A/HRC/31/74 comparative perspective”. He emphasized that the issue of coordination is a very important one. National human rights institutions mandated to address racial discrimination constitute a critical link between international and regional human rights standards and their practical implementation at domestic level. They are less effective where they don’t conform to the Paris Principles and can fall prey to majoritarian tendencies and be insufficiently inclusive. Moreover, in any country, NHRIs often fail to coordinate with other NHRIs on matters of discrimination and sometimes duplicate the work of other NHRIs. 172. The speaker noted that the 2011 study of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on NHRIs in federal states is worth considering because the coordination challenges that federal states face, illustrate particularly well the same challenge that unitary States with multiple NHRIs face since racial discrimination is a cross cutting issue. 173. He provided an overview of NHRIs in Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany and Brazil. In regard to the study recommendations, he emphasized that the government should not mandate human rights institutions to prepare its State report, but only to contribute to it, otherwise it could act more like an arm of Government and become less independent. He said that NHRIs with narrower anti-discrimination mandates should coordinate with more broadly mandate NHRIs and broader mandate NHRIs should have a special unit devoted to discrimination and vulnerable groups. 174. He also recalled that CERD recommended the establishment of NHRIs specifically mandated to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, and descent, national or ethnic origin and that an optional protocol should oblige States to establish, designate or maintain national anti-discrimination mechanisms that work in close cooperation with CERD. 175. The representative of the United States emphasized the importance of working with civil society organisations as well as the preventative aspects of anti-discrimination work. 176. Ms. Ravo asked a question with regard to the independence of NHRIs. 177. Mr. Sunga replied that the optional protocol notion was not part of the 2011 study of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and that he had utilized solely for the current presentation. The added value of establishing a focused body through an optional protocol would be for the complaints handling, not for promotion activities, as they are not a problem. Efficient and competent complaints handling requires expertise. An optional protocol might not attract a large number of ratifications, as there is a certain fatigue amongst Member States, and adding one more instrument might not attract interest. With regard to independence, he said that it is a difficult balance and the Paris principles do not clarify how the NHRIs should interact with the government. NHRIs representatives should not be part of drafting committees as drafting is a qualitatively different thing: it entails policy decisions, prioritization, frankness to articulate challenges and solutions. 178. The Chair-Rapporteur raised the issue of access to remedies for victims and the exhaustion of domestic measures. Mr. Sunga noted that the principle of exhaustion of domestic measures is very well established in international law and would likely not change without good reason. International mechanisms are intended to support and guide, and complement domestic jurisdiction. Ms. Ravo also emphasized the importance of the rule concerning the exhaustion of local remedies. Prosecution and investigation, amongst others are very important to effective national remedies. ___ 49