A/HRC/33/34 II. Accreditation process of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions 7. Human Rights Council resolution 16/21 and General Assembly resolution 65/281 on reviewing the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council provide more visibility to “A” status human rights institutions fully compliant with the Paris Principles. Consequently, under the universal periodic review process, these institutions have been granted a separate section for the summary of their contribution in the stakeholders’ report. They are entitled to intervene immediately after the State under review during the adoption of the outcome of the review by the Human Rights Council plenary. “A” status institutions are also entitled to intervene immediately after the State concerned during the interactive dialogue, following the presentation of a country mission report by a special procedure mandate holder. Furthermore, they may nominate candidates for special procedure mandates. 8. The General Assembly, in its resolution 70/163, encourages all relevant United Nations mechanisms and processes, in accordance with their respective mandates, to allow for the contribution of national human rights institutions compliant with the Paris Principles to such mechanisms and processes, bearing in mind their engagement with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. 9. The enhanced participatory rights of “A” status national human rights institutions in the Human Rights Council and their goal of achieving similar rights in other United Nations mechanisms and processes implies increased responsibility of the Subcommittee on Accreditation, which is mandated to assess the compliance of national human rights institutions with the Paris Principles. 10. The Global Alliance has introduced various measures to improve its accreditation procedures: (a) The review of national human rights institutions, which was aimed at assessing their effectiveness and performance, has become more rigorous, as it is now based on documented evidence provided by the institution under review, as well as on information received from civil society organizations and other stakeholders; (b) The review has also become fairer, since an appeals procedure has been included to give institutions an opportunity to challenge the recommendations issued by the Subcommittee on Accreditation; (c) The Subcommittee on Accreditation has developed general observations, interpreting the Paris Principles, which have been adopted by the Bureau; (d) The Subcommittee on Accreditation now also welcomes reports from civil society organizations on the functioning and efficiency of national human rights institutions under review. Such reports are shared with the institutions concerned for their comments or clarifications; (e) Summaries of all documentation received from institutions are prepared by the secretariat and are shared with the relevant institutions prior to review. National human rights institutions are given one week to point out any factual errors in the summaries. The summaries and comments are subsequently brought to the attention of the Subcommittee’s members; (f) During the session, the Subcommittee on Accreditation conducts telephone interviews with the national human rights institutions under review; 4