NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY As stated in the Paris Principles and ECRI GPT2, a participatory selection method must be preferred to reflect the social diversity of an institution's members so as to guarantee its pluralistic structure. At this point, no model is proposed related to the selection of members. As underlined in the Paris Principles, no matter how the members are selected, it is emphasized that civil society organizations responsible for efforts to combat discrimination, trade unions, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists, trends in philosophical or religious thought, universities and qualified experts, the legislative body and ministries must be represented under the institution. The lack of a pluralistic structure for the institution and the inclusion of only people with similar identities, thoughts, etc. (academicians) may end up addressing a narrow circle of people for the institution.35 Pluralistic structure is also important for guaranteeing the independence of the institution from the executive body or any political, religious and ethnic group.36 The qualifications required for appointment must be set forth objectively in the form of qualifications such as the merit and education level required by the institution's mandate37 and no qualification must be prescribed other than those required by the mandate.38 Studies previously conducted towards the aims of establishment for the institution must take precedence in terms of the merit. Of course, the experience in this field must contain activities performed in both the public sector and CSOs and trade unions. Appointment must be a fixed and long-term one and be equal to the term of office of the legislative body in cases where the legislative body is envisaged to conduct this appointment.39 A regulation providing that some of the initially-appointed members will be replaced after a certain period of time will be instrumental in both continuity and adaptation to current developments. It is stated that the establishment of an appointment commission under the body that will appoint the members of the institution for the designation of people to be appointed as members for the institution will ensure that it will help with selection of these members, candidates will be brought to the attention of the public beforehand so that their reliability and merits will be questioned, resulting in positive outcomes for transparency.40 It is also emphasized that transparency will contribute to the independence of the institution.41 It is stressed that the announcement of candidates prior to appointment and allowing CSOs and trade unions to express their opinions are of importance for the institution's independence, its legitimacy before the public and the society's support.42 Of course, the members of this board must also be designated in a way to encompass different segments of the society. 35 Morten Kjaerum, National Human Rights Institutions Implementing Human Rights, The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, Denmark, 2003, p. 8. 36 Kjaerum, p. 12. 37 Janet Cormack; Jan Niessen, “The Independence of Equality Bodies”, European Anti-Discrimination Law Review, Human European Consultancy, Migration Policy Group, No. 1, 2005, p. 27. 38 For different forms of appointment, see. Birgit Lindsnaes; Lone Lindholt, “National Human Rights Institutions: Standart Setting and Achievements”, National Human Rights Institutions: Articles and Working Papers, Birgit Lindsnaes; Lone Lindholt; Kristine Yigen (eds.), Danish Centre for Human Rights, Denmark, 2005, p. 18-19. 39 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, European Ombudsman Institutions: A Comparative Legal Analysis Regarding the Multifaceted Realisation of an Idea, Springer, Wien-New York, 2008, p. 14-15. 40 Kristene Yigen, “Guarantees of Independence of National Human Rights Institutions: Appointment and Dismissal Procedures of Leading Members”, National human Rights Institutions: Articles and Working Papers, Lindsnaes Birgit; Lone Lindholt; Kristine Yigen, Danish Centre for Human Rights, Denmark, 2005, p. 67. 41 Rachel Murray, “The Relationhip Between Parliaments and National Human Rights Institutions”, Judges, Transition, and Human Rights, John Morison; Kieran McEvoy; Gordon Anthony (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2007 p. 362. 42 Anne Smith, “The Unique Position of National Human Rights Institutions: A Mixed Blessing?”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 923. 24