A/HRC/22/47 national institutions in protecting their independence and pluralism, thereby enhancing their effectiveness and reinforcing their legitimacy.10 33. In addition to the Paris Principles, the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation has adopted general observations,11 which provide further guidance on how to interpret and implement the Paris Principles. C. National human rights institutions as human rights defenders 34. The Special Rapporteur considers that national institutions which operate in compliance with the Paris Principles and their members and staff, can be considered as human rights defenders. She is aware that they face important challenges and are exposed to attacks, threats, intimidation and harassment in connection to their human rights activities. 35. The Special Rapporteur and her predecessor have expressed concerns about the challenges faced by members and staff of national institutions on a number of occasions. In connection with the country visit to Guatemala in 2008, the issue of members and staff of national institutions often being the victims of threats or attacks was raised in the report.12 36. Furthermore, the mandate has sent a number of communications to Governments on reported attacks against staff of national institutions while conducting an inquiry (Philippines, 2008);13 threats to the life of a chairperson of an institution for reporting on abuses by security forces (Kenya, 2008);14 alleged acts of intimidation, harassment and reprisals against the head of a national institution who cooperated with the former mandate holder during a country visit (Indonesia, 2007),15 a reported case of harassment of the Chairperson of an institution for his engagement with ICC (Malawi, 2012),16 and the reported undue interference of the Government in the extension of the mandate of the head of a national institution (France, 2009).17 37. The responses received to the questionnaire sent by the Special Rapporteur indicate that national institutions face considerable challenges and constraints when discharging their functions to promote and protect human rights, including when interacting with human rights defenders, which could seriously undermine their independence, efficiency and legitimacy. Despite their institutional and thematic diversity, reported challenges relate inter alia to the mandates of the institutions and their implementation; to composition, selection and appointment of members and staff; to conditions of tenure; and to the availability of resources. The responses have also served to identify examples of good practice. 1. Mandate and competence 38. As stated in the Paris Principles, mandates entrusted to national institutions should be broad, set forth in a constitutional or legislative text specifying its composition and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 International Council on Human Rights and OHCHR, “Assessing the effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions” (2005), p. 15. National Human Rights Institutions (see note 7 above), annex IV. A/HRC/10/12/Add.3, para. 66. A/HRC/10/12/Add.1, paras. 2103-2106. A/HRC/10/12/Add.1, paras. 1489-1491. A/HRC/7/28/Add.1, paras. 1109, 1113, 1114 and 1117. A/HRC/21/49, p. 36. A/HRC/13/22/Add.1, paras. 832-838.