The NPM toolkit provides practical guidance to new and established NPMs by gathering in one place answers to the major questions they have on their institutional development, activities, models, and working with others.
NPM members are the decision-makers and official representatives of NPMs, as distinct from the professional staff of the institution, and often appointed for specific terms of office. Selection processes for NPM members should aim at an NPM with strong and independent leadership who possess the skills required to effectively carry out their roles.
The selection process includes all the elements that go in appointing or electing members in accordance with OPCAT requirement of independence, and the ‘required capabilities and professional knowledge’ (art. 18 .2 OPCAT) to carry out the NPM mandate.
Selection processes vary according to the NPM model and national context. In most cases, NPM members (including ombudspersons and their deputies, human rights commissioners, and members of new specialised institutions) are elected or appointed by parliament or by the executive. In most contexts, a dedicated selection committee is established to lead the process of choosing candidates.
In case of new specialised institutions with several members, the different categories of professional background may be defined in the law (for example, lawyers, medical doctors, psychologists, social workers, and representatives of civil society or other groups).
Whatever the model, it is important that a clear, inclusive, and transparent process for selection and appointment is set out in law. The law should include:
The selection process should be merit-based and, in the case of NPMs with multiple members, it should also aim to result in NPMs that are multi-disciplinary in their expertise, gender-balanced, and from a diverse range of backgrounds.
Firstly, selection and recruitment processes are important because the designation of independent, skilled, motivated, and qualified members are essential for the implementation of the NPM mandate and to drive change in conditions and treatment in detention.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, however, a clear and transparent process is important for public trust in the institution. If there are doubts about the ways in which NPM members are selected, this can impact the perception of independence and prevent the NPM from conducting its mandate effectively. Selection and recruitment processes underpin the independence of the NPM. Open and public selection and recruitment processes minimise the risk of having members appointed because of political interests or personal connections.
Finally, a widely publicised and open selection and recruitment process may also be an opportunity to raise awareness about the NPM and its important torture prevention role.
Transparency is a key principle that should underpin any selection process, that aims in the appointment of good members who can serve with integrity, and thus in an effective NPM. This principle means that both the selection criteria and the process should be established in legislation or another binding document and made available to the public before the start of the process. It is also a good practice to make sure that the selection criteria are developed in consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including civil society.
In the case of NPMs with several members, representativeness and multidisciplinarity are also key principles of any good selection process. This is because a diverse team that represents both the community and a multidisciplinarity of expertise is essential to effective NPM work. It also strengthens NPMs and improves their ability to be trusted and responsive to the different needs of diverse groups in detention and society, including those in situations of vulnerability. The OPCAT also requires states to strive for gender balance as well as ‘adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country’ (Article 18).
Before the selection process for NPM members even begins, it may be useful to convene a roundtable of interested organisations (including civil society, such as non-governmental organisations, social and professional organisations, and universities) and other experts to discuss the needs, process, criteria and desired composition of the NPM. This is particularly the case for newly established institutions and in cases where the composition of the NPM is not specified in the law.
The first step in most selection processes will involve the establishment of a selection committee. Such a committee should be representative. In the case of parliamentary committees, this may mean that it is composed of parliamentarians from different parties and different backgrounds. In the case of a specialised selection committees, it may mean including different branches of government alongside civil society. In all cases, selection committees should have clear and publicly available internal rules that set out the way they function and take decisions.
The second step is the public announcement of vacancies, and ensuring that a wide range of candidates from diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to apply. This will mean publicising the announcement widely and in a variety of formats and national languages and with a reasonable deadline to apply. The announcement should also include the clear and objective criteria that will be used to make any selection decisions.
In some cases, candidates to be NPMs members are put forward for selection by different professional groups, including: civil society, parliament, the executive or the judiciary. If this model is used, it will be very important to stress that the appointed members must serve only in their individual capacity and not as representative of the particular group that selected them, particularly in order to avoid conflicts of interest. If such a system is used, it may also be useful for each group to present a range of candidates, from which an independent selection committee can choose the most appropriate NPM member.
The third step is to assess the candidates. Given the importance of criteria related to soft skills, such as empathy and teamwork for effective NPMs, selection processes should make sure to test these as far as possible, including through face-to-face interviews. This is of course in addition to the other criteria discussed in our toolkit on profile and skills. In some countries, the committee will publish the list of candidates and invite public comments or submissions - particularly from interested civil society organisations. This can be a good way of involving a wider group of interested stakeholders in the selection process.
Finally, the last step is appointment. In the case of NPMs with several members, appointed for specific terms, (with or without the possibility of renewal), the law should make sure that the members are not all up for renewal at the same time. This might require offsetting initial terms of office of some members, to ensure that not all terms expire at the same time. In the case of institutions with a single elected member, maintaining the tenure of deputies or senior staff can be a useful way to ensure continuity.
Related to the question of selection is that of security of position and tenure. For elected leaders, including ombudspersons, members of multiple body NPMs and members of human rights commissions, for example, it is important that criteria for removal from office are both narrowly defined and clearly set out in law. Processes requiring majorities and agreement among several branches of government are likely to be the best guarantees of independence. In places where a selection committee was established to select NPM members, it may be reactivated to consider removal from office.