A/HRC/33/34 Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malawi, the Republic of Korea, and Serbia, and of Scotland, were reaccredited or had their reaccreditation deferred, under article 15 of the Statute. The national human rights institution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was reviewed under article 16.2. The annex shows the outcome of the session. C. Second session in 2015 19. From 16 to 20 November 2015, the Subcommittee on Accreditation reviewed the national human rights institutions of Cyprus, Ireland and Myanmar for accreditation, in accordance with article 10 of the Statute. In accordance with article 15 of the Statute, a review was carried out of “A” status institutions, namely those of Germany, Jordan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, the State of Palestine, and Qatar, and of Great Britain. The national human rights institution of Thailand was reviewed under article 18.1 of the Statute. The outcome of the session is reflected in the annex. D. First session in 2016 20. At the first session in 2016, held from 9 to 13 May, under article 10 of the Statute, the Subcommittee on Accreditation reviewed the national human rights institutions of Bahrain, Côte d’Ivoire, Montenegro, Samoa, Uruguay and Zimbabwe for accreditation. Under article 15 of the Statute, the institutions of Cameroon, Canada, Greece, Honduras, Malawi, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Sierra Leone, and of Northern Ireland, were reviewed for reaccreditation. The institutions of Burundi and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were reviewed under article 16.2 of the Statute. The outcome of the session will be published upon completion of the procedure set out in article 12 of the Statute. 21. During the four sessions under review, the Subcommittee on Accreditation issued recommendations emphasizing the need for a clear, transparent and participatory process for selecting the members of national human rights institutions, as required by the Paris Principles and by the Subcommittee in its general observations. The Subcommittee stressed the importance of the provision of adequate core funding by States to ensure the independence and financial autonomy of national human rights institutions. The Subcommittee also recognized the importance of members of institutions being granted immunity against legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity. Furthermore, it stressed the need for greater cooperation between national human rights institutions and the regional and international human rights systems. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 22. The interdependence and indivisibility of human rights require that the broad mandate of national human rights institutions, as set out in the Paris Principles and emphasized by the Subcommittee, include the promotion and protection of all rights — civil, political, economic, social and cultural — for everyone. 23. The Paris Principles require that the composition of national human rights institutions and the appointment of their members, by means of election or otherwise, ensure the pluralistic representation of social forces (civil society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Subcommittee on Accreditation interprets that provision as requiring a clear, transparent, merit-based and participatory selection and appointment process. The Subcommittee recommends that the selection and appointment process be formalized in legislation establishing 7