Dear Colleagues,
Let me share some experiences of Ecuador UNCT regarding the engagement with Human Rights Special Procedures.
Following Ecuador ‘s open invitation to all thematic special procedures issued in 2003, several HR Special Procedures have recently visited the country:
- Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro
Despouy (March, July and November 2005)
- Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (February 2006)
- Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen (April- May 2006)
- Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination (August-September 2006)
- Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt (May 2006)
The context of inviting each SP has been different: SR on the right to health has been directly invited by the present government for an urgent visit focusing on aerial spraying realized by Colombia and its possible impacts on the health of Ecuador’s border population; while urgent visit by SR on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers was requested by civil society when the National Congress unconstitutionally dismissed the members of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in late 2004.
The UNCT (mainly trough UNDP and with a close support of OHCHR) has been extensively supporting each SP visit through establishing a UN support team and coordinator/focal point (UN staff more closely related to the visiting SP mandate); providing relevant information and documents (elaborated by UN, civil society -HR and justice related NGOs, universities, indigenous organizations, etc.- and government); close coordination with Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the elaboration of the agenda (being the MFA responsible for organizing the meetings with state entities and UNCT responsible for civil society meetings), including specific meetings with UN local agencies; and general thematic and logistic previous preparation and support during the mission.
Each visit has ended in a press conference (held in UN house), presenting SP preliminary conclusions and recommendations. Final SP reports have been circulated in Ecuador, mainly through UNCT web site and e-mail; main recommendations have also been the subject of some of UN weekly radio program; and report of SR on indigenous rights will soon be published with OHCHR support.
Close follow up of main recommendations of the SR on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, led to a major UN coordination effort -together with the Organization of American States and the Community of Andean Nations- supporting the national process of reconstitution of the Supreme Court of Justice (which culminated after several months of day-to-day national and international monitoring -including several UN experts- of the selection process of the new judges).
This UN institution-building initiative was considered by the Secretary General to be reflecting an exemplary coordination and cooperation between UN and regional/sub regional organizations as well as among UN departments and agencies, and by SR Despouy to be a real innovation in UN’s activities in this field, by supporting national efforts to ensure transparency.
Follow up to main recommendations of SR Despouy has had significant impacts on development work and country programming:
- the new court, with a renewed legitimacy and international support -including UN/UNDP-, has recently released the National Strategic Plan of the Judicial Function (2007-2012)
- the UN/UNDP has positioned itself as a reliable and important partner for Justice issues, while it supports the coordination of international donors activities in this field, and has increased its specific programs (on re-institutionalization of main courts –with Spain Cooperation-, strengthening access to justice and public defense –UNDP DGTTF-, etc.)
- a OHCHR Senior Human Rights Advisor is integrating the UNCT this week, in order to advice and support the government and the UN on strategies to promote and protect human rights, with a special focus on strengthening the Administration of Justice
Of particular relevance is also the UNCT support to the visit of the SR on indigenous rights and the promotion of the inclusion of his recommendations in development work and country programming. The visit and recommendations has allowed to complement and strengthen several ongoing UN initiatives such as the work and planning of the UN Interagency Working Group on Intercultural Issues; the elaboration process of a specific MDG report on Indigenous Peoples; the HURIST 2nd phase project on promoting indigenous rights; and the process of establishing a Consultative Committee between main indigenous peoples/organizations and the UNCT.
The UN RC/UNDP RR also participated in 2006 -presenting Ecuador’s experience- in the Expert seminar on best practices for the implementation of the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples (organized by Rights and Democracy).
Of particular interest for the improvement of our engagement with SR procedures is, for instance, the STUDY REGARDING BEST PRACTICES CARRIED OUT TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?m=73&t=9
Kind regards,
Michel Guinand
Program Officer
UNDP Ecuador
Sunday, May 27, 2007
RE:[humanrights-talk] Part II of E-Discussion: How to Strengthen Engagement with the International HR Machinery? Experience from Geneva
Dear colleagues,
It has been very interesting to follow this discussion and I would like to join in to share some experiences of the WHO in engaging with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health ('the right to health'), Prof. Paul Hunt.
WHO supports the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health both at Headquarters level and during country missions. WHO provides input to the reports of the Special Rapporteur and disseminates and encourages the use of his reports to guide health development programming. Recently, WHO technical departments have for example been engaged in consultations on relevant aspects of Prof. Hunt's forthcoming report on the right to health in the context of health systems. I have also had the experience of engaging with the Special Rapporteur on his two country missions to Uganda, during which time I was based with the WHO country office in Uganda as a Health and Human Rights Officer.
In March 2005 the Special Rapporteur on the right to health carried out a country mission to Uganda, which focused on neglected tropical diseases. WHO Headquarters and the WHO country office in Uganda supported and organized the logistics of the mission in collaboration with government counterparts and OHCHR. WHO also provided information to the report of the Special Rapporteur and supported follow-up and awareness raising/monitoring of his recommendations.
In May 2006, WHO and OHCHR supported the Ministry of Health in organizing a health and human rights capacity building workshop with the objectives to explain the linkages between health and human rights and explore how human rights can be used as a tool for analysis, implementation and monitoring of the Uganda Health Sector Strategic Plan II. The workshop included parallel sessions on specific health and human rights issues. The recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur in his Uganda mission report were incorporated into sessions on "patients' rights and community empowerment" and "neglected diseases". Other sessions on "sexual and reproductive health rights" and "mental health and human rights" were informed by previous reports of the Special Rapporteur addressing these themes. The workshop brought together a large number of participants from the Ministry of Health, other ministries, the Uganda Human Rights Commission, academic institutions, NGOs and UN agencies. The workshop initiated a dialogue on health and human rights within the Ministry of Health, identified recommendations and supported strategic partnerships between health and human rights professionals.
One of Prof. Hunt's recommendations on monitoring and accountability was for the Uganda Human Rights Commission to establish a right to health unit which would hold duty bearers accountable in relation to the right to health and neglected diseases. This recommendation was discussed during the mentioned workshop and at other meetings, which supported the Uganda Human Rights Commission in its efforts to respond positively to the recommendation. The Commission had already carried out activities on the right to health, and in 2006 the Right to Health Unit was established.
In February 2007, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health carried out a second country mission to Uganda. OHCHR and WHO supported the preparations of the mission, which had as principal objectives to understand the role of Sweden/Sida in relation to the right to health in Uganda; and to follow up on the recommendations from the 2005 mission. During the mission of Prof. Hunt, a number of meetings were held to provide information in relation to the mission objectives. However, the visit of Prof. Hunt also provided an opportunity to bring together a broad range of health and human rights professionals to a stakeholders meeting. The meeting sensitized the participants on the right to health; reviewed the progress made towards implementation of the recommendations from the 2005 mission on neglected diseases; and provided a human rights analysis and recommendations of the Health Sector Strategic Plan II as a contribution to the forthcoming mid-term review of the health strategy. WHO worked together with the Ministry of Health, OHCHR and Sida in organising the meeting and the presence of Prof. Hunt helped ensuring a high level participation from Government, including the Minister of Health, the Permanent Secretary, the Director General and several Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from the Ministry of Health, and the Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission.
In Uganda, an increasing number of partners, including both health and human rights professionals, are starting to address health from a human rights perspective. The engagement with the Special Rapporteur has helped to put important, but marginalised, issues on the agenda. For example, the CAP 2007 for Northern Uganda includes for the first time a response to some of the neglected diseases faced by IDPs. WHO and the Vector Control Division of the Ministry of Health are presently developing a booklet to raise awareness about neglected diseases and the right to health. The recommendations from the Stakeholders' meeting with the Special Rapporteur are intended to guide the forthcoming mid-term review of the Health Sector Strategic Plan II. While not a principal objective of the Special Rapporteur's mission, the stakeholders' meeting and the participation of the Special Rapporteur was used as opportunity for awareness raising and to support the integration of key right to health issues into the health strategy.
If possible - of course depending on the specific mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the sensitiveness of the issues -, I believe that government counterparts should to the largest extent possible participate in the planning of the country mission. This increases the ownership of the mission and its consequent recommendations. It encourages a constructive dialogue between the Special Rapporteur and government counterparts. Also, if possible, use the mission of the Special Rapporteur as an opportunity to strengthen partnerships, ongoing programmes and government interest. The two missions of the Special Rapporteur on the right of health have been very helpful in supporting ongoing initiatives to address human rights based development programming and awareness in the health sector.
I hope that these experiences are useful and I look forward to the rest of the discussion.
With best regards,
Annelie Rostedt
Health and Human Rights
Department of Ethics, Trade, Human Rights and Health Law
Sustainable Development & Healthy Environments
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia, CH 1211, Geneva 27
Switzerland
Ph: 41 (22) 791 5078
E-mail: rostedta@who.int
Health & Human Rights website: www.who.int/hhr
It has been very interesting to follow this discussion and I would like to join in to share some experiences of the WHO in engaging with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health ('the right to health'), Prof. Paul Hunt.
WHO supports the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health both at Headquarters level and during country missions. WHO provides input to the reports of the Special Rapporteur and disseminates and encourages the use of his reports to guide health development programming. Recently, WHO technical departments have for example been engaged in consultations on relevant aspects of Prof. Hunt's forthcoming report on the right to health in the context of health systems. I have also had the experience of engaging with the Special Rapporteur on his two country missions to Uganda, during which time I was based with the WHO country office in Uganda as a Health and Human Rights Officer.
In March 2005 the Special Rapporteur on the right to health carried out a country mission to Uganda, which focused on neglected tropical diseases. WHO Headquarters and the WHO country office in Uganda supported and organized the logistics of the mission in collaboration with government counterparts and OHCHR. WHO also provided information to the report of the Special Rapporteur and supported follow-up and awareness raising/monitoring of his recommendations.
In May 2006, WHO and OHCHR supported the Ministry of Health in organizing a health and human rights capacity building workshop with the objectives to explain the linkages between health and human rights and explore how human rights can be used as a tool for analysis, implementation and monitoring of the Uganda Health Sector Strategic Plan II. The workshop included parallel sessions on specific health and human rights issues. The recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur in his Uganda mission report were incorporated into sessions on "patients' rights and community empowerment" and "neglected diseases". Other sessions on "sexual and reproductive health rights" and "mental health and human rights" were informed by previous reports of the Special Rapporteur addressing these themes. The workshop brought together a large number of participants from the Ministry of Health, other ministries, the Uganda Human Rights Commission, academic institutions, NGOs and UN agencies. The workshop initiated a dialogue on health and human rights within the Ministry of Health, identified recommendations and supported strategic partnerships between health and human rights professionals.
One of Prof. Hunt's recommendations on monitoring and accountability was for the Uganda Human Rights Commission to establish a right to health unit which would hold duty bearers accountable in relation to the right to health and neglected diseases. This recommendation was discussed during the mentioned workshop and at other meetings, which supported the Uganda Human Rights Commission in its efforts to respond positively to the recommendation. The Commission had already carried out activities on the right to health, and in 2006 the Right to Health Unit was established.
In February 2007, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health carried out a second country mission to Uganda. OHCHR and WHO supported the preparations of the mission, which had as principal objectives to understand the role of Sweden/Sida in relation to the right to health in Uganda; and to follow up on the recommendations from the 2005 mission. During the mission of Prof. Hunt, a number of meetings were held to provide information in relation to the mission objectives. However, the visit of Prof. Hunt also provided an opportunity to bring together a broad range of health and human rights professionals to a stakeholders meeting. The meeting sensitized the participants on the right to health; reviewed the progress made towards implementation of the recommendations from the 2005 mission on neglected diseases; and provided a human rights analysis and recommendations of the Health Sector Strategic Plan II as a contribution to the forthcoming mid-term review of the health strategy. WHO worked together with the Ministry of Health, OHCHR and Sida in organising the meeting and the presence of Prof. Hunt helped ensuring a high level participation from Government, including the Minister of Health, the Permanent Secretary, the Director General and several Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from the Ministry of Health, and the Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission.
In Uganda, an increasing number of partners, including both health and human rights professionals, are starting to address health from a human rights perspective. The engagement with the Special Rapporteur has helped to put important, but marginalised, issues on the agenda. For example, the CAP 2007 for Northern Uganda includes for the first time a response to some of the neglected diseases faced by IDPs. WHO and the Vector Control Division of the Ministry of Health are presently developing a booklet to raise awareness about neglected diseases and the right to health. The recommendations from the Stakeholders' meeting with the Special Rapporteur are intended to guide the forthcoming mid-term review of the Health Sector Strategic Plan II. While not a principal objective of the Special Rapporteur's mission, the stakeholders' meeting and the participation of the Special Rapporteur was used as opportunity for awareness raising and to support the integration of key right to health issues into the health strategy.
If possible - of course depending on the specific mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the sensitiveness of the issues -, I believe that government counterparts should to the largest extent possible participate in the planning of the country mission. This increases the ownership of the mission and its consequent recommendations. It encourages a constructive dialogue between the Special Rapporteur and government counterparts. Also, if possible, use the mission of the Special Rapporteur as an opportunity to strengthen partnerships, ongoing programmes and government interest. The two missions of the Special Rapporteur on the right of health have been very helpful in supporting ongoing initiatives to address human rights based development programming and awareness in the health sector.
I hope that these experiences are useful and I look forward to the rest of the discussion.
With best regards,
Annelie Rostedt
Health and Human Rights
Department of Ethics, Trade, Human Rights and Health Law
Sustainable Development & Healthy Environments
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia, CH 1211, Geneva 27
Switzerland
Ph: 41 (22) 791 5078
E-mail: rostedta@who.int
Health & Human Rights website: www.who.int/hhr
RE:[humanrights-talk] Part II of E-Discussion: How to Strengthen Engagement with the International HR Machinery?
Dear Colleagues,
Apologies for joining this E-discussion somewhat late, but many thanks for creating this interesting oppor tunity to exchange ideas and best practices on the UNCT engagement with the International Human rights machinery.
Thanks in particular to the moderator s and the facilitator for proposing wide-ranging and specific questions and leading this exciting discussion.
In the past two years, UNDP Niger has collabor ated on a few occasions with the Special Procedures:
1) In May 2005, our Country Office received a request of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms Hina Jilani, to help in answering a brief list of questions regarding the implementation of the Declaration on human rights defenders. As the questionnaire read in english and french is the main administrative language in Niger , we translated the document into french and it was sent to all national human rights NGO's. The responses were collected and we returned them with a summary (in french) to the OHCHR in Geneva.
The Special Representative used the infor mation as a basis for the evaluation of progress regarding human rights defenders in Niger.
After presentation of her repor t to the UN Human Rights Commission in 2006, UNDP circulated the repor t amongst national NGO's and they used it as a lobbying tool for mor e outspoken commitment of the government regarding the declaration on human rights defenders. An interesting outcome of this operation, was the sudden awairness of national NGO's and media about the (for merly unknown) declaration on human rights defenders. As a result, several articles appeared in the newspapers about the declaration on human rights defenders and any time a civil society actor would be arrested or harassed, a reference to the declaration on human rights defenders would be included in the public statement.
The collabor ation with the Special Representative surely raised greater awairness among national non-governmental actor s, citizens, but also in the governmental spheres. At one point, the prime minister of Niger has been recor ded as having said. "Why those critical repor ts about human rights of the OHCHR? Everybody knows, je suis le Premier défenseur des droits de l'homme ."
This may be just wor ds, but in the long run they may change mentalities, I think.
Maybe, the practice of sending lists of questions to UNCTs is a standard practice, but ever since the one-time request of SRSG Hina Jilani, we never received another questionnaire, whether from Hina Jilani or any other Special Rappor teur. Maybe our registry is dysfunctional and we received infor mation, but it did not flow to the appropriate unit or maybe no mor e such questionnaires were sent to UNCTs.
The list of questionnaires for UNCTs in preparation of the yearly repor ts (especially if they have a global reach) is an interesting practice, and could be generalised for all thematic Special Rappor teurs.
2) Mr Jean Ziegler, the Special Rappor teur on the right to food, twice visited Niger : in 2001 and 2005. His first repor t to the UN General Assembly in 2002 is still a salient reference wor k in understanding the key challenges in addressing the recurrent food crisises in Niger . It notably spells out very clearly the main obstacles to the realisation of the right to food. Agencies such as UNDP, OCHA and others have found interesting food for thought in those comprehensive reflections.
Besides, the Special Rappor teur's last-minute mission in July 2005 with a Television crew sparked sudden unexpected international media attention and clearly contributed to greater international awairness about the acuteness of the Nigerien food crisis. The UNCT had launched an appeal in April 2005 to cope with the upcoming food crisis, but only after the passage of the Special Rappor teur in July (maybe it wa s incidental, but probably it was instrumental) the international community reacted quite adequately with greatly needed funds, material suppor t and food.
Actually, befor ehand, the UNCT seemed wor ried about this blunt visit of the UN Special Rappor teur in July 2005. The UNCT hesitated to give the Special Rappor teur a warm welcome. Fears existed that the visit of the Special Rappor teur would enflame the already tense relations between the UNCT and the nigerien government at the time, that shor tly befor e was still unwilling to recognise the crisis. In the end, the visit of the Special Rappor teur proved catalytic to ensure free distribution of food to vulnerable groups and also, within a week afterwards, a first representative of OCHA landed from Dakar in Niamey .
Maybe the intial scepticism of the Resident Representatives about the Special Rappor teur, is due to unfamiliarity with the Special Procedures and the people involved. Their hesitation to request suppor t of a Special Rappor teur or simply to suppor t a visiting Special Rappor teur, could be avoided if Special Rappor teurs and Resident Representatives would know eachother well. As Special Rappor teurs become impor tant public figures, it may be impor tant to provide a space for Resident Representatives and Special Rappor teurs to meet each other. Maybe a seminar on how to strengthen UNCT engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery would be an interesting oppor tunity.
3) UNDP Niger has liased with the Special Rappor teur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Our office has provided national repor ts about the topic, as well as detailed infor mation about key actor s in the fight against trafficking in Niger . The simple exchange of contact details has allowed the OHCHR to directly contact national NGO's to receive up to date infor mation about the situation. The UNCT can play a pivotal role in building digital bridges between local and national NGOs and the International Human Rights Machinery in Geneva .
Mor eover, although Niger is a transit country of lots of trafficked people and it has been of special concern to the Special Rappor teur on trafficking (top 6 at one point in her prior ity list), the Special Rappor teur has not visited Niger. As the government would probably welcome such a visit. It is wor king on national law concerning trafficking and has ratified regional conventions, it would probably appreciate constructive advice of the Special Rappor teur. As the OHCHR is unable to finance numerous country visits/year, maybe it should be possible for special rappor teurs to visit countries on UNCT funds. Maybe this practice already exists. For sure, it has not been considered here. Wonder whether this would be an interesting avenue?
This is our experience with the Special Procedures, so far. A Guidance Note for UNCT on special procedures and treaty bodies can be accessed here.
Hope this is useful. Thanks for the discussion.
Best regards,
Samuel
Samuel De Jaegere
Analyste Gouvernance Démocratique
PNUD Niger - Niamey
Maison des Nations Unies
Tel.: +227 20 732104
Fax.: +227 20 723630
Cell.: +227 96 994459
From: bounce-1153144-214103@groups.undp.or g [mailto:bounce-1153144-214103@groups.undp.or g] On Behalf Of Guest Moderator s
Sent: 16 May 2007 14:26
Subject: [humanrights-talk] Part II of E-Discussion: How to Strengthen Engagement with the International HR Machinery?
Dear Colleagues,
We are entering the 4th week of our e-Discussion on ‘How to Strengthen Engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery?’ and moving on to Part II.
Part I invited you to explor e the topic of “Using International Human Rights Nor ms and Standards, and in Particular Human Rights Treaties, in the National Context ” . We extended this part to allow members to further explor e and expand on what is wor king and what is not in that area (a revised summary of all the contributions received to Part I will be circulated on the networ k shor tly). Part II takes us into discussion o n another impor tant part of the international human rights machinery: Special Procedures.
The term Special Procedures is used to describe a diverse range of mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council (previously the Human Rights Commission) to promote and monitor human rights in relation to specific thematic issues, or to examine the situation in a specific country . They are composed of experts appointed to serve as Special Rappor teurs , Special Representatives, Independent Experts or in Wor king Groups (on disappearances, arbitrary detention, etc). For a full explanation of Special Procedures, please see below.
We would like to invite our colleagues to share their experience on the issues raised by the following questions:
Part 2) Engaging with Special Procedures:
1.What have been the experiences of UN agencies and UNCTs in engaging with Special Procedures? i.e. Suppor ting/encouraging governments to invite Special Rappor teurs to visit the country? Assisting Special Procedures during the visits? Providing infor mation on relevance/implementability of their draft recommendations?
2.How has this engagement with the Special Procedures impacted on development wor k and/or country programming? In what ways could the engagement be improved?
We look for ward to your contributions.
Your Guest Moderator s,
Suki Beavers
Human Rights Specialist, UNDP Pacific Centre , Fiji Islands
Alfonso Barragues
Human Rights Officer, MDG Unit, OHCHR, Geneva
Wan-Hea Lee
Secretary, United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, OHCHR, Geneva
Daniel Seymour
Head of Gender Equality and Human Rights Unit, UNICEF New Yor k
What are Special Procedures?
The term Special Procedures is used to describe a diverse range of mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council (For mer Commission on Human Rights) to promote and monitor human rights in relation to specific thematic issues, or to examine the situation in specific countries. These mechanisms are composed of wor king groups of experts or individuals who have been appointed as Special Rappor teurs, Special Representatives or Independent Experts . The principal functions of Special Procedures include: analyse the relevant thematic issue or country situation on behalf of the Human Rights Council; advise on measures to be taken by the Government(s) concerned and other relevant actor s; alert United Nations or gans and agencies and the international community in general to the need to address specific situations and issues; advocate on behalf of the victims of violations through measures such as requesting urgent action by relevant States and calling upon Governments to respond to specific allegations of human rights violations and provide redress; activate and mobilize the international and national communities to address particular human rights issues and to encourage cooperation among Governments, civil society and inter-governmental or ganizations. Special procedures repor t to the Human Rights Council and, in some cases, to the General Assembly. As of May 2007 there are 28! thematic mandates and 13 country-specific mandates.
For mor e infor mation on Special Procedures, please see: OHCHR web page on Special Procedures assumed by the Human Rights Counci l
Apologies for joining this E-discussion somewhat late, but many thanks for creating this interesting oppor tunity to exchange ideas and best practices on the UNCT engagement with the International Human rights machinery.
Thanks in particular to the moderator s and the facilitator for proposing wide-ranging and specific questions and leading this exciting discussion.
In the past two years, UNDP Niger has collabor ated on a few occasions with the Special Procedures:
1) In May 2005, our Country Office received a request of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms Hina Jilani, to help in answering a brief list of questions regarding the implementation of the Declaration on human rights defenders. As the questionnaire read in english and french is the main administrative language in Niger , we translated the document into french and it was sent to all national human rights NGO's. The responses were collected and we returned them with a summary (in french) to the OHCHR in Geneva.
The Special Representative used the infor mation as a basis for the evaluation of progress regarding human rights defenders in Niger.
After presentation of her repor t to the UN Human Rights Commission in 2006, UNDP circulated the repor t amongst national NGO's and they used it as a lobbying tool for mor e outspoken commitment of the government regarding the declaration on human rights defenders. An interesting outcome of this operation, was the sudden awairness of national NGO's and media about the (for merly unknown) declaration on human rights defenders. As a result, several articles appeared in the newspapers about the declaration on human rights defenders and any time a civil society actor would be arrested or harassed, a reference to the declaration on human rights defenders would be included in the public statement.
The collabor ation with the Special Representative surely raised greater awairness among national non-governmental actor s, citizens, but also in the governmental spheres. At one point, the prime minister of Niger has been recor ded as having said. "Why those critical repor ts about human rights of the OHCHR? Everybody knows, je suis le Premier défenseur des droits de l'homme ."
This may be just wor ds, but in the long run they may change mentalities, I think.
Maybe, the practice of sending lists of questions to UNCTs is a standard practice, but ever since the one-time request of SRSG Hina Jilani, we never received another questionnaire, whether from Hina Jilani or any other Special Rappor teur. Maybe our registry is dysfunctional and we received infor mation, but it did not flow to the appropriate unit or maybe no mor e such questionnaires were sent to UNCTs.
The list of questionnaires for UNCTs in preparation of the yearly repor ts (especially if they have a global reach) is an interesting practice, and could be generalised for all thematic Special Rappor teurs.
2) Mr Jean Ziegler, the Special Rappor teur on the right to food, twice visited Niger : in 2001 and 2005. His first repor t to the UN General Assembly in 2002 is still a salient reference wor k in understanding the key challenges in addressing the recurrent food crisises in Niger . It notably spells out very clearly the main obstacles to the realisation of the right to food. Agencies such as UNDP, OCHA and others have found interesting food for thought in those comprehensive reflections.
Besides, the Special Rappor teur's last-minute mission in July 2005 with a Television crew sparked sudden unexpected international media attention and clearly contributed to greater international awairness about the acuteness of the Nigerien food crisis. The UNCT had launched an appeal in April 2005 to cope with the upcoming food crisis, but only after the passage of the Special Rappor teur in July (maybe it wa s incidental, but probably it was instrumental) the international community reacted quite adequately with greatly needed funds, material suppor t and food.
Actually, befor ehand, the UNCT seemed wor ried about this blunt visit of the UN Special Rappor teur in July 2005. The UNCT hesitated to give the Special Rappor teur a warm welcome. Fears existed that the visit of the Special Rappor teur would enflame the already tense relations between the UNCT and the nigerien government at the time, that shor tly befor e was still unwilling to recognise the crisis. In the end, the visit of the Special Rappor teur proved catalytic to ensure free distribution of food to vulnerable groups and also, within a week afterwards, a first representative of OCHA landed from Dakar in Niamey .
Maybe the intial scepticism of the Resident Representatives about the Special Rappor teur, is due to unfamiliarity with the Special Procedures and the people involved. Their hesitation to request suppor t of a Special Rappor teur or simply to suppor t a visiting Special Rappor teur, could be avoided if Special Rappor teurs and Resident Representatives would know eachother well. As Special Rappor teurs become impor tant public figures, it may be impor tant to provide a space for Resident Representatives and Special Rappor teurs to meet each other. Maybe a seminar on how to strengthen UNCT engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery would be an interesting oppor tunity.
3) UNDP Niger has liased with the Special Rappor teur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Our office has provided national repor ts about the topic, as well as detailed infor mation about key actor s in the fight against trafficking in Niger . The simple exchange of contact details has allowed the OHCHR to directly contact national NGO's to receive up to date infor mation about the situation. The UNCT can play a pivotal role in building digital bridges between local and national NGOs and the International Human Rights Machinery in Geneva .
Mor eover, although Niger is a transit country of lots of trafficked people and it has been of special concern to the Special Rappor teur on trafficking (top 6 at one point in her prior ity list), the Special Rappor teur has not visited Niger. As the government would probably welcome such a visit. It is wor king on national law concerning trafficking and has ratified regional conventions, it would probably appreciate constructive advice of the Special Rappor teur. As the OHCHR is unable to finance numerous country visits/year, maybe it should be possible for special rappor teurs to visit countries on UNCT funds. Maybe this practice already exists. For sure, it has not been considered here. Wonder whether this would be an interesting avenue?
This is our experience with the Special Procedures, so far. A Guidance Note for UNCT on special procedures and treaty bodies can be accessed here.
Hope this is useful. Thanks for the discussion.
Best regards,
Samuel
Samuel De Jaegere
Analyste Gouvernance Démocratique
PNUD Niger - Niamey
Maison des Nations Unies
Tel.: +227 20 732104
Fax.: +227 20 723630
Cell.: +227 96 994459
From: bounce-1153144-214103@groups.undp.or g [mailto:bounce-1153144-214103@groups.undp.or g] On Behalf Of Guest Moderator s
Sent: 16 May 2007 14:26
Subject: [humanrights-talk] Part II of E-Discussion: How to Strengthen Engagement with the International HR Machinery?
Dear Colleagues,
We are entering the 4th week of our e-Discussion on ‘How to Strengthen Engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery?’ and moving on to Part II.
Part I invited you to explor e the topic of “Using International Human Rights Nor ms and Standards, and in Particular Human Rights Treaties, in the National Context ” . We extended this part to allow members to further explor e and expand on what is wor king and what is not in that area (a revised summary of all the contributions received to Part I will be circulated on the networ k shor tly). Part II takes us into discussion o n another impor tant part of the international human rights machinery: Special Procedures.
The term Special Procedures is used to describe a diverse range of mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council (previously the Human Rights Commission) to promote and monitor human rights in relation to specific thematic issues, or to examine the situation in a specific country . They are composed of experts appointed to serve as Special Rappor teurs , Special Representatives, Independent Experts or in Wor king Groups (on disappearances, arbitrary detention, etc). For a full explanation of Special Procedures, please see below.
We would like to invite our colleagues to share their experience on the issues raised by the following questions:
Part 2) Engaging with Special Procedures:
1.What have been the experiences of UN agencies and UNCTs in engaging with Special Procedures? i.e. Suppor ting/encouraging governments to invite Special Rappor teurs to visit the country? Assisting Special Procedures during the visits? Providing infor mation on relevance/implementability of their draft recommendations?
2.How has this engagement with the Special Procedures impacted on development wor k and/or country programming? In what ways could the engagement be improved?
We look for ward to your contributions.
Your Guest Moderator s,
Suki Beavers
Human Rights Specialist, UNDP Pacific Centre , Fiji Islands
Alfonso Barragues
Human Rights Officer, MDG Unit, OHCHR, Geneva
Wan-Hea Lee
Secretary, United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, OHCHR, Geneva
Daniel Seymour
Head of Gender Equality and Human Rights Unit, UNICEF New Yor k
What are Special Procedures?
The term Special Procedures is used to describe a diverse range of mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council (For mer Commission on Human Rights) to promote and monitor human rights in relation to specific thematic issues, or to examine the situation in specific countries. These mechanisms are composed of wor king groups of experts or individuals who have been appointed as Special Rappor teurs, Special Representatives or Independent Experts . The principal functions of Special Procedures include: analyse the relevant thematic issue or country situation on behalf of the Human Rights Council; advise on measures to be taken by the Government(s) concerned and other relevant actor s; alert United Nations or gans and agencies and the international community in general to the need to address specific situations and issues; advocate on behalf of the victims of violations through measures such as requesting urgent action by relevant States and calling upon Governments to respond to specific allegations of human rights violations and provide redress; activate and mobilize the international and national communities to address particular human rights issues and to encourage cooperation among Governments, civil society and inter-governmental or ganizations. Special procedures repor t to the Human Rights Council and, in some cases, to the General Assembly. As of May 2007 there are 28! thematic mandates and 13 country-specific mandates.
For mor e infor mation on Special Procedures, please see: OHCHR web page on Special Procedures assumed by the Human Rights Counci l
Monday, May 7, 2007
How to Strengthen Engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery?
RE:[humanrights-talk] E-Discussion: How to Strengthen Engagement with the International Human Rights Machinery?
Part I of e-discussion: Using International Human Rights Norms and Standards, and in Particular Human Rights Treaties, in the National Context*
(1) What experience have you gained in working towards encouraging countries to ratify human rights treaties? What are the challenges, opportunities and effective mechanisms to work with other partners to encourage countries to ratify regional and international treaties?
(2) What experiences have you gained in helping states bring national legislation and policy in line with the norms and standards of international and regional human rights treaties?
- What have been the lessons you have learned in helping countries bring national law into conformity with international and regional human rights obligations? What strategies can you recommend to move the process forward?
- What are your experiences of using human rights norms and standards to impact public policy, for example, decision making at the national and local level, proper budgetary allocations, training of government officials etc.?
(3)What is the role of institutional mechanisms (such as National Human Rights Institutions, Parliaments, National Committees that deal with specific human rights treaties etc.) in both implementing and monitoring human rights treaties?
Responses were received, with thanks, from:
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Eun-Chim Choi, UNDP Timor-Leste
Marcus Baltzer, Previously with UNDP Malawi
Teresa Rodriguez, UNIFEM Mexico
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Simon Walker and Vittoria Berria, OHCHR Geneva
Fernando Mora, UNDP Mauritania
Noha Aboueldahab, UNDP New York
Gbemisola Akinboyo, UNICEF New York
Matt Pollard and Esther Schaufelberger, Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Geneva
Maymuchka Lauriston, OHCHR Uganda
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Sinisa Milatovic, UNDP Serbia
Justine Assilevi, UNDP Togo
Lee Swepton, ILO Geneva
Benoit Pylysener and Christine Umutoni, UNDP Rwanda
Bipin Adhikari, UN Liberia
Summary of responses so far:
In this first part of the e-discussion, members shared their experiences on working to encourage states to ratify international human rights instruments, to report to human rights treaty bodies; incorporate these obligations into national law and to support the implementing and monitoring of these obligations. Examples were shared by members from Lao PDR, Malawi, Timor Leste, Mexico/LAC, Mauritania, Uganda, Serbia, Togo, Rwanda and Liberia.
General Findings and Recommendations for Engaging with Human Rights Treaties:
Whilst specific recommendations and examples were shared for each stage of the process of working with human rights treaties in the national context, some findings are important and relevant for the entire process. These include:
1. An Opportunity to advance national dialogue on human rights issues: Members were quick to stress that the whole process of signature, ratification and implementation of a human rights instrument not only creates a set of obligations for the state, but also an opportunity to build a more open and trusting relationship between various actors at the national level; bringing together all stakeholders (civil society, state institutions, ministries, etc) to discuss the issues and work together to move the process forward. The UN agencies have a key role to play in facilitating this dialogue.
2. National participation in and ownership of the process is crucial; As highlighted by the experiences of UNDP Timor Leste, UNDP Serbia and UNICEF Nigeria, national participation and ownership at every stage of the process ( signing, ratifying, reporting, drafting legislation etc) is crucial if obligations are to be implemented.
3. Civil society and National Human Rights Institutions have a critical role: The experience shared by members, underlined the crucial role that civil society has in the entire process of engaging with human rights treaties. UN agencies can work to support them to effectively engage. So too, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) can play an important role in both monitoring state compliance to its human rights obligations and helping it implement these obligations.
4. Importance of advocacy and developing capacity of stakeholders: The role of UN agencies in advocating, with partners, such as the media, parliament, NHRI, civil society, children and other stakeholders, for the state to ratify and adhere to human rights instruments was underlined by members. Helping develop the capacity of stakeholders at all stages of the process of engagement with international human rights instruments was also emphasised.
5. Note of Caution: As pointed out by the international NGO ‘Association for the Prevention of Torture ’ there is a challenge facing UN field staff whose general mandate is not exclusively focussed on human rights when they undertake work in areas that could engage specific obligations of the state under international human rights law. To ensure that the UN does not fund and support programmes that inadvertently contravene human rights standards, it is important to identify the range of human rights obligations implicated in non- human rights specific projects from the outset; an early warning system, engagement of human rights experts, or a specific checklist were among a number of suggestions recommended for avoiding this pitfall.
6. Other Human Rights Mechanisms: As reminded by the contribution from the ILO, the UN human rights mechanisms are not the only human rights mechanisms; for example, there is a more detailed but less broad machinery operated by the ILO that can supplement or go into more detail than the UN instruments- for example the ILO Conventions regarding child rights and Indigenous people’s rights in the area of labour. It would thus be important to take account of the full range of international human rights conventions, and not stop with those of the UN.
1. Encouraging States to Ratify Human Rights Treaties
Advocacy: The contributions from UN Mauritania, UNDP Lao and UNICEF Nigeria, emphasise the importance of developing a strong advocacy strategy to encourage the government to place human rights issues on its agenda. Strategic alliances with civil society organizations, the parliament and key governmental actors to prepare such a strategy was found to be key. So too, highlighting to the government the benefits that ratifying a convention will bring to the country is an important element for any successful advocacy campaign.
Capacity Development:
On the one hand, it may be that this is a question of incorrect expectations on the part of the governments in question, and that more clarity or forcefulness is required at the outset by UN Agencies in explaining the limitations of reliance on the external experts provided, and the continuous and long-term dialogue through which UN Human Rights Bodies seek progressive improvement through treaty reporting procedures. I.e. – no matter what a government puts in place today, it is likely that one or another of the UN human rights bodies will identify gaps/shortcomings that remain and require further changes in the future.
On the other hand, we wonder whether any measures could be taken to
Conclusion: We are ready to assist
As mentioned at the outset, our contribution to this very interesting discussion is intended to uncover some of the human rights obligations that can easily be overlooked when undertaking reforms in sectors such as rule of law, criminal justice, administration of justice, immigration, national human rights institutions. Our contribution is itself, of course, limited to those areas in which we have experience! As noted above, in highlighting these particular issues we are not seeking to criticize but rather to bring out common issues and seek solutions. This email discussion list has greatly impressed us as a means for sharing knowledge and resolving human-rights-related issues within field offices of various UN Agencies, and we will continue to follow your discussions with great interest!
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are beginning projects in any of these areas, if you have any questions about or suggestions relevant to our work, or if we can otherwise be of any assistance. The Guide to establishment & designation of national mechanisms under the OPCAT is available on our website (www.apt.ch) and the criminalisation article is available on request.
Maymuchka Lauriston, OHCHR Uganda wrote:
Dear colleagues,
OHCHR Uganda has worked both with "right holders" and "duty bearers" on the implementation of treaty body recommendations. Uganda is a state party to ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CERD, CRC, CAT and CMW. A workshop was first held at the national level with representatives of the governments (from Ministers, local government, army, police, prison), NHRI, civil society, media and UN agencies to look at the recommendations made by the various treaty bodies, look at their implementation status and see how they can be better implemented. A national action plan was adopted following the workshop to identify areas that needs improvements on each treaty and which stakeholders (government, NHRI, civil society, media, UN) can help implement the recommendations. Similar workshops have also taken place at the national level, in order to prioritise at district level parts of the action plan. A focal point for each action has been designated in each district and OHCHR is working closely with the focal points towards the realisation of these actions to eventually reach the implementation of the recommendations at national level.
In addition, as Uganda has not submitted its initial report on ICESCR, OHCHR Uganda has organised together with the Ministry of Health a workshop on the right to health. In addition, OHCHR is sponsoring a research on the status of ESCR in Uganda and is facilitating the training of civil society organisations and government on ESCR. This we hope will help kick start the discussion for the writing of Uganda's initial report to the CESCR.
Lastly, in response to the contribution on Justice in Uganda, I would like to add that OHCHR does not condone the artificial polarisation of peace versus justice but rather is advocating for a combination of both: peace and justice. OHCHR strongly advocates that durable peace can not be reached without justice and accountability mechanisms. In addition we have just finished a survey of the population of Northern Uganda on the issue of peace and justice and the preliminary findings show that the majority of the population want some sort of justice: a blanket amnesty or traditional forms of justice are not necessarily enough. I attach here for your information, OHCHR Uganda's "Options Paper on Transitional Justice" distributed to the negotiations team at the Juba Peace Talks.
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to thank the facilitator for posing an interesting and important question on the issue of “rights holders” and “duty bearers.” As touched upon by Matt and Esther, the implementation of HRBA is a challenge for field offices as it is a new initiative that we are trying to work with. Actually, the demand for the capacity development of UNDP field officers on HRBA was one of the topics touched upon during another discussion at another network, ap-a2j. I am very grateful for the UNDP Regional Centres to have been organizing HRBA trainings for field staff.
When we speak of “national” capacity development for the ratification and implementation of international human rights treaties, distinction is not yet made between the “rights holders” and “duty bearers” for the project activities implemented by International Law Project in Lao PDR. This is partly due to a fact that HRBA was not applied in the project formulation phase. HRBA was not applied in identifying a project goal and strategies. In situation analysis, rights holders and duty holders were not identified. It would have been interesting if HRBA was applied in the formulation phase because that might have led to slightly different outputs and strategies for the project.
It might be less complicated for other countries to identify rights holders if they have civil society. We are operating in the single party state where the concept of civil society is irrelevant. Although there is no national NGO, there are government-run “social organizations” that represent the interests of rights holders and vulnerable groups. For example, we have Lao Disabled People’s Association (LDPA) which is located under the Ministry of Labor. They are a membership-based organization with funding from outside the government budget. LDPA and International Law Project convened a workshop to discuss the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in March 2007. If HRBA was applied in the project formulation phase, we could have strategically identified more groups that can represent the interests of rights holders. The partnership between LDPA and the project was a result of the project’s strategy to increase its visibility. LDPA has viewed a news article on the project activity, and approached the project for the partnership.
On the issue of social organizations, I am happy to report here that we have a pipeline project on “Enhancing Government Partnership with Social Organizations for Poverty Reduction.” The project will be of great benefit for the application of HRBA to work with “rights holders.
Despite of the above challenge we face, our Governance Unit has been doing our best to promote the application of HRBA. We have decided to include the application of HRBA in programming cycle in the RCA for all Programme Officers this year. We will apply HRBA from the formulation phase to evaluation phase. Since we will mainstream HRBA into the TOR of mid-term evaluation missions, it will be possible to identify the status of rights holders and duty bearers even for the projects that did not engage HRBA initially in the formulation phase.
Having mentioned the challenge for the capacity building of rights holders, I would like to highlight some activities that International Law Project conducted for the national capacity development of the ratification and implementation processes of international human rights treaties. (The main target so far is the duty bearers.):
Ratification
Workshops to discuss the benefits for the country to ratify selected international legal instruments (Participants are concerned ministries.)
Implementation
Awareness-raising workshops on selected international treaties
Government officials from the legal sector participating in trainings aboard on the selected themes of international law
Government officials’ study visits to other countries to learn about their experiences with the national incorporation of international law
Where appropriate, UNDP has assisted the project with identifying technical experts from the UN family to assist the project activities. For example, we have invited an HRBA expert from OHCHR when we convened the HRBA awareness raising workshop in May 2006. We have benefited from the expertise of OHCHR, UNCEF, ILO, FAO and WFP. The project implements the activities not only at the central level, but also at provincial level covering the whole country in light of the government policy on decentralization. This has been a good exercise as some vulnerable groups tend to live in the remote areas because of geography.
As mentioned in my first posting, the capacity building of duty bearers has been quite successful because of the capacity and coordination skills of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs backed by their technical expertise in international law.
Sinisa Milatovic,
UNDP Serbia wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
UNDP Serbia has engaged in a number of projects that have sought to bring national legislation in line with the norms and standards of international human rights treaties while also emphasising the importance of the implementation of those treaties.
Serbia became a state party to the "big 6" human rights treaties soon after the fall of the Milosevic regime. In addition, it has a fairly well organised civil society which is successful at mobilising the 'rights holders'. Therefore, the struggle has been to get the 'duty bearers' to implement the treaties and related national laws.
Experiences:
1. UNDP Serbia executed a project together with the Judicial Training Centre on the direct implementation of human rights treaties by judges and prosecutors. As is the case in many countries, under the previous Serbian constitution (the same is true under the recently adopted one as well), international treaties are directly applicable by the judiciary. However, the socio-political circumstances in the country over the past 17 years have caused the judiciary to be depleted of quality staff, with a consequent lack of knowledge on international human rights law.
Therefore, our project focused on training judges and prosecutors on certain rights (for example, the freedom of expression), with a focus on comparing national Serbian law and the jurisprudence of Serbian courts with international treaty law and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Committee. The training seminars were held in a number of courts across Serbia.
The lecturers (one a local judge, another an expert on international human rights law) were then asked to produce a chapter which compared, in grater detail, Serbian law and jurisprudence with international human rights law and jurisprudence, and provided recommendations on where international law could be applied directly due to the fact that Serbian law does not comport with international standards in this field. These chapters have been compiled and edited to form a manual for judges and prosecutors, which will be published (in Serbian only) this year.
2. UNDP Serbia has undertaken an initiative with the government of Serbia of drafting the Anti-discrimination Act. The adoption of an AD Act has been demanded by civil society, the UN Human Rights Committee and the EC. The drafters (a group of experts put together by the Government and UNDP) of the AD Act focused, in large measure, on drafting a law that would be in compliance with international treaty provisions on discrimination, use the best solutions from comparative laws and be consistent with domestic norms and the Constitution.
The process of drafting the AD Act went through the following steps:
a) the writing of a Feasibility Study which provided a comprehensive overview of current laws that deal with discrimination, international and comparative norms, and issues facing vulnerable groups in Serbian society,
b) The writing of the Draft AD Act, which stipulates the creation of a national Commission for the Protection of Equality
c) a public consultation process in which a number of government institutions, civil society actors, international and national experts were consulted, and the Act was constantly amended in line with recommendations received. During this process it was adjudged by a number of experts that the Act is in compliance with international standards
The Draft AD Act has been finalised, and currently awaits the formation of a new Government and Parliament before adoption.
Lessons learned from the projects (by project):
1. Many duty bearers in Serbia are resistant to directly implementing international treaties, in part due to their lack of knowledge of the subject and in part due to a parochial mind-set. Therefore, it was important to have one of their own- i.e. judges and prosecutors- train them on the topic.
In addition, the comparative approach was a success as it focused on areas in which the judges and prosecutors are experts - domestic law - while also seeking to introduce new concepts and areas of law (international human rights treaties and related jurisprudence).
2. a) the effective protection of human rights requires strong national human rights institutions. Such institutions, which include Ombudspersons and national human rights committees, are the hallmark of societies with an advanced and independent system of human rights protection. Therefore, the creation of the Commission for the Protection of Equality by the Draft AD Act marks an important step in developing such a system. The Commission’s competences and independence should lead to its development into the key institution for policy-making in the field of anti-discrimination, as well as the monitoring and the implementation of anti-discrimination laws.
The durability of the Commission and, in fact, of the results achieved in the course of the project, depends, however, on further support being provided to activities in this field. The project, as was envisioned, has provided a founding stone for the creation of an anti-discrimination normative and institutional framework. Nevertheless, the impact of the project will be dulled unless the Republic of Serbia receives more technical and logistical support designed to build upon the foundation created.
b) In order to create the best possible law that seeks to introduce international and comparative human rights standards in national law and widespread political support, it is necessary to consult a wide variety of stakeholders and experts. Therefore, we placed equal emphasis on hearing the voices of those representing vulnerable groups as well as on those of government officials. Moreover, we used (for the most part) national experts to draft the AD Act, with international experts being called in to provide feedback on the Act rather than draft the Act itself. This made the contents of the Act more palatable to the more conservative elements in society.
Should any of you have nay questions or want to see any of the documents produced in the course of the above-mentioned initiatives, I will be at your disposal.
Justine Assilevi, UNDP Togo wrote:
English Translation:
Togo is signature to a number of international human rights instruments from 1960 up to this day; for example, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Conventions on civil, social, political, economic and cultural rights of 1966; as well as an arsenal of international conventions on human rights, such as the Convention Against Torture; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Togo is also signature to many regional (African) human rights instruments. These included the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; The Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (CADBE).
These instruments are implemented by specific committees coordinated by ministries according to their expertise in a precise domain, with the support of civil society organisations. Each committee functions according to the domain of expertise of its supporting ministry.
There is an inter-ministerial Committee that drafts the initial and periodic reports for treaty bodies on the human rights situation in the country. The different thematic committees write the first drafts of the rapports and pass them on to the inter-ministerial Committee for their validation and transmission to the responsible bodies in New York, Geneva…..
It is worth mentioning that the inter-ministerial Committee includes:
- the representatives of different ministries
- the representatives of different thematic committees (CEDA/CRC/CADBE)
- the representatives of human rights civil society organisations
- development partners
Such a mechanism was put in place to ensure the effective implementation of the conventions, treaties and international agreements to which Togo is party too.
One of the challenges faced is the slowness of the process due to the chain of committees and the insufficient funds allocated for the effective operation of the inter-ministerial committee in charge of drafting the initial and periodic rapports on human rights in Togo.
A proposed solution to this challenge is the possibility of merging the thematic committees at the heart of the inter-ministerial Committee and to strengthen its capacities.
Original French Version:
Le Togo est partie signataire de plusieurs instruments internationaux sur les droits de l’homme depuis 1960 jusqu’à ce jour. On peut citer entre autres les instruments internationaux tels que la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme de 1948. Les droits socio-politiques et culturels de 1966 ; en plus d’un arsenal de conventions internationaux en matière de droits humains comme la convention contre la torture ; la convention sur l’élimination de toutes formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes (CEDEF/CEDAW), la convention relative aux droits des enfants (CDE). Le Togo est également signataire de beaucoup d’instruments régionaux (africains) sur les droits de l’homme. On peut citer entre autres la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples ; le protocole de Maputo sur les droits des femmes, la Charte africaine des droits et du bien-être de l’enfant (CADBE).
Ces instruments sont mis en œuvre par des comités spécifiques coordonnés par des ministères en raison de leur compétence dans un domaine thématique bien précis avec l’appui des organisations de la société civile. Chaque comité fonctionne selon le domaine de compétence de son ministère de tutelle.
Il existe un Comité interministériel de rédaction des rapports initiaux et périodiques sur les droits de l’homme. Les différents comités sectoriels élaborent les premiers drafts desdits rapports et les transmettent au comité interministériel pour validation et transmission à qui de droit à New York, Genève, ……
Il est à mentionner que ce Comité interministériel regroupe :
- les représentants de différents ministères,
- les représentants des différents comités sectoriels (CEDEF/CEDEAW, CDE, CADBE),
- les représentants des organisations de la société civile sur les droits de l’homme
- les partenaires au développement,
Un tel mécanisme a été mis sur pied pour assurer la mise en œuvre effective des conventions, traités et pactes internationaux auxquels le Togo est partie.
L’une des difficultés rencontrées est la lenteur des procédures dues à la chaîne de comité et l’insuffisance de fonds alloués au fonctionnement du comité interministériel de rédaction des rapports initiaux et périodiques sur les droits de l’homme au Togo.
L’une des solutions envisagées est la possibilité de fusion des comités spécifiques au sein du Comité interministériel et le renforcement des capacités de celui-ci.
Lee Swepston, ILO Geneva wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have been reading with interest the exchanges on this subject, all of which have been both useful and encouraging. I wanted to add another dimension.
All of the contributions so far have concerned the UN machinery, as the reference point of human rights machinery. This is of course the main reference for most of the correspondents, who are officials of the UN and its funds and programmes. You might want to be aware that there is another, more detailed but less broad machinery, that is operated by the ILO. The ILO, which has existed since 1919 and has been adopting Conventions since then, has a detailed supervisory mechanism that covers many of the same points as the UN human rights machinery, but often in more detail because of the nature of ILO conventions. For instance, on child rights, the ILO's Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 contain detailed provisions on the conditions under which children can enter the world of work, and on the kinds of work that are permitted, conditionally permitted, and absolutely forbidden to children. The freedom of association and collective bargaining Convention, No. 87, is referred to in both UN Covenants, and develops these concepts much more deeply than do those instruments.
In addition, the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations makes as many as 2000 comments a year on the application by States of the conventions they have ratified. These are all public, and published, and are intended to provide guidance from member states on how they implement these conventions. (All this information is available on www.ilo.org.)
It goes without saying that the ILO cooperates closely with the UN's treaty bodies. For instance the Committee on the Rights of the Child often suggests that governments ask the ILO for assistance, and the ILO regularly refers in its comments to the work of the CRC. The same happens with all the other treaty bodies. In fact, the new Migrant Workers Committee is required by its treaty to send all government reports to the ILO for comments before they are considered by the committee itself, and we are working out a very solid relationship with that committee.
While the ILO's machinery is detailed, it of course deals with a narrower set of issues than do the UN's various mechanisms. This arises from the nature of the conventions. The ILO's mandate is not, for example, child welfare generally, but rather the elimination of child labour specifically. While this does take us into other areas, this is done in close corporation with UNICEF, the UNDP, the national NGOs and many others. We have a mandate on the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation, but not in society generally. And so forth.
Another aspect of this work is that the ILO has a commitment to helping States implement the conventions they have ratified. All technical assistance has to be done in conformity with conventions, and much of it is specifically oriented toward their implementation. In fact, more than half the ILO's technical co-operation budget is dedicated to human rights implementation. There are such specific programmes as the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, the ILO's biggest technical cooperation programme, which works in more than 90 countries. There are also others that are more specific, such as our work on forced labour and trafficking, which are very closely tied to the implementation of the ILO standards, and all these take account of the comments made by the ILO's own human rights machinery.
I should also recall that the ILO is responsible for the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), in which much of the rest of the UN participated for its adoption, and which remains – unfortunately – the only international instrument to deal comprehensively with these peoples. There is a good promotional programme, called PRO169, well financed by DANIDA and a few others, that works mostly in countries where the issue is not an easy one to talk about – i.e., in Africa and Asia. Whenever feasible, this programme works with the OHCHR.
There is much more say about all this, of course, and detailed information can be found on the web site.
In summary, it would be useful for all of us to be sure to take account of the full range of international human rights conventions, and not stop with those of the United Nations. There are often aspects of ILO conventions that supplement, or go into more detail, than do the UN instruments.
Benoit Pylysener and Christine Umutoni UNDP Rwanda wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Rwanda is a state party to the following International Human Rights Treaties:
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Accession in 1975
2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – Accession in 1975; reservation on Article 13 (on compulsory and free primary education)
3. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) – Accession in 1975; reservation on Article 22 (on social security including social insurance)
4. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – Ratification in 1980
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – Ratification 1991
The Constitution of 2003 reaffirms Rwanda’s adherence to these treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its Article 9 (Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, 2003).
The Government of Rwanda however is more than 5 years overdue in reporting on 4 Human Rights Treaties it has ratified (in red).
ICCPR ICESCR CERD CEDAW CRC
EIF: 23-03-76
2nd report
examined Nov 87
CCPR/C/46/Add.1
3rd – 5th periodic reports due since 1994
OP1: No action
OP2: No action EIF: 03-01-76
Initial examined in Feb. 1989
E/1984/7/Add.29
3rd – 4th periodic reports due since 1990
EIF: 16-05-75
8th – 12th periodic reports
examined March 00
CERD/C/304/Add.97
13th- 15th periodic reports due since 00
Declaration art. 14: no EIF: 03-09-81
3rd periodic report
examined February 1993
A/48/38 paras. 451-473
4th-6th periodic reports due since 1994
OP: No action EIF: 23-02-91
2nd periodic report CRC/C/70/Add.22
examined in May 04
CRC/C/15/Add.234
Next report due:
22/02/2008
OP-AC: EIF: 12-02-02
Report due: 23-05-04
OP-SC: EIF: 14-04-02
Report due: 14-04-04
As can be seen in the above table, the CRC is the only Treaty that has been reported on. This is mainly thanks to the efforts of UNICEF and its strong mandate in supporting the Government in elaborating the reports. In the light of the UN reform and the Action 2 program in Rwanda, the UN Country Team and UNDP are looking at ways on how to best support the Government in establishing closer links with the International Human Rights System, thus rendering it more effective and efficient.
In the first approach UNDP, through its support project to the National Human Rights Commission, supported the idea of creating a coordination framework for human rights in which the HRC, CSOs (national and international) and development partners are represented. The coordination framework is a forum for dialogue and exchange of information and will help to improve the sometimes strained relation between the HRC and CSOs. The coordination framework is also to become a forum for capacity building in the promotion of human rights and the elaboration of both Treaty Body and shadow reports. In the future it should also become a forum for protection activities.
In the second approach, intertwined with the first one, UNDP in collaboration with the UNCT, will support the Government in the actual report writing through a joint UN program in line with the Action 2 program. The project will have the following objectives (we would like to thank our colleagues in Laos for sharing their project document):
- Strengthened capacities for national incorporation and application of international legal obligations into the Rwandan legal system
- Strengthened capacities for implementation and enforcement of international law in Rwanda at national, provincial and local levels
- Developed and enhanced mechanisms and capacities in Rwanda (Government, Rwandan Human Rights Commission and Civil Society Organizations) for monitoring and reporting on implementation and enforcement of international law and progressive realization of international legal standards
- Improvement and strengthened cooperation between Government, national human rights institutions and organizations as well as international development partners and regional and multilateral bodies
The project would be Nationally Executed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Youth (Inter-ministerial Committee), the National Human Rights Commission and CSOs.
At the end of May the High Commissioner will pay visit to Rwanda, this will be the opportune moment to renew the UNCT commitment to the Treaty Bodies and the OHCHR. In analogy to UNICEF and the CRC, we believe the UNCT can play a more active role in supporting the Government to strengthen its reporting capacities.
Bipin Adhikari, UN Liberia wrote:
Dear friends,
Thanks for this important initiation. Emerging from a long civil war, Liberia is gradually restoring the law and order situation, reviving its institutions and governing bodies, and implementing the agreed strategy on strengthening the rule of law and addressing the culture of impunity in the country. An elected government has already been instituted, and reform initiatives could be noted in all sectors.
As far as ratification of international human rights instruments are concerned, long before the general elections were held, on 22 September 2004, Chairman Gyude Bryant of the National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) was able to sign, ratify and accede to 17 human rights Protocols and Conventions that guaranteed human rights and provide for the protection of civilians (as expected by the United Nations Mission in Liberia in the best spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the basic transitional document, which was signed in August 2003 in Accra to end the civil was.
The signing ceremony took place at the "Focus 2004" Treaties Event held in New York. The signing ceremony was a significant landmark both for consolidating peace and ensuring better future protection for the Liberian people emerging out of 15 years of civil war. These decisions were also led through the transitional legislative process to complete the rest of the formalities. The challenge ahead, however, is to bring national legislation and policy in line with the norms and standards of international human rights treaties.
Two type of efforts are being made in Liberia in this regard. Efforts are underway to reconstitute the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) according to the INCHR Act 2005 passed by the legislative assembly according to the standards set by Paris Principles. The Commission was created under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to "monitor compliance with the basic rights guaranteed in the present Peace Agreement as well as promote human rights education throughout the various sectors of Liberian society, including schools, the media, the police and the military". The Commission has important powers in the matter of internalization of international human rights standards in the country.
Similarly, the Ministry of Justice has started a process leading to drafting the national human rights action plan of Liberia. This project has slow progress due to the ongoing delays in the establishment of the INCHR. However, in March 2007, the Solicitor-General (operating under the Minister of Justice) instructed all Ministries to appoint human rights focal points for NHRAP process. The civil society of Liberia, which has a great role in getting both these institutions functional, is yet to beef up the process. The focal points have met recently and are interaction with the Ministry to help them create a NHRAP National Steering Committee to start drafting the action plan. This plan is going to be a major instrument in implementing international standards through specific programmes and strategies.
Part I of e-discussion: Using International Human Rights Norms and Standards, and in Particular Human Rights Treaties, in the National Context*
(1) What experience have you gained in working towards encouraging countries to ratify human rights treaties? What are the challenges, opportunities and effective mechanisms to work with other partners to encourage countries to ratify regional and international treaties?
(2) What experiences have you gained in helping states bring national legislation and policy in line with the norms and standards of international and regional human rights treaties?
- What have been the lessons you have learned in helping countries bring national law into conformity with international and regional human rights obligations? What strategies can you recommend to move the process forward?
- What are your experiences of using human rights norms and standards to impact public policy, for example, decision making at the national and local level, proper budgetary allocations, training of government officials etc.?
(3)What is the role of institutional mechanisms (such as National Human Rights Institutions, Parliaments, National Committees that deal with specific human rights treaties etc.) in both implementing and monitoring human rights treaties?
Responses were received, with thanks, from:
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Eun-Chim Choi, UNDP Timor-Leste
Marcus Baltzer, Previously with UNDP Malawi
Teresa Rodriguez, UNIFEM Mexico
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Simon Walker and Vittoria Berria, OHCHR Geneva
Fernando Mora, UNDP Mauritania
Noha Aboueldahab, UNDP New York
Gbemisola Akinboyo, UNICEF New York
Matt Pollard and Esther Schaufelberger, Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Geneva
Maymuchka Lauriston, OHCHR Uganda
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao PDR
Sinisa Milatovic, UNDP Serbia
Justine Assilevi, UNDP Togo
Lee Swepton, ILO Geneva
Benoit Pylysener and Christine Umutoni, UNDP Rwanda
Bipin Adhikari, UN Liberia
Summary of responses so far:
In this first part of the e-discussion, members shared their experiences on working to encourage states to ratify international human rights instruments, to report to human rights treaty bodies; incorporate these obligations into national law and to support the implementing and monitoring of these obligations. Examples were shared by members from Lao PDR, Malawi, Timor Leste, Mexico/LAC, Mauritania, Uganda, Serbia, Togo, Rwanda and Liberia.
General Findings and Recommendations for Engaging with Human Rights Treaties:
Whilst specific recommendations and examples were shared for each stage of the process of working with human rights treaties in the national context, some findings are important and relevant for the entire process. These include:
1. An Opportunity to advance national dialogue on human rights issues: Members were quick to stress that the whole process of signature, ratification and implementation of a human rights instrument not only creates a set of obligations for the state, but also an opportunity to build a more open and trusting relationship between various actors at the national level; bringing together all stakeholders (civil society, state institutions, ministries, etc) to discuss the issues and work together to move the process forward. The UN agencies have a key role to play in facilitating this dialogue.
2. National participation in and ownership of the process is crucial; As highlighted by the experiences of UNDP Timor Leste, UNDP Serbia and UNICEF Nigeria, national participation and ownership at every stage of the process ( signing, ratifying, reporting, drafting legislation etc) is crucial if obligations are to be implemented.
3. Civil society and National Human Rights Institutions have a critical role: The experience shared by members, underlined the crucial role that civil society has in the entire process of engaging with human rights treaties. UN agencies can work to support them to effectively engage. So too, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) can play an important role in both monitoring state compliance to its human rights obligations and helping it implement these obligations.
4. Importance of advocacy and developing capacity of stakeholders: The role of UN agencies in advocating, with partners, such as the media, parliament, NHRI, civil society, children and other stakeholders, for the state to ratify and adhere to human rights instruments was underlined by members. Helping develop the capacity of stakeholders at all stages of the process of engagement with international human rights instruments was also emphasised.
5. Note of Caution: As pointed out by the international NGO ‘Association for the Prevention of Torture ’ there is a challenge facing UN field staff whose general mandate is not exclusively focussed on human rights when they undertake work in areas that could engage specific obligations of the state under international human rights law. To ensure that the UN does not fund and support programmes that inadvertently contravene human rights standards, it is important to identify the range of human rights obligations implicated in non- human rights specific projects from the outset; an early warning system, engagement of human rights experts, or a specific checklist were among a number of suggestions recommended for avoiding this pitfall.
6. Other Human Rights Mechanisms: As reminded by the contribution from the ILO, the UN human rights mechanisms are not the only human rights mechanisms; for example, there is a more detailed but less broad machinery operated by the ILO that can supplement or go into more detail than the UN instruments- for example the ILO Conventions regarding child rights and Indigenous people’s rights in the area of labour. It would thus be important to take account of the full range of international human rights conventions, and not stop with those of the UN.
1. Encouraging States to Ratify Human Rights Treaties
Advocacy: The contributions from UN Mauritania, UNDP Lao and UNICEF Nigeria, emphasise the importance of developing a strong advocacy strategy to encourage the government to place human rights issues on its agenda. Strategic alliances with civil society organizations, the parliament and key governmental actors to prepare such a strategy was found to be key. So too, highlighting to the government the benefits that ratifying a convention will bring to the country is an important element for any successful advocacy campaign.
Capacity Development:
On the one hand, it may be that this is a question of incorrect expectations on the part of the governments in question, and that more clarity or forcefulness is required at the outset by UN Agencies in explaining the limitations of reliance on the external experts provided, and the continuous and long-term dialogue through which UN Human Rights Bodies seek progressive improvement through treaty reporting procedures. I.e. – no matter what a government puts in place today, it is likely that one or another of the UN human rights bodies will identify gaps/shortcomings that remain and require further changes in the future.
On the other hand, we wonder whether any measures could be taken to
Conclusion: We are ready to assist
As mentioned at the outset, our contribution to this very interesting discussion is intended to uncover some of the human rights obligations that can easily be overlooked when undertaking reforms in sectors such as rule of law, criminal justice, administration of justice, immigration, national human rights institutions. Our contribution is itself, of course, limited to those areas in which we have experience! As noted above, in highlighting these particular issues we are not seeking to criticize but rather to bring out common issues and seek solutions. This email discussion list has greatly impressed us as a means for sharing knowledge and resolving human-rights-related issues within field offices of various UN Agencies, and we will continue to follow your discussions with great interest!
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are beginning projects in any of these areas, if you have any questions about or suggestions relevant to our work, or if we can otherwise be of any assistance. The Guide to establishment & designation of national mechanisms under the OPCAT is available on our website (www.apt.ch) and the criminalisation article is available on request.
Maymuchka Lauriston, OHCHR Uganda wrote:
Dear colleagues,
OHCHR Uganda has worked both with "right holders" and "duty bearers" on the implementation of treaty body recommendations. Uganda is a state party to ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CERD, CRC, CAT and CMW. A workshop was first held at the national level with representatives of the governments (from Ministers, local government, army, police, prison), NHRI, civil society, media and UN agencies to look at the recommendations made by the various treaty bodies, look at their implementation status and see how they can be better implemented. A national action plan was adopted following the workshop to identify areas that needs improvements on each treaty and which stakeholders (government, NHRI, civil society, media, UN) can help implement the recommendations. Similar workshops have also taken place at the national level, in order to prioritise at district level parts of the action plan. A focal point for each action has been designated in each district and OHCHR is working closely with the focal points towards the realisation of these actions to eventually reach the implementation of the recommendations at national level.
In addition, as Uganda has not submitted its initial report on ICESCR, OHCHR Uganda has organised together with the Ministry of Health a workshop on the right to health. In addition, OHCHR is sponsoring a research on the status of ESCR in Uganda and is facilitating the training of civil society organisations and government on ESCR. This we hope will help kick start the discussion for the writing of Uganda's initial report to the CESCR.
Lastly, in response to the contribution on Justice in Uganda, I would like to add that OHCHR does not condone the artificial polarisation of peace versus justice but rather is advocating for a combination of both: peace and justice. OHCHR strongly advocates that durable peace can not be reached without justice and accountability mechanisms. In addition we have just finished a survey of the population of Northern Uganda on the issue of peace and justice and the preliminary findings show that the majority of the population want some sort of justice: a blanket amnesty or traditional forms of justice are not necessarily enough. I attach here for your information, OHCHR Uganda's "Options Paper on Transitional Justice" distributed to the negotiations team at the Juba Peace Talks.
Asao Shimizu, UNDP Lao wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to thank the facilitator for posing an interesting and important question on the issue of “rights holders” and “duty bearers.” As touched upon by Matt and Esther, the implementation of HRBA is a challenge for field offices as it is a new initiative that we are trying to work with. Actually, the demand for the capacity development of UNDP field officers on HRBA was one of the topics touched upon during another discussion at another network, ap-a2j. I am very grateful for the UNDP Regional Centres to have been organizing HRBA trainings for field staff.
When we speak of “national” capacity development for the ratification and implementation of international human rights treaties, distinction is not yet made between the “rights holders” and “duty bearers” for the project activities implemented by International Law Project in Lao PDR. This is partly due to a fact that HRBA was not applied in the project formulation phase. HRBA was not applied in identifying a project goal and strategies. In situation analysis, rights holders and duty holders were not identified. It would have been interesting if HRBA was applied in the formulation phase because that might have led to slightly different outputs and strategies for the project.
It might be less complicated for other countries to identify rights holders if they have civil society. We are operating in the single party state where the concept of civil society is irrelevant. Although there is no national NGO, there are government-run “social organizations” that represent the interests of rights holders and vulnerable groups. For example, we have Lao Disabled People’s Association (LDPA) which is located under the Ministry of Labor. They are a membership-based organization with funding from outside the government budget. LDPA and International Law Project convened a workshop to discuss the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in March 2007. If HRBA was applied in the project formulation phase, we could have strategically identified more groups that can represent the interests of rights holders. The partnership between LDPA and the project was a result of the project’s strategy to increase its visibility. LDPA has viewed a news article on the project activity, and approached the project for the partnership.
On the issue of social organizations, I am happy to report here that we have a pipeline project on “Enhancing Government Partnership with Social Organizations for Poverty Reduction.” The project will be of great benefit for the application of HRBA to work with “rights holders.
Despite of the above challenge we face, our Governance Unit has been doing our best to promote the application of HRBA. We have decided to include the application of HRBA in programming cycle in the RCA for all Programme Officers this year. We will apply HRBA from the formulation phase to evaluation phase. Since we will mainstream HRBA into the TOR of mid-term evaluation missions, it will be possible to identify the status of rights holders and duty bearers even for the projects that did not engage HRBA initially in the formulation phase.
Having mentioned the challenge for the capacity building of rights holders, I would like to highlight some activities that International Law Project conducted for the national capacity development of the ratification and implementation processes of international human rights treaties. (The main target so far is the duty bearers.):
Ratification
Workshops to discuss the benefits for the country to ratify selected international legal instruments (Participants are concerned ministries.)
Implementation
Awareness-raising workshops on selected international treaties
Government officials from the legal sector participating in trainings aboard on the selected themes of international law
Government officials’ study visits to other countries to learn about their experiences with the national incorporation of international law
Where appropriate, UNDP has assisted the project with identifying technical experts from the UN family to assist the project activities. For example, we have invited an HRBA expert from OHCHR when we convened the HRBA awareness raising workshop in May 2006. We have benefited from the expertise of OHCHR, UNCEF, ILO, FAO and WFP. The project implements the activities not only at the central level, but also at provincial level covering the whole country in light of the government policy on decentralization. This has been a good exercise as some vulnerable groups tend to live in the remote areas because of geography.
As mentioned in my first posting, the capacity building of duty bearers has been quite successful because of the capacity and coordination skills of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs backed by their technical expertise in international law.
Sinisa Milatovic,
UNDP Serbia wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
UNDP Serbia has engaged in a number of projects that have sought to bring national legislation in line with the norms and standards of international human rights treaties while also emphasising the importance of the implementation of those treaties.
Serbia became a state party to the "big 6" human rights treaties soon after the fall of the Milosevic regime. In addition, it has a fairly well organised civil society which is successful at mobilising the 'rights holders'. Therefore, the struggle has been to get the 'duty bearers' to implement the treaties and related national laws.
Experiences:
1. UNDP Serbia executed a project together with the Judicial Training Centre on the direct implementation of human rights treaties by judges and prosecutors. As is the case in many countries, under the previous Serbian constitution (the same is true under the recently adopted one as well), international treaties are directly applicable by the judiciary. However, the socio-political circumstances in the country over the past 17 years have caused the judiciary to be depleted of quality staff, with a consequent lack of knowledge on international human rights law.
Therefore, our project focused on training judges and prosecutors on certain rights (for example, the freedom of expression), with a focus on comparing national Serbian law and the jurisprudence of Serbian courts with international treaty law and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Committee. The training seminars were held in a number of courts across Serbia.
The lecturers (one a local judge, another an expert on international human rights law) were then asked to produce a chapter which compared, in grater detail, Serbian law and jurisprudence with international human rights law and jurisprudence, and provided recommendations on where international law could be applied directly due to the fact that Serbian law does not comport with international standards in this field. These chapters have been compiled and edited to form a manual for judges and prosecutors, which will be published (in Serbian only) this year.
2. UNDP Serbia has undertaken an initiative with the government of Serbia of drafting the Anti-discrimination Act. The adoption of an AD Act has been demanded by civil society, the UN Human Rights Committee and the EC. The drafters (a group of experts put together by the Government and UNDP) of the AD Act focused, in large measure, on drafting a law that would be in compliance with international treaty provisions on discrimination, use the best solutions from comparative laws and be consistent with domestic norms and the Constitution.
The process of drafting the AD Act went through the following steps:
a) the writing of a Feasibility Study which provided a comprehensive overview of current laws that deal with discrimination, international and comparative norms, and issues facing vulnerable groups in Serbian society,
b) The writing of the Draft AD Act, which stipulates the creation of a national Commission for the Protection of Equality
c) a public consultation process in which a number of government institutions, civil society actors, international and national experts were consulted, and the Act was constantly amended in line with recommendations received. During this process it was adjudged by a number of experts that the Act is in compliance with international standards
The Draft AD Act has been finalised, and currently awaits the formation of a new Government and Parliament before adoption.
Lessons learned from the projects (by project):
1. Many duty bearers in Serbia are resistant to directly implementing international treaties, in part due to their lack of knowledge of the subject and in part due to a parochial mind-set. Therefore, it was important to have one of their own- i.e. judges and prosecutors- train them on the topic.
In addition, the comparative approach was a success as it focused on areas in which the judges and prosecutors are experts - domestic law - while also seeking to introduce new concepts and areas of law (international human rights treaties and related jurisprudence).
2. a) the effective protection of human rights requires strong national human rights institutions. Such institutions, which include Ombudspersons and national human rights committees, are the hallmark of societies with an advanced and independent system of human rights protection. Therefore, the creation of the Commission for the Protection of Equality by the Draft AD Act marks an important step in developing such a system. The Commission’s competences and independence should lead to its development into the key institution for policy-making in the field of anti-discrimination, as well as the monitoring and the implementation of anti-discrimination laws.
The durability of the Commission and, in fact, of the results achieved in the course of the project, depends, however, on further support being provided to activities in this field. The project, as was envisioned, has provided a founding stone for the creation of an anti-discrimination normative and institutional framework. Nevertheless, the impact of the project will be dulled unless the Republic of Serbia receives more technical and logistical support designed to build upon the foundation created.
b) In order to create the best possible law that seeks to introduce international and comparative human rights standards in national law and widespread political support, it is necessary to consult a wide variety of stakeholders and experts. Therefore, we placed equal emphasis on hearing the voices of those representing vulnerable groups as well as on those of government officials. Moreover, we used (for the most part) national experts to draft the AD Act, with international experts being called in to provide feedback on the Act rather than draft the Act itself. This made the contents of the Act more palatable to the more conservative elements in society.
Should any of you have nay questions or want to see any of the documents produced in the course of the above-mentioned initiatives, I will be at your disposal.
Justine Assilevi, UNDP Togo wrote:
English Translation:
Togo is signature to a number of international human rights instruments from 1960 up to this day; for example, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Conventions on civil, social, political, economic and cultural rights of 1966; as well as an arsenal of international conventions on human rights, such as the Convention Against Torture; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Togo is also signature to many regional (African) human rights instruments. These included the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; The Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (CADBE).
These instruments are implemented by specific committees coordinated by ministries according to their expertise in a precise domain, with the support of civil society organisations. Each committee functions according to the domain of expertise of its supporting ministry.
There is an inter-ministerial Committee that drafts the initial and periodic reports for treaty bodies on the human rights situation in the country. The different thematic committees write the first drafts of the rapports and pass them on to the inter-ministerial Committee for their validation and transmission to the responsible bodies in New York, Geneva…..
It is worth mentioning that the inter-ministerial Committee includes:
- the representatives of different ministries
- the representatives of different thematic committees (CEDA/CRC/CADBE)
- the representatives of human rights civil society organisations
- development partners
Such a mechanism was put in place to ensure the effective implementation of the conventions, treaties and international agreements to which Togo is party too.
One of the challenges faced is the slowness of the process due to the chain of committees and the insufficient funds allocated for the effective operation of the inter-ministerial committee in charge of drafting the initial and periodic rapports on human rights in Togo.
A proposed solution to this challenge is the possibility of merging the thematic committees at the heart of the inter-ministerial Committee and to strengthen its capacities.
Original French Version:
Le Togo est partie signataire de plusieurs instruments internationaux sur les droits de l’homme depuis 1960 jusqu’à ce jour. On peut citer entre autres les instruments internationaux tels que la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme de 1948. Les droits socio-politiques et culturels de 1966 ; en plus d’un arsenal de conventions internationaux en matière de droits humains comme la convention contre la torture ; la convention sur l’élimination de toutes formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes (CEDEF/CEDAW), la convention relative aux droits des enfants (CDE). Le Togo est également signataire de beaucoup d’instruments régionaux (africains) sur les droits de l’homme. On peut citer entre autres la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples ; le protocole de Maputo sur les droits des femmes, la Charte africaine des droits et du bien-être de l’enfant (CADBE).
Ces instruments sont mis en œuvre par des comités spécifiques coordonnés par des ministères en raison de leur compétence dans un domaine thématique bien précis avec l’appui des organisations de la société civile. Chaque comité fonctionne selon le domaine de compétence de son ministère de tutelle.
Il existe un Comité interministériel de rédaction des rapports initiaux et périodiques sur les droits de l’homme. Les différents comités sectoriels élaborent les premiers drafts desdits rapports et les transmettent au comité interministériel pour validation et transmission à qui de droit à New York, Genève, ……
Il est à mentionner que ce Comité interministériel regroupe :
- les représentants de différents ministères,
- les représentants des différents comités sectoriels (CEDEF/CEDEAW, CDE, CADBE),
- les représentants des organisations de la société civile sur les droits de l’homme
- les partenaires au développement,
Un tel mécanisme a été mis sur pied pour assurer la mise en œuvre effective des conventions, traités et pactes internationaux auxquels le Togo est partie.
L’une des difficultés rencontrées est la lenteur des procédures dues à la chaîne de comité et l’insuffisance de fonds alloués au fonctionnement du comité interministériel de rédaction des rapports initiaux et périodiques sur les droits de l’homme au Togo.
L’une des solutions envisagées est la possibilité de fusion des comités spécifiques au sein du Comité interministériel et le renforcement des capacités de celui-ci.
Lee Swepston, ILO Geneva wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have been reading with interest the exchanges on this subject, all of which have been both useful and encouraging. I wanted to add another dimension.
All of the contributions so far have concerned the UN machinery, as the reference point of human rights machinery. This is of course the main reference for most of the correspondents, who are officials of the UN and its funds and programmes. You might want to be aware that there is another, more detailed but less broad machinery, that is operated by the ILO. The ILO, which has existed since 1919 and has been adopting Conventions since then, has a detailed supervisory mechanism that covers many of the same points as the UN human rights machinery, but often in more detail because of the nature of ILO conventions. For instance, on child rights, the ILO's Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 contain detailed provisions on the conditions under which children can enter the world of work, and on the kinds of work that are permitted, conditionally permitted, and absolutely forbidden to children. The freedom of association and collective bargaining Convention, No. 87, is referred to in both UN Covenants, and develops these concepts much more deeply than do those instruments.
In addition, the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations makes as many as 2000 comments a year on the application by States of the conventions they have ratified. These are all public, and published, and are intended to provide guidance from member states on how they implement these conventions. (All this information is available on www.ilo.org.)
It goes without saying that the ILO cooperates closely with the UN's treaty bodies. For instance the Committee on the Rights of the Child often suggests that governments ask the ILO for assistance, and the ILO regularly refers in its comments to the work of the CRC. The same happens with all the other treaty bodies. In fact, the new Migrant Workers Committee is required by its treaty to send all government reports to the ILO for comments before they are considered by the committee itself, and we are working out a very solid relationship with that committee.
While the ILO's machinery is detailed, it of course deals with a narrower set of issues than do the UN's various mechanisms. This arises from the nature of the conventions. The ILO's mandate is not, for example, child welfare generally, but rather the elimination of child labour specifically. While this does take us into other areas, this is done in close corporation with UNICEF, the UNDP, the national NGOs and many others. We have a mandate on the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation, but not in society generally. And so forth.
Another aspect of this work is that the ILO has a commitment to helping States implement the conventions they have ratified. All technical assistance has to be done in conformity with conventions, and much of it is specifically oriented toward their implementation. In fact, more than half the ILO's technical co-operation budget is dedicated to human rights implementation. There are such specific programmes as the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, the ILO's biggest technical cooperation programme, which works in more than 90 countries. There are also others that are more specific, such as our work on forced labour and trafficking, which are very closely tied to the implementation of the ILO standards, and all these take account of the comments made by the ILO's own human rights machinery.
I should also recall that the ILO is responsible for the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), in which much of the rest of the UN participated for its adoption, and which remains – unfortunately – the only international instrument to deal comprehensively with these peoples. There is a good promotional programme, called PRO169, well financed by DANIDA and a few others, that works mostly in countries where the issue is not an easy one to talk about – i.e., in Africa and Asia. Whenever feasible, this programme works with the OHCHR.
There is much more say about all this, of course, and detailed information can be found on the web site.
In summary, it would be useful for all of us to be sure to take account of the full range of international human rights conventions, and not stop with those of the United Nations. There are often aspects of ILO conventions that supplement, or go into more detail, than do the UN instruments.
Benoit Pylysener and Christine Umutoni UNDP Rwanda wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Rwanda is a state party to the following International Human Rights Treaties:
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Accession in 1975
2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – Accession in 1975; reservation on Article 13 (on compulsory and free primary education)
3. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) – Accession in 1975; reservation on Article 22 (on social security including social insurance)
4. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – Ratification in 1980
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – Ratification 1991
The Constitution of 2003 reaffirms Rwanda’s adherence to these treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its Article 9 (Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, 2003).
The Government of Rwanda however is more than 5 years overdue in reporting on 4 Human Rights Treaties it has ratified (in red).
ICCPR ICESCR CERD CEDAW CRC
EIF: 23-03-76
2nd report
examined Nov 87
CCPR/C/46/Add.1
3rd – 5th periodic reports due since 1994
OP1: No action
OP2: No action EIF: 03-01-76
Initial examined in Feb. 1989
E/1984/7/Add.29
3rd – 4th periodic reports due since 1990
EIF: 16-05-75
8th – 12th periodic reports
examined March 00
CERD/C/304/Add.97
13th- 15th periodic reports due since 00
Declaration art. 14: no EIF: 03-09-81
3rd periodic report
examined February 1993
A/48/38 paras. 451-473
4th-6th periodic reports due since 1994
OP: No action EIF: 23-02-91
2nd periodic report CRC/C/70/Add.22
examined in May 04
CRC/C/15/Add.234
Next report due:
22/02/2008
OP-AC: EIF: 12-02-02
Report due: 23-05-04
OP-SC: EIF: 14-04-02
Report due: 14-04-04
As can be seen in the above table, the CRC is the only Treaty that has been reported on. This is mainly thanks to the efforts of UNICEF and its strong mandate in supporting the Government in elaborating the reports. In the light of the UN reform and the Action 2 program in Rwanda, the UN Country Team and UNDP are looking at ways on how to best support the Government in establishing closer links with the International Human Rights System, thus rendering it more effective and efficient.
In the first approach UNDP, through its support project to the National Human Rights Commission, supported the idea of creating a coordination framework for human rights in which the HRC, CSOs (national and international) and development partners are represented. The coordination framework is a forum for dialogue and exchange of information and will help to improve the sometimes strained relation between the HRC and CSOs. The coordination framework is also to become a forum for capacity building in the promotion of human rights and the elaboration of both Treaty Body and shadow reports. In the future it should also become a forum for protection activities.
In the second approach, intertwined with the first one, UNDP in collaboration with the UNCT, will support the Government in the actual report writing through a joint UN program in line with the Action 2 program. The project will have the following objectives (we would like to thank our colleagues in Laos for sharing their project document):
- Strengthened capacities for national incorporation and application of international legal obligations into the Rwandan legal system
- Strengthened capacities for implementation and enforcement of international law in Rwanda at national, provincial and local levels
- Developed and enhanced mechanisms and capacities in Rwanda (Government, Rwandan Human Rights Commission and Civil Society Organizations) for monitoring and reporting on implementation and enforcement of international law and progressive realization of international legal standards
- Improvement and strengthened cooperation between Government, national human rights institutions and organizations as well as international development partners and regional and multilateral bodies
The project would be Nationally Executed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Youth (Inter-ministerial Committee), the National Human Rights Commission and CSOs.
At the end of May the High Commissioner will pay visit to Rwanda, this will be the opportune moment to renew the UNCT commitment to the Treaty Bodies and the OHCHR. In analogy to UNICEF and the CRC, we believe the UNCT can play a more active role in supporting the Government to strengthen its reporting capacities.
Bipin Adhikari, UN Liberia wrote:
Dear friends,
Thanks for this important initiation. Emerging from a long civil war, Liberia is gradually restoring the law and order situation, reviving its institutions and governing bodies, and implementing the agreed strategy on strengthening the rule of law and addressing the culture of impunity in the country. An elected government has already been instituted, and reform initiatives could be noted in all sectors.
As far as ratification of international human rights instruments are concerned, long before the general elections were held, on 22 September 2004, Chairman Gyude Bryant of the National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) was able to sign, ratify and accede to 17 human rights Protocols and Conventions that guaranteed human rights and provide for the protection of civilians (as expected by the United Nations Mission in Liberia in the best spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the basic transitional document, which was signed in August 2003 in Accra to end the civil was.
The signing ceremony took place at the "Focus 2004" Treaties Event held in New York. The signing ceremony was a significant landmark both for consolidating peace and ensuring better future protection for the Liberian people emerging out of 15 years of civil war. These decisions were also led through the transitional legislative process to complete the rest of the formalities. The challenge ahead, however, is to bring national legislation and policy in line with the norms and standards of international human rights treaties.
Two type of efforts are being made in Liberia in this regard. Efforts are underway to reconstitute the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) according to the INCHR Act 2005 passed by the legislative assembly according to the standards set by Paris Principles. The Commission was created under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to "monitor compliance with the basic rights guaranteed in the present Peace Agreement as well as promote human rights education throughout the various sectors of Liberian society, including schools, the media, the police and the military". The Commission has important powers in the matter of internalization of international human rights standards in the country.
Similarly, the Ministry of Justice has started a process leading to drafting the national human rights action plan of Liberia. This project has slow progress due to the ongoing delays in the establishment of the INCHR. However, in March 2007, the Solicitor-General (operating under the Minister of Justice) instructed all Ministries to appoint human rights focal points for NHRAP process. The civil society of Liberia, which has a great role in getting both these institutions functional, is yet to beef up the process. The focal points have met recently and are interaction with the Ministry to help them create a NHRAP National Steering Committee to start drafting the action plan. This plan is going to be a major instrument in implementing international standards through specific programmes and strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)