A/HRC/23/28 Commission nationale des droits de l’homme of Mali and the Human Rights Ombudsman of Tajikistan were accredited “B” status. The accreditation decision for the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was deferred to the second session of 2013, while the application for accreditation of the Ombudsman of Bermuda was referred to the Bureau of the International Coordinating Committee. B. Applications for re-accreditation 16. The Subcommittee on Accreditation reviewed for re-accreditation 22 national institutions, from Armenia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia, Malawi, Norway, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa and Togo. The national institutions of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Colombia, Denmark, Indonesia, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain and South Africa were re-accredited with “A” status. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights and the Comité sénégalais des droits de l’homme were accredited with “B” status. The National Commission for Human Rights of Rwanda was recommended for “B” status accreditation unless it provided, within one year, documentary evidence deemed necessary to establish its ongoing conformity with the Paris Principles. C. Deferrals 17. The accreditation decisions on the national human rights institutions of Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Malawi and Togo were deferred to future sessions of the Subcommittee on Accreditation. D. Lapsed status 18. The accreditation status of the Commission nationale des droits de l’homme of Burkina Faso and the National Centre for Human Rights of Slovakia lapsed. 19. The table reflecting the accreditation status of national human rights institutions as of February 2013 is contained in the annex to the present report. 20. In accordance with articles 16.2, 17 and 18 of the statute of the International Coordinating Committee, the Subcommittee on Accreditation conducted a special review of the national human rights institution of Azerbaijan, and recommended a special review of that of Nepal. As a result, the institution of Azerbaijan was re-accredited with “A” status, while the special review of the institution of Nepal was scheduled for May 2013. 21. At its two sessions, the Subcommittee on Accreditation issued a number of recommendations for the national human rights institutions under review. In most of the decisions, the Subcommittee emphasized the need for a clear, transparent and participatory selection process of institution members as required by the Paris Principles and the Subcommittee in its general observations. It also stressed the importance of adequate core funding provided by the State to ensure the independence and financial autonomy of such institutions. The Subcommittee also recognized the importance of granting members of national institutions with immunity against legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity. It furthermore stressed the need for greater cooperation by and engagement of national human rights institutions with regional and international human rights systems. 6