“Section 7 of the Law provides that the Government may dismiss a Board member prematurely only at the member’s request or if there are exceptional circumstances.

The SIHR indicates that the term “exceptional circumstances” is a common term and is normally not defined in Swedish legislations. It further notes that the preparatory work for the Law provides some examples of “exceptional circumstances”, such as when a board member is unable to perform his or her duties due to illness, or if a board member, by committing a criminal offence or other misconduct or by taking on other assignments seriously damages confidence in the institute.

The SIHR reports that a decision by the Government on dismissal cannot be appealed, but that the Government’s exercise of the power of appointment and dismissal is regularly monitored by the Constitutional Committee.

The SCA highlights that the grounds for dismissal must be clearly defined and appropriately confined to those actions that impact adversely on the capacity of the members to fulfil the institution’s mandate. Where appropriate, the legislation should specify that the application of a particular ground must be supported by a decision of an independent body with appropriate jurisdiction. Dismissal should not be allowed based solely on the discretion of the appointing authorities.

The SCA recommends that the SIHR advocate for amendments to its enabling law with a view to clarifying the rules for the dismissal of its Board members, including defining the grounds for determining that there are “exceptional circumstances”, the applicable process and safeguards for the dismissal of Board members.

The SCA refers to Paris Principle B.3 and to its General Observation 2.1 on ‘Guarantee of tenure for members of the NHRI decision-making body.”