A/HRC/13/73 serious handicaps, including lack of resources, insufficient legal basis, lack of cooperation from Government and, at times, direct political interference. 1. The National Human Rights Commission 55. The National Human Rights Commission, the principal constitutional body for the promotion and protection of human rights in Nepal, has had a particularly difficult year in its efforts to fulfil its mandate. Despite the Commission’s elevation to the level of a constitutional body in 2007, new governing legislation has yet to be passed. The draft finally submitted to the Legislature-Parliament in October 2009 has been criticised by the National Human Rights Commission itself, civil society and the international community as being inconsistent with the Paris Principles. OHCHR shares the Commission’s concerns that the bill as proposed would inhibit important powers of the institution, and that it removes a key reference to the ‘independence and autonomy of the Commission. 56. The failure of the Government to implement the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission remains one of the Commission’s most significant challenges. According to the Commission, since its establishment in 2000, only 11 per cent of the Commission’s recommendations have been fully implemented by Government bodies, while more than 40 per cent have received no response at all from the State. Concerns about this lack of implementation have been raised repeatedly by the Commission. In February 2009, the Chairperson threatened to resign if the Government continued to ignore the Commission’s recommendations. 57. The National Human Rights Commission has yet to establish fully effective cooperation with other human rights actors and has yet to develop a coherent strategy to fully engage with civil society or other national institutions with a human rights focus. In a memorandum to the Prime Minister in June 2009, the Commission claimed to have exclusive jurisdiction over the promotion and protection of human rights in Nepal, and in effect called into question activities by civil society and other human rights actors, including OHCHR. Existing coordination mechanisms are largely under the auspices of civil society actors or the international community, and Commission participation is minimal. While the Commission’s engagement with other human rights actors is more active at the local level, the absence of guidance from the national level has limited the development of these contacts. 58. In February 2009, OHCHR and the Commission agreed on a set of guidelines for regarding areas of future cooperation. The guidelines aim in particular at strengthening the Commission’s role in monitoring and investigating human rights violations; OHCHR would henceforth refer new cases to the Commission and follow up with active cooperation and support in the investigation of those cases. While the guidelines have led to improved collaboration between the offices and to a number of joint monitoring activities, there have been concerns regarding the current capacity of the Commission to undertake its caseload properly, particularly in the volatile Tarai districts. The Commission has not initiated investigations into nearly 75 per cent of cases referred by OHCHR, including cases of alleged extra-judicial executions and torture. Further capacity-strengthening is required for the Commission to be able to fulfil its mandate effectively and this will be a core component of the $2 million capacity-development project agreed in July 2009, which will be implemented jointly by OHCHR and UNDP. 2. The National Dalit Commission and National Women’s Commission 59. The National Dalit Commission and the National Women’s Commission have been provided with insufficient resources to effectively realize their mandates to protect and promote the rights of Dalits and women respectively. The National Dalit Commission has also specific weaknesses in relation to its establishment due to the continuing absence of 13