A/HRC/20/10 16. In 2011, the Subcommittee considered eight new applications for accreditation. The National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh, the Ombudsman and the Commission against Discrimination of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights of Hungary, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Macedonia and the Equality Ombudsman of Sweden, were accredited with “B” status. The Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone was accredited “A” status. The accreditation decision for the Ombudsman of the Republic of Bermuda was deferred to the next session of the Subcommittee. 17. The Subcommittee on Accreditation reviewed the accreditation status (reaccreditation reviews) of 23 NHRIs from Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), Norway, Panama, Romania, Slovakia, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia. The National Human Rights Commissions of Mauritania and Nigeria were upgraded to “A” status. The NHRIs of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, India, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia were re-accredited with “A” status. The Austrian Ombudsman Board was reaccredited with “B” status. The Romanian Institute of Human Rights was re-accredited with “C” status. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights was recommended to be downgraded to “B” status and has been given the opportunity to provide in writing, within one year the documentary evidence deemed necessary to establish its continued conformity with the Paris Principles. The accreditation decision for the NHRIs of Armenia, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Panama and Slovakia was deferred to the future sessions of Subcommittee. 18. According to article 16.2 of the International Coordinating Committee Statute, where it appears that the circumstances of any national human rights institution that has been accredited with an “A” status change in any way which may affect its compliance with the Paris Principles, the Chairperson of the Committee or the Subcommittee on Accreditation may initiate a review of that NHRI’s accreditation. In this regard and in accordance with articles 17 and 18 of the Statute, the Subcommittee conducted special reviews of NHRIs of Azerbaijan, Honduras, Nepal and Senegal. The NHRIs of Azerbaijan and Senegal were recommended to be downgraded to “B” status and have been given the opportunity to provide in writing, within one year, the documentary evidence deemed necessary to establish their continued conformity with the Paris Principles. The NHRI of Honduras was downgraded to “B” status. The NHRI of Nepal was re-accredited with “A” status. 19. During its two last sessions, Subcommittee on Accreditation issued tailored recommendations to the national human rights institutions reviewed. The Subcommittee stressed that the founding law of an NHRI should clearly provide for a broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights. It has also repeatedly recognized that annual reports of NHRIs serve to highlight key developments in the human rights situation in a country and to provide public account, and therefore public scrutiny of the effectiveness of an NHRI. The Subcommittee continued to emphasize the importance of a clear, transparent and participatory selection process in order to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in the senior leadership of a national institution. In this regard, the Subcommittee has encouraged the formalization of the selection process in legislation, regulation or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate. It has stressed the need for greater cooperation and engagement between NHRIs and the international human rights system, as well as with civil society, in order to ensure NHRIs’ independence, pluralism and effectiveness. 6