A/HRC/23/28 IV. General observations 22. Since October 2006, the Subcommittee on Accreditation has developed general observations based on the Paris Principles. These interpretative tools are addressed to: (a) National human rights institutions, when developing their own processes and mechanisms; (b) Governments, to address or remedy issues relating to an institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles; (c) The Subcommittee itself, when it reviews applications for new accreditation, re-accreditation or when it conducts special reviews. 23. The decision paper that the International Coordinating Committee adopted in May 2011 includes a number of recommendations to standardize the process of developing and revising general observations, and to increase the role of stakeholders in the accreditation process. Accordingly, the Subcommittee on Accreditation was requested by the International Coordinating Committee: (a) To establish formal communication channels with regional chairpersons and regional coordinating committees to request input at the initial drafting of general observations; (b) To elaborate further on the justification and application of a general observation, taking into account the existence of various institutional models and political systems; (c) To adopt procedures that facilitate the timely development of general observations and undertake a review of existing ones, with due regard to enhancing their comprehensibility, relevance and clarity; (d) To develop its outreach and education strategies to enhance the understanding of how to make use of the accreditation process and the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Accreditation, including the general observations. 24. Three new general observations are to be considered by the International Coordinating Committee at its twenty-sixth annual meeting, in May 2013, relating to: (a) National human rights institutions appointed as national preventive mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or national monitoring mechanism under article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; (b) complaints; The quasi-judicial competence of national human rights institutions to handle (c) practice. The performance of national human rights institutions in both law and in V. Conclusions and recommendations 25. With the support of OHCHR, the accreditation process carried out by the Subcommittee on Accreditation has become more rigorous, fair and transparent. 26. The increasing number of national human rights institutions seeking accreditation confirms the important role of the Subcommittee of Accreditation in assessing their conformity with the Paris Principles. 7