April 2007
National human rights actions plans (NHRAPs) constitute one of the newest approaches for countries to establish domestic policy for upholding the fundamental human rights of their citizens and, thus, comply with their international obligations under the various treaties that they have signed and ratified. NHRAPs are meant to delineate concrete means to assess a country’s human rights situation, identify areas where improvement is necessary, and outline efforts that are to be undertaken in order to address violations and uphold human rights generally (ex. establishing grievance mechanisms, etc.). They are a realistic way to set goals, evaluate past activity, and achieve actual change in improving the protection of human rights.. NHRAPs are the natural product of the evolution of human rights instruments starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The notion of NHRAPs was included as a recommendation in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, at which point they began to receive increased international attention.
General Background
Handbook for Writing NHRAPs
• This document, produced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), is the primary single guide to creating NHRAPs for human rights. It explains their origin and importance, as well as the principles which should be considered in their creation. It offers 11 real example plans and provides a phased guide on how to write a NHRAP. Lastly, this handbook focuses on the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of such plans.
Workshop on the Development of NHRAPs for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
• This workshop offers a more condensed guide to the writing and implementation of NHRAPs for human rights. It comprises the conclusions reached at the 1999 Inter-sessional Workshop on National Plans of Action for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Bangkok, Thailand. It discusses the purposes of creating an NHRAP and proposes eight steps for the process of writing and implementing such a plan.
Development of a national human rights plan: the experience of Lithuania
• This UNDP publication describes the role of the UNDP in aiding Lithuania to create a national plan of action and implement it in 2002. It provides background information about Lithuania in the context of that process and discusses in detail what was required to put together the NHRAPs.
Individual Country Plans of Action
OHCHR Listing of states with NHRAPs
• This list is not entirely up to date but provides a comprehensive enumeration of countries with human rights NHRAPs. Those not included on the list or that have more updated versions are listed below. The Democratic Republic of Congo is perhaps the best example of a post-conflict (although in reality still in conflict) country implementing an NHRAP.
National Action Programme on Strengthening Human Rights in Mongolia
• This NHRAPs was adopted in October 2003 by the Mongolian Great Hural (Parliament) and is currently being implemented. It is organized into four main sections: objectives, measures to protect human rights, implementing and monitoring international human rights treaties, and administration of the program. The report was the product of collaboration between UNDP, the OHCHR, and the Government of Mongolia.
Government of Australia Guide for National Human Rights Action Plans
• This is a brief background and introduction to NHRAPs which precedes Australia’s own plan. This website links to the current plan from December 2004 which is presently being implemented. The plan is the second that Australia has completed and is divided into two main sections. The overview introduces existing human rights protections in Australia, the role of human rights in a democratic system, supporting the family, assisting disadvantaged people and promoting independence through human rights, human rights education, and promoting human rights internationally. The second half of the plan describes how the plan came into existence and then proceeds into deeper considerations of each topic mentioned in the overview. Various branches of the Australian government contributed to this plan.
2004 Nepal Human Rights Action Plan
• This April 2004 plan is an extensive program of action for human rights in Nepal. It begins with the background of the report and how human rights fit into Nepal’s most recent Five Year Development Plan. Then, it focuses on individual areas of human rights, including addressing the human rights of specific ethnic groups in Nepal. This action plan is unique because it devotes significant attention to legal reform and justice administration in support of human rights. Its final section addresses implementing and monitoring the international human rights treaties which Nepal has ratified. The plan originated in the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
A national action plan for human rights, 2006-2009, Government of Sweden
• This is a brief fact sheet, not an actual plan, on Sweden’s recent updated NHRAP for human rights. It discusses the basics of the plan and notes that an evaluation of the plan will be undertaken in 2010. The evaluation will be completed by a delegation on human rights that was established concurrently with this action plan. It is also noted that the government has created a website devoted entirely to human rights in Sweden.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
From: %%email.bounce%% [mailto:%%email.bounce%%] On Behalf Of Peter Hosking
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:30 AM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: Re: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
Colleagues, I want to offer one or two observations on NHRAPs based on experience, principally, in Mongolia and New Zealand, my home country.
The latter first. In New Zealand, the plan was developed by the NHRI, the NZHRC. The Plan is a fine document, completed a couple of years ago now, but it can really be described only as the Commission's plan, not a NATIONAL plan. This is because it has never been adopted by the government. The Commission did endeavour to involve government departments and Ministers in the planning process, and representatives did stay involved for a while but eventually they fell by the wayside. Effectively, they withdrew from the process. I think the government would say that it welcomes the plan, but it has never adopted it. Thus it is not a central planning document and while I think the Commission endeavours to keep it alive, and some of its activities do reflect priorities in the NHRAP, it is not the government's plan.
Based on this experience, I suggest that it is crucial to involve government departments from the outset, and secure government (ie cabinet in the NZ political system) commitment AND RESOURCES for the exercise. The Finance Ministry is the most important of all for without funding the plan will never be implemented and will never drive annual and long-term budgetting for the state.
A similar outcome was reached in Mongolia, where UNDP put considerable resources behind the development of the Plan and much of the work was done by a human rights adviser funded (mostly, I think) by OHCHR under HURIST cooperation with UNDP and GoM. Again, a fine plan was adopted, but it took considerable effort to get it adopted - in this case by the Great Hural (the Parliament). The government did later set up a committee to implement the plan, but as of a couple of years ago, little had been done by way of implementation and, crucially, no budget allocated to the exercise. Mongolia has had a long history, I think I can say, of national plans which never get implemented and when last I saw it, the NHRAP was well on its way to being added to the list. If there has been progress made with the plan since, perhaps someone from the country team there could update us.
All of which is to say that there is little point (aside from some human rights awareness raising which can result from the development of a NHRAP) in putting significant resources to a document which languishes somewhere gathering dust.
Best, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:30 AM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: Re: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
Colleagues, I want to offer one or two observations on NHRAPs based on experience, principally, in Mongolia and New Zealand, my home country.
The latter first. In New Zealand, the plan was developed by the NHRI, the NZHRC. The Plan is a fine document, completed a couple of years ago now, but it can really be described only as the Commission's plan, not a NATIONAL plan. This is because it has never been adopted by the government. The Commission did endeavour to involve government departments and Ministers in the planning process, and representatives did stay involved for a while but eventually they fell by the wayside. Effectively, they withdrew from the process. I think the government would say that it welcomes the plan, but it has never adopted it. Thus it is not a central planning document and while I think the Commission endeavours to keep it alive, and some of its activities do reflect priorities in the NHRAP, it is not the government's plan.
Based on this experience, I suggest that it is crucial to involve government departments from the outset, and secure government (ie cabinet in the NZ political system) commitment AND RESOURCES for the exercise. The Finance Ministry is the most important of all for without funding the plan will never be implemented and will never drive annual and long-term budgetting for the state.
A similar outcome was reached in Mongolia, where UNDP put considerable resources behind the development of the Plan and much of the work was done by a human rights adviser funded (mostly, I think) by OHCHR under HURIST cooperation with UNDP and GoM. Again, a fine plan was adopted, but it took considerable effort to get it adopted - in this case by the Great Hural (the Parliament). The government did later set up a committee to implement the plan, but as of a couple of years ago, little had been done by way of implementation and, crucially, no budget allocated to the exercise. Mongolia has had a long history, I think I can say, of national plans which never get implemented and when last I saw it, the NHRAP was well on its way to being added to the list. If there has been progress made with the plan since, perhaps someone from the country team there could update us.
All of which is to say that there is little point (aside from some human rights awareness raising which can result from the development of a NHRAP) in putting significant resources to a document which languishes somewhere gathering dust.
Best, Peter
Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
----- Original Message -----
From: David Omozuafoh
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org ; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]
Dear Colleagues,
Please see below the process of preparing the Nigerian National Action Plan as documented by the NHRC. The main document is also linked to further understand the entire process and components of the NAP.
The Nigerian National Action Plan
1. The Federal Government of Nigeria has consciously chosen a participatory, consultative and collaborative approach to develop the NAP. The process began in November 1999 when the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), with the support of the British Council, organized a study visit to South Africa to obtain first hand knowledge of the process that led to the development of the South African National Action Plan on Human Rights. The study team was composed of representatives from the NHRC, the Ministry of Justice, the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
2. In December 1999, the chambers of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, in collaboration with the NHRC, hosted a consultation with all government ministries and justice sector institutions. The purpose of this consultation was to explain the concept of the NAP, as well as the obligations of the respective ministries, agencies and institutions in the process of developing the NAP.
3. In April 2000, the Chambers of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice of the Federation requested the NHRC to commence consultations with civil society and parliament with a view to explaining the concept of the NAP.
4. Between July and October 2000, the NHRC convened a series of meetings with civil society representatives across Nigeria. At the end of these meetings, a process for broad consultation was mapped out and the process for developing the NAP was started.
5. The first activity was in October 2000, when the NHRC, in partnership with the Senate Committee on Human Rights, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Legal Resources Consortium, convened a Parliamentary Hearing on the State of the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Nigeria. The purpose of this hearing was to familiarise members of the National Assembly, Government Ministries, Service Chiefs and organised private sector with the concept of NAP and the need for same.
6. In November 2000, the NHRC with the support of Australian Embassy to Nigeria hosted a workshop on regional and international human rights instruments. The focus of this workshop was on key international and regional human rights instruments that have been domesticated, ratified or are in the process of ratification by Nigeria or those not yet ratified or domesticated.
7. These activities provided a forum for identifying and agreeing on areas of cooperation between the National Assembly, government departments and civil society (including the private sector) in the development of the NAP.
8. In April 2001, the Federal Government of Nigeria formally inaugurated the steering and coordinating committees of the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
9. In October 2001, the Federal Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission with the support of DFID hosted the first Nigerian Human Rights Summit. Participants at the Summit included Human Rights Defenders, other NGOs, CBOs, professional bodies and other stakeholders in the civil society, Government ministries, parastatals and agencies, military, police, and other law enforcement agencies, the judiciary and parliamentarians. The summit was convened to provide a forum for government and civil society to agree on the content and framework of the NAP.
10. In October 2002, the Commission, in collaboration with the Senate and House Committees on Human Rights, with the support of MacArthur Foundation, hosted all of the Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly in an interactive session on the draft National Action Plan. The purpose was to incorporate their input into the NAP document.
11. On 10th October 2002, further effort was made towards the development of the National Action Plan when National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the National Assembly and Legal Resource Consortium with the support from McArthur Foundation organized a One-Day conference on Human Rights and the Death Penalty.
12. In November 2002, with the support of the McArthur Foundation, the Commission’s thematic program officers visited various relevant ministries/parastatals by which inputs were received on the status of various projects embarked upon by them towards the promotion and protection of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria and other relevant Regional and International Human Rights Instruments.
13. With the support of McArthur Foundation a documentary of the activities of the Commission leading to the development of the National Action was produced for public enlightenment and educational purposes in sensitising the public on the National Action Plan during the period of 2002 to 2003.
14. Between the 2004 and 2005, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa collaborated with the Commission in holding consultations with the media, government ministries/parastatals, and the Civil Society on strategies towards a successful implementation of the NAP document when adopted by the Federal Government.
15. The Commission again sent out its program officers to various ministries and parastatals to update the NAP document with developments in the various ministries and parastatals since the last consultations with such ministries and parastatals. These were further harmonized into the NAP document. Preliminary final draft copies were then printed for presentation to the Government.
16. Again on the 7th December 2005, the Commission in Collaboration with Open Society Initiative for West Africa organized a consultation with the new Parliamentarians elected in 2003 to brief them on the NAP document. Having carried out the previous consultations with the former parliamentarians elected between 1999 to 2003, it was therefore necessary to brief the new NASS on the NAP document.
17. Finally, the NAP document was handed over to the President by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice who was the Chair of the Steering Committee for the development of NAP. The Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria successfully developed and adopted the NAP document.
My comments:
1. The NAP has been reviewed twice – 2006 and early 2007. A report of how well it has performed has not been prepared.
2. The review has not informed any major changes in the way the NHRC does its job nor the implementing agencies
3. The NAP is supposed to inform the implementing agencies annual budget requests, but this is not the case. Budgets are still being made and implemented without dues recourse to the NAP by ministries, departments and agencies
4. The plan lacks monitoring mechanism. It is therefore difficult to understand how the plan is being implemented. This also makes it difficult to understand the challenges encountered by the implementing agencies in the process of implementation.
5. The plan is not action-oriented and not timed. It is therefore difficult to understand when targets have been met and how much would be required to meet set targets. Although the plan identifies challenges and bodies responsible for implementation and monitoring, it appears to leave everything for everyone identified without linking duties to each agency. This makes it difficult to link success or failure to bodies concerned.
6. To better understand and implement the plan, there should an operational plan. The operational plan should have timelines, budget, actions, methodology and implementing agencies
7. The NAP is an ideal instrument which informs the direction of government in responding to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna Austria in 1993. It is really the human rights approach to development. UNDP should use its experience in human rights based approach to development to assist the country in preparing the Plan. The country’s request for UNDP’s assistance for human rights projects should be in line with the NAP once adopted. This is why UNDP needs to participate actively in its preparation.
I hope you find this helpful.
Regards,
David Omozuafoh
Programme Analyst (Governance)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
UN House
Plot 617/618 Central Area
Diplomatic Drive
Abuja
Tel: +234 9 4616219
From: bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org [mailto:bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org] On Behalf Of Bipin Adhikari
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 4:06 PM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: [cprp-net] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]
Dear colleagues,
The Ministry of Justice in Liberia is working with the UNDP and UN Mission here to develop a national human rights action plan for Liberia.* Such an action plan was envisaged by the Joint Needs Assessment concluded by the United Nations and the World Bank for the National Transitional Government of Liberia in 2004 to rebuild this country after a long civil war. The result-focused transition framework (RFTF) developed to implement the Joint Needs Assessment provided for a three year National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) for Liberia. The exercise is still at its early stages. We would appreciate receiving from members any recent/previous experiences on processes, lessons learnt, human rights action plans, within and outside of the region and particularly within a post conflict context. Apart from using them for our own references, we will also be sharing these resources with concerned human rights focal points in the Ministries and civil society organizations.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Bipin Adhikari
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
# 404A, Pan-Africa Plaza
Monrovia, Liberia
* Please note that the knowledge networks handled a query on the same subject in 2005: Liberia/ Comparative Experiences/ Development of national human rights action plans in post-conflict contexts However, the work on the NHRAP in Liberia was stalled for various political/technical reasons. As there sure has been new developments, we would like to get recent updates on experiences, especially in the West African region.
From: David Omozuafoh
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org ; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]
Dear Colleagues,
Please see below the process of preparing the Nigerian National Action Plan as documented by the NHRC. The main document is also linked to further understand the entire process and components of the NAP.
The Nigerian National Action Plan
1. The Federal Government of Nigeria has consciously chosen a participatory, consultative and collaborative approach to develop the NAP. The process began in November 1999 when the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), with the support of the British Council, organized a study visit to South Africa to obtain first hand knowledge of the process that led to the development of the South African National Action Plan on Human Rights. The study team was composed of representatives from the NHRC, the Ministry of Justice, the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
2. In December 1999, the chambers of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, in collaboration with the NHRC, hosted a consultation with all government ministries and justice sector institutions. The purpose of this consultation was to explain the concept of the NAP, as well as the obligations of the respective ministries, agencies and institutions in the process of developing the NAP.
3. In April 2000, the Chambers of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice of the Federation requested the NHRC to commence consultations with civil society and parliament with a view to explaining the concept of the NAP.
4. Between July and October 2000, the NHRC convened a series of meetings with civil society representatives across Nigeria. At the end of these meetings, a process for broad consultation was mapped out and the process for developing the NAP was started.
5. The first activity was in October 2000, when the NHRC, in partnership with the Senate Committee on Human Rights, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Legal Resources Consortium, convened a Parliamentary Hearing on the State of the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Nigeria. The purpose of this hearing was to familiarise members of the National Assembly, Government Ministries, Service Chiefs and organised private sector with the concept of NAP and the need for same.
6. In November 2000, the NHRC with the support of Australian Embassy to Nigeria hosted a workshop on regional and international human rights instruments. The focus of this workshop was on key international and regional human rights instruments that have been domesticated, ratified or are in the process of ratification by Nigeria or those not yet ratified or domesticated.
7. These activities provided a forum for identifying and agreeing on areas of cooperation between the National Assembly, government departments and civil society (including the private sector) in the development of the NAP.
8. In April 2001, the Federal Government of Nigeria formally inaugurated the steering and coordinating committees of the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
9. In October 2001, the Federal Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission with the support of DFID hosted the first Nigerian Human Rights Summit. Participants at the Summit included Human Rights Defenders, other NGOs, CBOs, professional bodies and other stakeholders in the civil society, Government ministries, parastatals and agencies, military, police, and other law enforcement agencies, the judiciary and parliamentarians. The summit was convened to provide a forum for government and civil society to agree on the content and framework of the NAP.
10. In October 2002, the Commission, in collaboration with the Senate and House Committees on Human Rights, with the support of MacArthur Foundation, hosted all of the Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly in an interactive session on the draft National Action Plan. The purpose was to incorporate their input into the NAP document.
11. On 10th October 2002, further effort was made towards the development of the National Action Plan when National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the National Assembly and Legal Resource Consortium with the support from McArthur Foundation organized a One-Day conference on Human Rights and the Death Penalty.
12. In November 2002, with the support of the McArthur Foundation, the Commission’s thematic program officers visited various relevant ministries/parastatals by which inputs were received on the status of various projects embarked upon by them towards the promotion and protection of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria and other relevant Regional and International Human Rights Instruments.
13. With the support of McArthur Foundation a documentary of the activities of the Commission leading to the development of the National Action was produced for public enlightenment and educational purposes in sensitising the public on the National Action Plan during the period of 2002 to 2003.
14. Between the 2004 and 2005, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa collaborated with the Commission in holding consultations with the media, government ministries/parastatals, and the Civil Society on strategies towards a successful implementation of the NAP document when adopted by the Federal Government.
15. The Commission again sent out its program officers to various ministries and parastatals to update the NAP document with developments in the various ministries and parastatals since the last consultations with such ministries and parastatals. These were further harmonized into the NAP document. Preliminary final draft copies were then printed for presentation to the Government.
16. Again on the 7th December 2005, the Commission in Collaboration with Open Society Initiative for West Africa organized a consultation with the new Parliamentarians elected in 2003 to brief them on the NAP document. Having carried out the previous consultations with the former parliamentarians elected between 1999 to 2003, it was therefore necessary to brief the new NASS on the NAP document.
17. Finally, the NAP document was handed over to the President by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice who was the Chair of the Steering Committee for the development of NAP. The Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria successfully developed and adopted the NAP document.
My comments:
1. The NAP has been reviewed twice – 2006 and early 2007. A report of how well it has performed has not been prepared.
2. The review has not informed any major changes in the way the NHRC does its job nor the implementing agencies
3. The NAP is supposed to inform the implementing agencies annual budget requests, but this is not the case. Budgets are still being made and implemented without dues recourse to the NAP by ministries, departments and agencies
4. The plan lacks monitoring mechanism. It is therefore difficult to understand how the plan is being implemented. This also makes it difficult to understand the challenges encountered by the implementing agencies in the process of implementation.
5. The plan is not action-oriented and not timed. It is therefore difficult to understand when targets have been met and how much would be required to meet set targets. Although the plan identifies challenges and bodies responsible for implementation and monitoring, it appears to leave everything for everyone identified without linking duties to each agency. This makes it difficult to link success or failure to bodies concerned.
6. To better understand and implement the plan, there should an operational plan. The operational plan should have timelines, budget, actions, methodology and implementing agencies
7. The NAP is an ideal instrument which informs the direction of government in responding to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna Austria in 1993. It is really the human rights approach to development. UNDP should use its experience in human rights based approach to development to assist the country in preparing the Plan. The country’s request for UNDP’s assistance for human rights projects should be in line with the NAP once adopted. This is why UNDP needs to participate actively in its preparation.
I hope you find this helpful.
Regards,
David Omozuafoh
Programme Analyst (Governance)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
UN House
Plot 617/618 Central Area
Diplomatic Drive
Abuja
Tel: +234 9 4616219
From: bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org [mailto:bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org] On Behalf Of Bipin Adhikari
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 4:06 PM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: [cprp-net] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]
Dear colleagues,
The Ministry of Justice in Liberia is working with the UNDP and UN Mission here to develop a national human rights action plan for Liberia.* Such an action plan was envisaged by the Joint Needs Assessment concluded by the United Nations and the World Bank for the National Transitional Government of Liberia in 2004 to rebuild this country after a long civil war. The result-focused transition framework (RFTF) developed to implement the Joint Needs Assessment provided for a three year National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) for Liberia. The exercise is still at its early stages. We would appreciate receiving from members any recent/previous experiences on processes, lessons learnt, human rights action plans, within and outside of the region and particularly within a post conflict context. Apart from using them for our own references, we will also be sharing these resources with concerned human rights focal points in the Ministries and civil society organizations.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Bipin Adhikari
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
# 404A, Pan-Africa Plaza
Monrovia, Liberia
* Please note that the knowledge networks handled a query on the same subject in 2005: Liberia/ Comparative Experiences/ Development of national human rights action plans in post-conflict contexts However, the work on the NHRAP in Liberia was stalled for various political/technical reasons. As there sure has been new developments, we would like to get recent updates on experiences, especially in the West African region.