NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY sector". Although these qualities were insufficient also in the past in terms of securing pluralism and diversity, the qualities sought in the current version of the article are quite insufficient and do not guarantee pluralism and diversity. In addition, the DL No. 703 also removed the following text from Article 12(5) of TIHEK Law, which was the only regulation on pluralism: "Attention shall be paid to the pluralistic selection of those knowledgeable and experienced on the subjects falling into the mandate of the Institution while electing members." In addition, no emphasis is made on the equality of women and men in terms of the composition of members. This version of the article grants the executive body to designate members of the Board without limiting its discretion. It should also be added that the amendment in question was not related to the constitutional amendment issued in 2017 and the possibility of a pluralistic Board was completely eliminated through the DL No. 703 issued for this purpose. In the case filed for the annulment of certain articles of TIHEK Law upon the entry into force of the Law, the Constitutional Court indicated that the conditions for selection were set in an objective manner by way of seeking certain conditions for selection as a Board member and a pluralistic approach was adopted for the composition of Board members by allowing the members to be selected by the executive body to come from different segments of the society and accordingly stated that it could not be put forth that the members of the Board would lose their impartiality and independence by being affiliated to the executive body.45 However, the relatively-low standard applied by the Constitutional Court regarding independence got worse following the amendment made with the DL No. 703. Article 10(4)(a) of TIHEK Law provides that the persons to be appointed must fulfill the conditions of being a public servant and expects the members to act as a public servant. As a matter of fact, it is observed that nine of the 11 members within the TIHEK Board were serving in public institutions before their appointment and only two of them (lawyers) were not previously working as public servants. Although it seems that six of the members are experienced about human rights, only four of these members have actually such experience in connection with their public duty and have not any specific background regarding human rights and the victims of discrimination. The number of members who previously worked as volunteers in civil society organizations is only three. Five of the members have no experience and knowledge on civil society and human rights. Only one of the members is female and disabled. As can be seen, the member composition of the Institution is quite inadequate in terms of fulfilling the duties it undertakes. Members are completely distant from reflecting social diversity, and its member composition is completely contrary to gender equality. It is observed that there is complete contrariety to the requirement of the persons holding leadership positions in the equality institution being designated and appointed by a transparent, competency-based and participatory procedure and the executive body not having any decisive influence in any stage of this process. The principle of pluralism is valid not only for the members of the Board, but also for the employees of the Institution as per para. 38 of ECRI GPT2. It is known whether or not the directors of TIHEK, its advisory bodies and employees reflect social diversity. It is observed that the distribution of employees is not balanced in terms of gender equality and the number of male personnel is much higher than that of female personnel (74-46).46 45 Constitutional Court, E. 2016/132, K. 2017/154, November 15, 2017, para 31-32. 46 TIHEK, 2019 Activity Report, p. 30. 26