of this Paris Principles requirement that must be taken into account in any particular context. They include the following:
a) Accessibility to the public – This is particularly important for the most vulnerable sections of society, who would otherwise have particular difficulty bringing attention to any violation of their human rights.
- As many vulnerable persons may be geographically remote from the major cities where most NHRIs are located, establishing a regional presence increases the accessibility of NHRIs, giving them as wide a geographical reach as possible, and enabling them to have full national coverage for the receipt of complaints. It is essential that, where regional offices exist, they be adequately resourced to ensure their effective functioning.
- Another means of increasing the accessibility of NHRIs to vulnerable groups is to ensure that their premises are neither located in wealthy areas nor in or nearby government buildings. This is particularly important where government buildings are protected by military or security forces. Where an NHRI’s offices are too close to government offices, this may not only compromise the perceived independence of the Institution but also risk deterring complainants.
b) NHRI staff – Salaries and benefits awarded to NHRI staff should be comparable to those of civil servants performing similar tasks in other independent institutions of the State.
c) NHRI members – Where appropriate, members of the NHRI’s decision-making body should receive remuneration equivalent to those individuals with similar responsibilities in other independent institutions of the State.
d) Communications infrastructure – The establishment of communications systems, including telephone and internet, is essential for the public to access the NHRI’s office. A well-functioning communications structure, including simplified complaints-handling procedures which may include the receipt of complaints orally in minority languages, increases the reach of vulnerable groups to the NHRI’s services.
e) Allocation for activities – NHRIs should receive adequate public funding to perform their mandated activities. An insufficient budget can render an NHRI ineffective or limit it from reaching its full effectiveness. Where the NHRI has been designated with additional responsibilities by the State, such as the role of National Preventive or Monitoring Mechanism pursuant to an international human rights instrument, additional financial resources should be provided to enable it to discharge these functions.
Donor funding
As it is the responsibility of the State to ensure the NHRI’s core budget, the SCA takes the view that funding from external sources, such as from international development partners, should not constitute the NHRI’s core funding. However, it recognizes the need for the international community, in specific and rare circumstances, to continue to engage and support an NHRI in order to ensure it receives adequate funding until such time when the State will be able to do so. This is particularly applicable in post-conflict States. In these circumstances, NHRIs should not be required to obtain approval for external sources of funding, as this requirement may pose a threat to its independence.
Financial systems and accountability
Financial systems should be such that the NHRI has complete financial autonomy as a guarantee of its overall freedom to determine its priorities and activities. National law should indicate from where the budget of the NHRI is allocated and should ensure the appropriate timing of release of funding, which is particularly important in ensuring an appropriate level of skilled staff. This should be a separate budget line over which the NHRI has absolute management and control. The NHRI has the obligation to ensure the coordinated, transparent and accountable management of its funding through regular public financial reporting and a regular annual independent audit.
참고 정보 링크 서비스
| • 일반 논평 / 권고 / 견해 |
|---|
| • 개인 통보 |
|---|
| • 최종 견해 |
|---|