A/HRC/22/47 sphere of competence. The mandate should be clearly stated and include the promotion and protection of human rights, which is the case for many national institutions, such as Afghanistan, Canada, Nicaragua, Nigeria, South Africa and Uruguay, among others. 39. However, there are instances where the mandate of national institutions is reportedly established by a royal decree (Morocco), a presidential decree (Algeria, Kazakhstan) or an executive order (Philippines). 40. Moreover, limitations to the mandate or sphere of competence of national institutions have been reported in some cases which include restrictions to their jurisdiction, such as limitations on the type of issue they can handle. Other restrictions concern the branches of the State or the type of actors they can monitor, notably military and private actors in some cases exempted from the oversight of national institutions. 41. Several national institutions are not empowered to investigate complaints against the Head of State and Parliament (Hungary, Kazakhstan, Philippines). The national institution of the Philippines is limited to consideration of violations of civil and political rights, although the institution has managed to work on economic, social and cultural rights under its Omnibus Rules of Procedure. It is also reported that the national institution in India cannot deal directly with members of the armed forces and has to seek reports from the Ministry/ Departments with competence over them. 42. As established by the Paris Principles, the mandate of national institutions should include preparing and submitting reports to relevant international bodies, including the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council and the Treaty Bodies, as well as interacting with regional and international human rights mechanisms, including with the special procedures of the Human Rights Council. This is the case for the mandate of the national institution in Canada and, while not as specific, that in Afghanistan. 43. The mandate of national institutions should also be clear enough to avoid any overlap or confusion with the mandate and work of other branches of the State or human rights-related bodies, such as thematic human rights commissions (India, Indonesia) or human rights institutions at the constituent unit level 18 in federal States (Canada, Mexico, South Africa). As stated by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation in its general observations, national institutions should cooperate with other statutory bodies, coordinate their work and share information with them. 44. The Special Rapporteur would like to highlight the fact that several national institutions reported facing important challenges when trying to ensure adequate implementation of and follow-up to their recommendations. In the absence of necessary provisions in the statutory framework obliging the Government and other public bodies to formally respond to their recommendations, implementation of such appears to be a problem (South Africa). This is likely to be the case with most institutions which are provided with a limited consultative or advisory type of mandate (Germany, Kazakhstan), which could undermine their impact and effectiveness. 45. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the credibility and legitimacy of national institutions is certainly strengthened if their mandate originates from a legislative act of Parliament, is clear and broad, including interaction with regional and United Nations human rights mechanisms and establishing coordination mechanisms with other relevant human rights bodies. The mandates of national institutions should state their jurisdiction, and they should be accountable to Parliament through the submission of a periodic report 18 This refers to the states, provinces or cantons within federal systems. For more details, refer to “National human rights institutions in federal States. A study for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights” (September 2011). 9