A/HRC/13/29 36. Ratification of the Convention offers an important opportunity for the strengthening of existing structures where necessary or for their establishment. Where more than one focal point within government is appointed, it would seem appropriate that such focal points participate in the coordination mechanism. The mechanism should ideally be chaired by the focal point within government with the key responsibility for the implementation of the Convention. Through inter-ministerial action and participation in the mechanism, government agencies will be able to focus their activity and policy development on areas where they have an added value, avoid duplication and make the best use of limited resources. C. Monitoring framework 37. Article 33, paragraph 2 of the Convention requires States to have or put in place at national level a framework that includes one or more independent mechanisms, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the Convention. The Convention specifies that when designating or establishing the independent mechanism/s to be included in the framework, States shall take into account the Paris Principles. 38. Article 33 does not prescribe a unique organizational form for the national monitoring framework and States parties are free to determine the appropriate structure according to their political and organizational context. Options can range from the attribution of the monitoring function to a single entity, i.e. one independent mechanism; a framework consisting of more than one independent mechanism; or a framework consisting of various entities, amongst which one or more independent mechanisms are included. 39. Suitable entities are already in place in some States. In others, implementation of article 33, paragraph 2 requires the establishment of a new entity or the transformation of existing entities. 40. The experience of the States that, according to submissions received, have taken formal steps towards the implementation of the monitoring framework shows that they have all assigned the function to a single-entity framework and not to multiple entities. With regard to the choice of such entities, however, the approach has been diverse: for example, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have designated their existing national human rights institutions; Spain has designated the national federation of organizations of persons with disabilities, CERMI; and Austria has established a new mechanism, the Independent Monitoring Committee.22 41. Whatever the organizational structure, three key requirements need to be given effect in the monitoring framework: (a) The framework must include one or more independent mechanisms that take into account the Paris Principles. This does not mean that only entities complying with the Paris Principles should be included in the framework, but that at least one mechanism that is established and functions on the basis of the Paris Principles must be part of the framework;23 (b) The framework established or designated must be capable of adequately carrying out its mandate to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the 22 23 GE.09-17748 See submissions by Austria, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/submissions.htm. Australian Human Rights Commission, paper on National human rights institutions and national implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Sydney 2007, available at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/convention/apf07.htm 9