A/HRC/13/29 (c) Methods of operation: the Principles require that a national human rights institution, and the independent framework in article 33, shall freely consider any questions falling within its/their competence from whatever source it/they see/s fit. There is also a reference to maintaining consultation with the other bodies responsible for human rights issues and with non-governmental organizations; (d) The fourth characteristic concerns the status of institutions with quasi-judicial competence, which are authorized to hear and consider complaints and petitions. In the exercise of these functions, institutions can conciliate or issue binding decisions, hear any complaints or petitions or transmit them, inform the party of remedies available and promote access to them. 46. On the basis of these criteria, it is apparent that some of the entities considered by States in the context of the establishment of the monitoring framework do not meet the criteria to be designated as the independent mechanism. Guarantees of independence, for example, would disqualify government commissions as well as some national observatories on disabilities that have recently been established in some countries. Similar concerns have been raised by some national disability secretariats that include government representatives on their executive boards as well as national disability councils. Non-governmental organizations, by definition, generally enjoy great structural independence from executive government. However, the degree of independence of a non-governmental organization in reality can vary, and generally is not legally guaranteed. 47. These entities can nevertheless make an important contribution to promoting, protecting and monitoring implementation of the Convention, in their own right and as an element of the framework. The opportunities resulting from cooperation with the monitoring framework are well highlighted in some submissions, one of which notes, that “a key task in the remit to monitor implementation of the Convention is to gather and coordinate material from other initiatives and analyse this in relation to human rights”. There is ample potential for information collected by other government agencies, with mandates in sectors related to the Convention, to be used in the monitoring framework.25 2. A role for national human rights institutions 48. Existing national human rights institutions have the potential to be designated as the independent mechanism performing functions under paragraph 2, and in fact, it has been said the default setting lies in favour of National Institutions doing the heavy lifting with respect to the article 33.2 tasks.26 Nowadays, over a hundred national human rights institutions have been established worldwide, 64 of which are accredited with the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions (ICC).27 Notwithstanding existing differences, the majority of existing national human rights institutions can be grouped together in three broad categories: “human rights commissions”, “ombudsmen” and “institutes”. 25 26 27 GE.09-17748 Submission by the Delegation for Human Rights in Sweden, p. 43, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/docs/SWEDEN_Equality_Ombudsmen.pdf. G. Quinn, “The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. National institutions as key catalysts of change” in National Monitoring Mechanisms on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, OHCHR, the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico and the Network of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the Americas, May 2008, p. 130, available at http://www.nhri.net/2008/0805_libro_discapacidad.pdf. See http://www.nhri.net/2009/Chart%20of%20the%20Status%20of%20NIs%20_ 2%20June%202009__final.pdf. 11