A/HRC/22/47 52. In India, the Chairperson and members of the national institution are appointed by the President on the recommendations of a Committee formed by the Prime Minister as a Chair and members of the ruling party as well as the opposition parties. It is reported that consultations are carried out by the members of the Committee in order to ensure consensus in the nominations. After her visit to India, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the functioning of the national commission be strengthened by, inter alia, broadening the selection criteria for the appointment of the Chair and diversifying the composition of the Commission, including regarding gender.20 53. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that, as underlined by the SubCommittee on Accreditation, the selection of staff working for national institutions should be carried out by the national institution itself. 54. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation has strongly recommended that provision be included in legislation to protect members and staff of national institutions from legal liability for official actions. The Special Rapporteur believes that privileges and immunities for members and the staff of national institutions discharging their functions in good faith are an important safeguard, allowing them to carry out their activities without undue interference. 55. It has been reported that members and staff of the Uganda Human Rights Commission enjoy immunity from civil proceedings for any act done in good faith in the performance of their duties. In some cases, members of the governing body enjoy immunities but provisions regarding staff are unclear (Togo, Jordan). In Panama, a decision of the Supreme Court in 1998 declared the immunities of the head of office unconstitutional. In Egypt, the legislative framework that established the National Council for Human Rights (Law No. 94, 2003) does not provide immunities for its staff members, including the President and Vice-President. The institution in Egypt has proposed amendments to the existing legislation to address this shortcoming. 56. An illustration of the serious challenges that the staff working for a national institutions face is the reported case of the arbitrary detention of three staff working for the national institution in El Salvador while verifying the deportation of a non-national in 2005. 57. The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that national institutions with a broad and clear mandate are able to work independently and more effectively, leading to a higher degree of legitimacy among their constituencies. She also considers that all members and staff of national institutions should enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings while discharging their functions in good faith to avoid undue liabilities and restrictions in the conduct of their legitimate human rights work. 3. Adequate resources 58. The Paris Principles also indicate that national institutions should have adequate infrastructure and funding in order for them to have their own staff and premises and be financially independent from the Government. The source and nature of funding must be clearly stated and secured in the regulatory framework. The institution should be able to manage its funding independently. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation provides additional details on what adequate funding should include, as a minimum.21 20 21 A/HRC/19/55/Add.1, para. 149. National Human Rights Institutions (see note 7 above), annex IV. 11