“Article 11(2) of the PDHJ Statute provides that the budget for the Office shall be prepared, approved and managed in accordance with the Law. The PDHJ states that, in practice, in the consideration of its budget, it appears before the Budget Review Committee (BRC) consisting of the Prime Minister and several Ministers to defend its proposal. The PDHJ indicates that the BRC may reduce the budget based on priorities and performance on previous budget execution. While the BRC does not have the right to suggest the type of activities the PDHJ can undertake, the SCA is concerned that under the budget adoption process the BRC has the power to revise the proposal prior to its presentation to Parliament. The SCA also notes information from the PDHJ that it has previously advocated with Parliament that it be allowed to manage and propose its budget independently in accordance with the PDHJ Statute, but as with all state institutions they are required to submit proposals as required by the State budget Law.

The SCA emphasizes that, to function effectively, an NHRI must be provided with an appropriate level of funding in order to guarantee its independence and its ability to freely determine its priorities and activities. It must also have the power to allocate funding according to these priorities.

Accordingly, the SCA encourages the PDHJ to advocate for appropriate modifications to applicable administrative procedures to ensure that its independence and financial autonomy is guaranteed.

The SCA also recommends that the PDHJ advocate for adequate funding necessary to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate including enhancing accessibility of its offices.

The SCA refers to Paris Principle B.2 and to its General Observation 1.10 on ‘Adequate funding of NHRIs.”