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.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences
[Facilitator’s Note: Please find below contributions from Fernando Mora UNDP Mauritania and Thord Palmlund to the Query from UNDP Liberia on National Human Rights Action Plans. This query is cross-posted between the HURITALK Network and CPRP-networks]
Fernando Mora, UNDP Mauritania wrote:
I would like to share this short list with you. I think that it is important to:
1. Organise a national seminar in order to speak about the need to have a national human rights action plan;
2. Set up a steering committee representing all the institutions of the State and the civil society (should be composed of high level officials – ministers from the government side and important activist from the civil society);
3. Get a national and local picture about the human rights situation of the country by organizing seminars and round tables at those levels;
4. Prepare a paper about the national and local consultations to be discussed with the steering committee in order to decide new actions as:
a. Back to the field (regions or departments) and organise by zones/regions public hearings about the goal on having an action plan and to share the results of the first consultations asking the people what they think. It is crucial to give the floor to the people (local NGOs and administrations should be involved);
b. Make a clear list of goals that you want to achieve doing such public hearings (prepare a first draft on the human rights needs at the national and regional level …);
c. Base in the results organise national and local seminars on civil, political, economic and … human rights in order to better explain what human rights means;
d. Prepare a list of questions in order to complete the results of the consultations and to send around the country;
e. Prepare a first base line report;
f. And so on.
5. To prepare a first base line report for discussion: before this stage you had already decided who is responsible to write it (the national action plan should be a national plan make by nationals – not matter if is not as some international organizations would like). Also the most important thing is that the plan corresponds to the needs of the country..;
6. You could work with experts (one international for one year could be a good idea. His/her role is to support the preparation of the action plan not to write it). Have a look to what have been done by the New Zealand (it is an excellent example).
I hope it is useful. I am a former advisor to CoE Commissioner for Human Rights and former Advisor to the East Timor Prime Minister.
All my best,
Fernando Mora (M.)
Democratic Governance Advisor
to UNDP Resident Representative and
United Nations Country Team Resident Coordinator
Mauritania
Thord Palmlund, UNDP New York wrote:
Dear Bipin,
The experience of HURIST in not fully up to date but maystill be relevant and I attach a study made a years ago presenting the experience of HURIST. HURIST was the joint UNDP/OHCHR programme to support the integration of human rights in the operations of UNDP. It supported the development of National Human Rights Action Plans in six countries, including two in West Africa, Cape Verde and Mauritania. The lesson learning document focuses on the plans in Lithuania, Moldova and Mongolia. As the study stresses, there is reason to consider seriously, before the start, whether the NHRAP offers the best approach to improve the human rights situation in a country.
Good luck in your endeavours!
Thord Palmlund
Formerly HURIST Coordinator in UNDP
Dear Bipin, after discussion with Emilie, the HR Network facilitator, we will be fine to post the query with some explanation. She has given her thoughts below. Perhaps you would be able to elaborate a bit more on the objectives of the NH Action plan (objectives, background info on the project). We thought to put an note at the end of the query so that people who have seen the query before will know that you are aware of the past query. Let us know what you think.
Best regards, Misaki Watanabe
March 21, 2007
Dear Bipin, please find attached the report on the experiences of Lithuania on HR Action Plans: http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docsjuly03/TomasBaranovas.pdf. I will also try contacting Tomas Baranovas to get a direct response from him. I know that it is not the right region but some lessons learned might also be useful for the Liberia context.
Best, and good weekend,
Emilie Filmer-Wilson
March 30, 2007
From: bounce-1078992-148874@groups.undp.org [mailto:bounce-1078992-148874@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.
Fernando Mora, UNDP Mauritania wrote:
I would like to share this short list with you. I think that it is important to:
1. Organise a national seminar in order to speak about the need to have a national human rights action plan;
2. Set up a steering committee representing all the institutions of the State and the civil society (should be composed of high level officials – ministers from the government side and important activist from the civil society);
3. Get a national and local picture about the human rights situation of the country by organizing seminars and round tables at those levels;
4. Prepare a paper about the national and local consultations to be discussed with the steering committee in order to decide new actions as:
a. Back to the field (regions or departments) and organise by zones/regions public hearings about the goal on having an action plan and to share the results of the first consultations asking the people what they think. It is crucial to give the floor to the people (local NGOs and administrations should be involved);
b. Make a clear list of goals that you want to achieve doing such public hearings (prepare a first draft on the human rights needs at the national and regional level …);
c. Base in the results organise national and local seminars on civil, political, economic and … human rights in order to better explain what human rights means;
d. Prepare a list of questions in order to complete the results of the consultations and to send around the country;
e. Prepare a first base line report;
f. And so on.
5. To prepare a first base line report for discussion: before this stage you had already decided who is responsible to write it (the national action plan should be a national plan make by nationals – not matter if is not as some international organizations would like). Also the most important thing is that the plan corresponds to the needs of the country..;
6. You could work with experts (one international for one year could be a good idea. His/her role is to support the preparation of the action plan not to write it). Have a look to what have been done by the New Zealand (it is an excellent example).
I hope it is useful. I am a former advisor to CoE Commissioner for Human Rights and former Advisor to the East Timor Prime Minister.
All my best,
Fernando Mora (M.)
Democratic Governance Advisor
to UNDP Resident Representative and
United Nations Country Team Resident Coordinator
Mauritania
Thord Palmlund, UNDP New York wrote:
Dear Bipin,
The experience of HURIST in not fully up to date but maystill be relevant and I attach a study made a years ago presenting the experience of HURIST. HURIST was the joint UNDP/OHCHR programme to support the integration of human rights in the operations of UNDP. It supported the development of National Human Rights Action Plans in six countries, including two in West Africa, Cape Verde and Mauritania. The lesson learning document focuses on the plans in Lithuania, Moldova and Mongolia. As the study stresses, there is reason to consider seriously, before the start, whether the NHRAP offers the best approach to improve the human rights situation in a country.
Good luck in your endeavours!
Thord Palmlund
Formerly HURIST Coordinator in UNDP
Dear Bipin, after discussion with Emilie, the HR Network facilitator, we will be fine to post the query with some explanation. She has given her thoughts below. Perhaps you would be able to elaborate a bit more on the objectives of the NH Action plan (objectives, background info on the project). We thought to put an note at the end of the query so that people who have seen the query before will know that you are aware of the past query. Let us know what you think.
Best regards, Misaki Watanabe
March 21, 2007
Dear Bipin, please find attached the report on the experiences of Lithuania on HR Action Plans: http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docsjuly03/TomasBaranovas.pdf. I will also try contacting Tomas Baranovas to get a direct response from him. I know that it is not the right region but some lessons learned might also be useful for the Liberia context.
Best, and good weekend,
Emilie Filmer-Wilson
March 30, 2007
From: bounce-1078992-148874@groups.undp.org [mailto:bounce-1078992-148874@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.
Newzealand Commission Announces Human Rights Action Plan
Thursday, 31 March 2005, 8:36 amPress Release: Human Rights Commission
Commission Announces Human Rights Action PlanThursday, 31 March 2005, 8:36 amPress Release: Human Rights Commission Human Rights Action Plan: New Zealand could be world leader in human rights.
New Zealand could lead the world in human rights if it stops violence against children and continues to reduce poverty. This is the conclusion of the first-ever comprehensive action plan for improving human rights in New Zealand.
Mana ki Te Tangata/the New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights, released publicly on 31 March, proposes practical steps ranging from those aimed at reducing violence and abuse in the community to steps to improve harmonious relations among New Zealand’s diverse communities.
“New Zealanders can be proud of this country’s achievements in human rights,” says Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan.
“The action plan builds on the achievements of successive generations of New Zealanders committed to ensuring everyone gets a fair go. Overall New Zealand is doing well but there remain critical areas where action is needed to effect change, often by the whole community.”
“New Zealand is experiencing a sustained period of positive economic growth, which gives us an opportunity to turn our attention to some of the underlying issues that stop the full enjoyment of human rights by all New Zealanders,” Ms Noonan says.
“The action plan builds on the legislation, policies and programmes of successive governments, whose largely pragmatic and practical approach has delivered much.”
The action plan contains a total of 178 priorities for the Government, community groups, the private sector and the Commission to action over a five year period. The release of the action plan is the culmination of more than two years work in which over 5000 members of the public provided input into the plan’s development.
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan says the action plan aims to promote and protect human rights and in so-doing improve the lives of New Zealanders.
“The action plan sets out practical and achievable steps so that the human rights of all those who live in New Zealand are better recognised, protected and respected. Making this a reality depends on people not only affirming their own human rights, but accepting their responsibility to respect and defend the human rights of others.”
The action plan provides a solid basis for making progress in improving race relations in New Zealand. “Positive race relations depend on the enjoyment by all of their civil, political, economic and social rights,” Ms Noonan says.
The Action Plan proposes the following:
• actions to reduce violence, abuse and neglect experienced by children and young people;
• increased, direct and systematic participation of disabled people in policy development and decision-making;
• a focus on the elimination of poverty to ensure that, as a priority, every child and every disabled person in New Zealand has an adequate standard of living;
• actions to safeguard children, young people and adults in detention and institutional care;
• development of early childhood centres and schools as human rights communities;
• measures that enable every New Zealander to communicate in English and Maori and, where it is different, their mother tongue;
• ways of improving democratic participation, including that of children and young people, and widening access to justice;
• a focus on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements;
• steps to achieve harmonious relations among New Zealand's diverse communities;
• steps to strengthen both the recognition and the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights;
• commitment to ensuring that the legal framework fully protects human rights;
• procedures to ensure that legislation and policy are developed in accordance with human rights standards.
The action plan was developed by the Human Rights Commission in cooperation with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Under the Human Rights Act the Human Rights Commission has a statutory responsibility to develop an action plan for the better protection and promotion of human rights in New Zealand.
Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro says human rights abuses committed against children and young people are one of the greatest challenges facing New Zealand.
“This Action Plan clearly outlines how we can all prioritise children’s safety and well-being. New Zealand’s high rates of child abuse and neglect are evidence of the need for urgent and comprehensive action by families, communities and government,” Dr Kiro says.
The Human Rights Commission will work with agencies and organisations responsible for specific actions, and will report annually on progress in implementing the action plan.
For a copy of the New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights or Human Rights in New Zealand Today:
Commission Announces Human Rights Action PlanThursday, 31 March 2005, 8:36 amPress Release: Human Rights Commission Human Rights Action Plan: New Zealand could be world leader in human rights.
New Zealand could lead the world in human rights if it stops violence against children and continues to reduce poverty. This is the conclusion of the first-ever comprehensive action plan for improving human rights in New Zealand.
Mana ki Te Tangata/the New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights, released publicly on 31 March, proposes practical steps ranging from those aimed at reducing violence and abuse in the community to steps to improve harmonious relations among New Zealand’s diverse communities.
“New Zealanders can be proud of this country’s achievements in human rights,” says Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan.
“The action plan builds on the achievements of successive generations of New Zealanders committed to ensuring everyone gets a fair go. Overall New Zealand is doing well but there remain critical areas where action is needed to effect change, often by the whole community.”
“New Zealand is experiencing a sustained period of positive economic growth, which gives us an opportunity to turn our attention to some of the underlying issues that stop the full enjoyment of human rights by all New Zealanders,” Ms Noonan says.
“The action plan builds on the legislation, policies and programmes of successive governments, whose largely pragmatic and practical approach has delivered much.”
The action plan contains a total of 178 priorities for the Government, community groups, the private sector and the Commission to action over a five year period. The release of the action plan is the culmination of more than two years work in which over 5000 members of the public provided input into the plan’s development.
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan says the action plan aims to promote and protect human rights and in so-doing improve the lives of New Zealanders.
“The action plan sets out practical and achievable steps so that the human rights of all those who live in New Zealand are better recognised, protected and respected. Making this a reality depends on people not only affirming their own human rights, but accepting their responsibility to respect and defend the human rights of others.”
The action plan provides a solid basis for making progress in improving race relations in New Zealand. “Positive race relations depend on the enjoyment by all of their civil, political, economic and social rights,” Ms Noonan says.
The Action Plan proposes the following:
• actions to reduce violence, abuse and neglect experienced by children and young people;
• increased, direct and systematic participation of disabled people in policy development and decision-making;
• a focus on the elimination of poverty to ensure that, as a priority, every child and every disabled person in New Zealand has an adequate standard of living;
• actions to safeguard children, young people and adults in detention and institutional care;
• development of early childhood centres and schools as human rights communities;
• measures that enable every New Zealander to communicate in English and Maori and, where it is different, their mother tongue;
• ways of improving democratic participation, including that of children and young people, and widening access to justice;
• a focus on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements;
• steps to achieve harmonious relations among New Zealand's diverse communities;
• steps to strengthen both the recognition and the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights;
• commitment to ensuring that the legal framework fully protects human rights;
• procedures to ensure that legislation and policy are developed in accordance with human rights standards.
The action plan was developed by the Human Rights Commission in cooperation with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Under the Human Rights Act the Human Rights Commission has a statutory responsibility to develop an action plan for the better protection and promotion of human rights in New Zealand.
Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro says human rights abuses committed against children and young people are one of the greatest challenges facing New Zealand.
“This Action Plan clearly outlines how we can all prioritise children’s safety and well-being. New Zealand’s high rates of child abuse and neglect are evidence of the need for urgent and comprehensive action by families, communities and government,” Dr Kiro says.
The Human Rights Commission will work with agencies and organisations responsible for specific actions, and will report annually on progress in implementing the action plan.
For a copy of the New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights or Human Rights in New Zealand Today:
Try these resources as well
Please find herewith some useful references with respect to support provided by UNDP to National Human Rights Action Plans in general. Although not necessarily written with a view to supporting them in post-conflict contexts, I would still think that the core contents of the OHCHR Handbook remains valid. You might also want to know that the HURIST programme has just recruited a team of experts to carry out a review of HURIST support provided to National Action Plans over the years (for example Mongolia, Lithuania, Moldova, Nepal, Mauritania, Nepal, Cape Verde etc.).If you would like to get in touch with the team, please let me know.
http://www.undp.org/governance/docshurist/030903NHRAPFinal.doc
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/nhrap.pdf
http://www.undp.org/governance/docshurist/021213NHRAPmongoliadec02.doc
http://www.undp.org/governance/docshurist/030903NHRAPFinal.doc
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/nhrap.pdf
http://www.undp.org/governance/docshurist/021213NHRAPmongoliadec02.doc
Some more references, colleagues !!!
-Handbook on National Human Rights Plans of Action- Professional Training Series No. 10 www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/training.htm
Most relevant to your query is certainly this manual (but I am sure you've seen it). It contains a detailed description of the concept of a national action plan and earlier experiences of Human Rights Action Plans, amongst others the cases of Australia, Malawi, Latvia, South Africa are being discussed. A second part describes the different steps for developing a National Action Plan, (preparatory phase, role of national institutions and civil society, consultative mechanisms, development phase, content and structure of the plan). A third part then deals with implementation issues, such as Monitoring and Evaluation of a National Action Plan. Regarding the implementation, UNDP Liberia might also want to prepare itself in advance. For this purpose another manual is certainly useful as well:
-Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - Professional Training Series No. 7 www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/training.htm
It is a very extensive and detailed manual on all issues related to human rights monitoring. It covers all relevant International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Standards and describes the basic principles of monitoring. Different steps and aspects involved in information gathering, interviewing, visiting people and monitoring are extensively covered. Monitoring is discussed relating on the one hand to different issues such as trial observation, election observation, monitoring of demonstrations, monitoring in armed conflicts and, on the other, to specific categories of rights such as economic,social and cultural rights. For all these topics the Manual shows the applicable legal framework and provides practical information on how to proceed. One part of the Manual is dedicated to followu-up and to reporting.
Under the same addres one can find many more guides and handbooks on specific Human Rights topics, (such as police human rights training, pre-trial detention, human rights reporting etc.)
Other useful material in this context which you might want to have a look at are:
-Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - An introduction for Human Rights Field Officer
www.humanrights.uio.no/nordem/manualen.html
This gives a first overview of the United Nations Human rights system and the international human rights machinery. Contains general information on working in the field for the UN and other IGO's non-governmental organisation, as well as on monitoring. Separate chapters are dedicated to the specific issues of monitoring the administration of justice, trial and election observation.
-Individual Human Rights Complaints - A Handbook for OSCE Field Personnel www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/10/1839_en.pdf
Relevant for implementation purposes of national action plans as it is a solid presnetation of human rights from the formal and field OSCE perspectives. Simple explanations, with step-by-step indications for the practical collection of information to corroborate human rights complaints, including a chapter on how to conduct interview and how to investigate allegations.
Most relevant to your query is certainly this manual (but I am sure you've seen it). It contains a detailed description of the concept of a national action plan and earlier experiences of Human Rights Action Plans, amongst others the cases of Australia, Malawi, Latvia, South Africa are being discussed. A second part describes the different steps for developing a National Action Plan, (preparatory phase, role of national institutions and civil society, consultative mechanisms, development phase, content and structure of the plan). A third part then deals with implementation issues, such as Monitoring and Evaluation of a National Action Plan. Regarding the implementation, UNDP Liberia might also want to prepare itself in advance. For this purpose another manual is certainly useful as well:
-Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - Professional Training Series No. 7 www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/training.htm
It is a very extensive and detailed manual on all issues related to human rights monitoring. It covers all relevant International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Standards and describes the basic principles of monitoring. Different steps and aspects involved in information gathering, interviewing, visiting people and monitoring are extensively covered. Monitoring is discussed relating on the one hand to different issues such as trial observation, election observation, monitoring of demonstrations, monitoring in armed conflicts and, on the other, to specific categories of rights such as economic,social and cultural rights. For all these topics the Manual shows the applicable legal framework and provides practical information on how to proceed. One part of the Manual is dedicated to followu-up and to reporting.
Under the same addres one can find many more guides and handbooks on specific Human Rights topics, (such as police human rights training, pre-trial detention, human rights reporting etc.)
Other useful material in this context which you might want to have a look at are:
-Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - An introduction for Human Rights Field Officer
www.humanrights.uio.no/nordem/manualen.html
This gives a first overview of the United Nations Human rights system and the international human rights machinery. Contains general information on working in the field for the UN and other IGO's non-governmental organisation, as well as on monitoring. Separate chapters are dedicated to the specific issues of monitoring the administration of justice, trial and election observation.
-Individual Human Rights Complaints - A Handbook for OSCE Field Personnel www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/10/1839_en.pdf
Relevant for implementation purposes of national action plans as it is a solid presnetation of human rights from the formal and field OSCE perspectives. Simple explanations, with step-by-step indications for the practical collection of information to corroborate human rights complaints, including a chapter on how to conduct interview and how to investigate allegations.
Suggestions for Liberian colleagues
An extensive collection of National plans of action for the promotion and protection of human rights is available at the OHCHR website
http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/coop/plan_action.htm
and their review should certainly be valuable for you and your colleagues once you are still at an early stage.
A good assessment of the Human Rights situation is a pre-requisite for a good HP Plan of Action. For that you can have a look at the "NORAD Handbook in human rights assessment : state obligations awareness & empowerment"
http://www.norad.no/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=968
Human Rights Education is a fundamental component of a sustainable effort on this field. At UNHCHR you can find Guidelines for National Plans of Action for Human Rights Education http://www.unhchr.ch/education/main.htm Very useful and long list of materials in this area you can also find at United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/1/edudec.htm.
Among many other references I believe interesting for your country situations will be the meetings on OHCHR Human Rights Training Package for Prison Officials, the HC/CHR Human Rights Manual for Judges and Lawyers and the Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring for United Nations field operations. A full coverage of information on Human Rights Training resources can with not miss the consideration of the UNHCHR Training and educational material website
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/training.htm
Regarding Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situations, this should be useful:
Human Rights and Conflict. United Nations
http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/
Governance Foundations for Post-Conflict Situations: UNDP's Experience
http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/crisis/AcknowledgementsandExecSummary.doc.html
ODI. Human Rights and Poverty Reduction. Protecting rights in conflict situations and fragile states. March 2005
http://www.odi.org.uk/rights/Meeting%20Series/RightsConflict&FragileStates.pdf
HURIDOCS International Conference on Human Rights Information, Impunity
and Challenges of the Post-Conflict Healing Process: Gammarth (Tunisia), 22-25 March 1998
http://www.huridocs.org/tuniseng.htm
Symposium on Role of Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situation in Southern Europe
www.etc-graz.at/publikationen/ Symposion%20Role%20HR%20in%20SOE%20Juni%202002.pdf
Restoring Human Rights in the Peace building Phase. Conflict Research Consortium. University of Colorado, USA
http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/human_rights_protect.jsp?nid=2333
Conference The United Nations and the Protection of Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situations. Human Rights Law Centre The University of Nottingham (UK) 12-13 September 2002
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/PCconference.htm
European Platform for Policing and HR http://www.epphr.dk/; relevant references should be these:
· "Police and NGO's" cooperation between Police and Non Governmental Organisations http://www.epphr.dk/download/platform/police%20and%20NGO's%20.pdf
· The Guide "Is your Police Force a Human Rights Champion?"
http://www.epphr.dk/download/hreng.pdf
- allows police officers to assess the extent to which police practices adhere to and promote the standards and broader democratic values underlying the European Convention on Human Rights.
Parliamentary KIT on the International Criminal Court. PGA
http://www.pgaction.org/prog_inte.asp
IDEA. "Reconciliation in Times of Transition: The Role of Parliaments and Inter-Parliamentary Bodies"
http://www.idea.int/conflict/sr/upload/Reconciliation-in-Times-of-Transition.pdf
Human rights in the administration of justice. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/56/583/Add.2)] 56/161.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/7a49b79a7e0f423bc1256b82005d4aae?Opendocument
In post-conflicts situations and certainly in the case of Liberia a common case may be related to violations of HRs of women and vulnerable groups of population (children, disable people, etc). Some few references on this subject could help the consideration of these issues in the preparation of your national plan of action:
· Women's Empowerment in the Context of Human Security
(7-8 December, 1999, ESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand)
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ianwge/collaboration/finalcomm1999.htm
The Gender Dimensions of Post-Conflict (Draft)
http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2004-1/conference%202004-1-papers/Zuckerman-Greenberg-0206.pdf
· The Children and Armed Conflict Unit is a joint project of the Children's Legal Centre and the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, UK
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/
http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Homepage.asp?NodeID=89614
· Children’s Rights
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/human-rights/chissue-en.asp
Rethink: A Handbook for Sustainable Peace
(This handbook is intended as a tool for people working in areas affected by war and armed conflict and in peace and rebuilding processes. The handbook draws on numerous examples of women's efforts in peace-building and reconstruction to illustrate the problems which can arise from failure to mainstream gender issues into programmes, and the benefits which can be gained by recognising and involving women)
http://www.iktk.se/publikationer/rapporter/pdf/Rethink.pdf
· Draft Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Human Being especially in Women and Children. African Union
www.africa-union.org/.../AU-EU%20MEETING/ 10%20Trafficking%20in%20Women%20%
20Children%20-%20Africa-Europe.doc –
· OSCE National Referral Mechanisms - Joining Efforts to Protect the Rights of Trafficked Persons: A Practical Handbook
http://www.osce.org/item/13591.html?ch=131
WHO Reproductive health during conflict and displacement –
http://www.who.int/reproductive-
health/publications/RHR_00_13_RH_conflict_and_displacement/PDF_RHR_00_13/RH_conflict_table_of_contents_pdf.en.html
· WHO - Mental health, human rights and legislation
http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/legislation/policy/en/
· Mental Disability Rights International
http://www.mdri.org/
Equal Employment Opportunities for Women and Men - ILO
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/gems/eeo/index.htm
· WorldEnable - equalizing opportunities for, by, and with persons with disabilities http://www.worldenable.net/
7th International Conference on Health and Human Rights "Resilience, Recovery and Reconciliation Promoting Human Rights, Integrity and Social Responsibility" International Society for Health and Human Rights - network consisting of European treatment and rehabilitation centres for victims of torture and human rights violations.
http://www.ishhr.org/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/coop/plan_action.htm
and their review should certainly be valuable for you and your colleagues once you are still at an early stage.
A good assessment of the Human Rights situation is a pre-requisite for a good HP Plan of Action. For that you can have a look at the "NORAD Handbook in human rights assessment : state obligations awareness & empowerment"
http://www.norad.no/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=968
Human Rights Education is a fundamental component of a sustainable effort on this field. At UNHCHR you can find Guidelines for National Plans of Action for Human Rights Education http://www.unhchr.ch/education/main.htm Very useful and long list of materials in this area you can also find at United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/1/edudec.htm.
Among many other references I believe interesting for your country situations will be the meetings on OHCHR Human Rights Training Package for Prison Officials, the HC/CHR Human Rights Manual for Judges and Lawyers and the Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring for United Nations field operations. A full coverage of information on Human Rights Training resources can with not miss the consideration of the UNHCHR Training and educational material website
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/training.htm
Regarding Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situations, this should be useful:
Human Rights and Conflict. United Nations
http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/
Governance Foundations for Post-Conflict Situations: UNDP's Experience
http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/crisis/AcknowledgementsandExecSummary.doc.html
ODI. Human Rights and Poverty Reduction. Protecting rights in conflict situations and fragile states. March 2005
http://www.odi.org.uk/rights/Meeting%20Series/RightsConflict&FragileStates.pdf
HURIDOCS International Conference on Human Rights Information, Impunity
and Challenges of the Post-Conflict Healing Process: Gammarth (Tunisia), 22-25 March 1998
http://www.huridocs.org/tuniseng.htm
Symposium on Role of Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situation in Southern Europe
www.etc-graz.at/publikationen/ Symposion%20Role%20HR%20in%20SOE%20Juni%202002.pdf
Restoring Human Rights in the Peace building Phase. Conflict Research Consortium. University of Colorado, USA
http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/human_rights_protect.jsp?nid=2333
Conference The United Nations and the Protection of Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situations. Human Rights Law Centre The University of Nottingham (UK) 12-13 September 2002
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/PCconference.htm
European Platform for Policing and HR http://www.epphr.dk/; relevant references should be these:
· "Police and NGO's" cooperation between Police and Non Governmental Organisations http://www.epphr.dk/download/platform/police%20and%20NGO's%20.pdf
· The Guide "Is your Police Force a Human Rights Champion?"
http://www.epphr.dk/download/hreng.pdf
- allows police officers to assess the extent to which police practices adhere to and promote the standards and broader democratic values underlying the European Convention on Human Rights.
Parliamentary KIT on the International Criminal Court. PGA
http://www.pgaction.org/prog_inte.asp
IDEA. "Reconciliation in Times of Transition: The Role of Parliaments and Inter-Parliamentary Bodies"
http://www.idea.int/conflict/sr/upload/Reconciliation-in-Times-of-Transition.pdf
Human rights in the administration of justice. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/56/583/Add.2)] 56/161.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/7a49b79a7e0f423bc1256b82005d4aae?Opendocument
In post-conflicts situations and certainly in the case of Liberia a common case may be related to violations of HRs of women and vulnerable groups of population (children, disable people, etc). Some few references on this subject could help the consideration of these issues in the preparation of your national plan of action:
· Women's Empowerment in the Context of Human Security
(7-8 December, 1999, ESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand)
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ianwge/collaboration/finalcomm1999.htm
The Gender Dimensions of Post-Conflict (Draft)
http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2004-1/conference%202004-1-papers/Zuckerman-Greenberg-0206.pdf
· The Children and Armed Conflict Unit is a joint project of the Children's Legal Centre and the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, UK
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/
http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Homepage.asp?NodeID=89614
· Children’s Rights
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/human-rights/chissue-en.asp
Rethink: A Handbook for Sustainable Peace
(This handbook is intended as a tool for people working in areas affected by war and armed conflict and in peace and rebuilding processes. The handbook draws on numerous examples of women's efforts in peace-building and reconstruction to illustrate the problems which can arise from failure to mainstream gender issues into programmes, and the benefits which can be gained by recognising and involving women)
http://www.iktk.se/publikationer/rapporter/pdf/Rethink.pdf
· Draft Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Human Being especially in Women and Children. African Union
www.africa-union.org/.../AU-EU%20MEETING/ 10%20Trafficking%20in%20Women%20%
20Children%20-%20Africa-Europe.doc –
· OSCE National Referral Mechanisms - Joining Efforts to Protect the Rights of Trafficked Persons: A Practical Handbook
http://www.osce.org/item/13591.html?ch=131
WHO Reproductive health during conflict and displacement –
http://www.who.int/reproductive-
health/publications/RHR_00_13_RH_conflict_and_displacement/PDF_RHR_00_13/RH_conflict_table_of_contents_pdf.en.html
· WHO - Mental health, human rights and legislation
http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/legislation/policy/en/
· Mental Disability Rights International
http://www.mdri.org/
Equal Employment Opportunities for Women and Men - ILO
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/gems/eeo/index.htm
· WorldEnable - equalizing opportunities for, by, and with persons with disabilities http://www.worldenable.net/
7th International Conference on Health and Human Rights "Resilience, Recovery and Reconciliation Promoting Human Rights, Integrity and Social Responsibility" International Society for Health and Human Rights - network consisting of European treatment and rehabilitation centres for victims of torture and human rights violations.
http://www.ishhr.org/
HURIST lessons learned document on the development of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAP)
HURIST, (the joint OHCHR-UNDP Programme on human rights strengthening) has produced a lessons learned document on the development of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAP). Please see attached.
The Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 recommended "that each State consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights”. The Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights encouraged countries to heed the recommendation from the Conference. In its first phase, 1999 – 2002, HURIST made it one of its objectives to support the development of NHRAPs, presenting this approach as its preferred way to help governments build their national systems for the protection of human rights.
HURIST was invited to explore the feasibility of plans in nine countries. Support for the development of plans was extended in the case of six. Of these, Lithuania, Moldova and Mongolia have had plans approved by parliaments, Cape Verde and Mauritania by governments, while in the case of Nepal, the finalization of the Plan was prevented by the civil war situation.
The document that HURIST has produced presents briefly the cases of Lithuania, Mongolia and Mauritania and draws lessons, mainly based on the experience in these three countries.
What have we learnt?
Caution: Countries should not lightly rush into development of plans but instead consider carefully whether a NHRAP is the best way to improve the human rights situation in a country. This caution is justified on many grounds: To be meaningful, the development of Plans takes a lot of time – normally two to three years - and considerable human and financial resources. To succeed, a Plan needs strong and broad political backing and committed leadership, it requires the involvement of the central, regional and local administrations, the active involvement of civil society etc. And the Plan that results from this effort may be difficult to implement because of scarcity of resources and competition with other plans. Under all circumstances, the implementation of the Plan has to be selective, leaving most of the implementation to be undertaken within the regular government development programme, hopefully influenced by the recommendations of the NHRAP.
Alternatives: Alternatives are more limited initiatives- this sentence does not make sense? to improve the human rights situation, like broad programmes for human rights education, the improvement of the justice system or the establishment of a Commission for Human Rights. An alternative for general policy influence may be to try and bring human rights into ongoing policy processes like the PRSP or to make work on the MDGs clearly based on the values and principles of human rights.
Value on NHRAP: Even if the NHRAP would not be the optimal way to improve the human rights situation in a country, the experience of the initiatives supported by HURIST shows that the approach can bring much to recommend it. The experience of the pilot countries is evidence that the preparatory process may have a value of its own. The preparation of a plan can create a forum for dialogue, making people reflect and discuss human rights. It may make human rights visible in a setting where this traditionally has not been the case. An approved plan sends a political signal of the importance of human rights. It can facilitate a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to human rights improvements in contrast to a piecemeal approach consisting of a number of disconnected interventions. It can strengthen the case for action in whatever political and administrative framework that a country finds best suited to its situation. And an implemented Plan, as in Lithuania, seems to be able to bring a genuine improvement in a country’s human rights situation.
The Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 recommended "that each State consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights”. The Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights encouraged countries to heed the recommendation from the Conference. In its first phase, 1999 – 2002, HURIST made it one of its objectives to support the development of NHRAPs, presenting this approach as its preferred way to help governments build their national systems for the protection of human rights.
HURIST was invited to explore the feasibility of plans in nine countries. Support for the development of plans was extended in the case of six. Of these, Lithuania, Moldova and Mongolia have had plans approved by parliaments, Cape Verde and Mauritania by governments, while in the case of Nepal, the finalization of the Plan was prevented by the civil war situation.
The document that HURIST has produced presents briefly the cases of Lithuania, Mongolia and Mauritania and draws lessons, mainly based on the experience in these three countries.
What have we learnt?
Caution: Countries should not lightly rush into development of plans but instead consider carefully whether a NHRAP is the best way to improve the human rights situation in a country. This caution is justified on many grounds: To be meaningful, the development of Plans takes a lot of time – normally two to three years - and considerable human and financial resources. To succeed, a Plan needs strong and broad political backing and committed leadership, it requires the involvement of the central, regional and local administrations, the active involvement of civil society etc. And the Plan that results from this effort may be difficult to implement because of scarcity of resources and competition with other plans. Under all circumstances, the implementation of the Plan has to be selective, leaving most of the implementation to be undertaken within the regular government development programme, hopefully influenced by the recommendations of the NHRAP.
Alternatives: Alternatives are more limited initiatives- this sentence does not make sense? to improve the human rights situation, like broad programmes for human rights education, the improvement of the justice system or the establishment of a Commission for Human Rights. An alternative for general policy influence may be to try and bring human rights into ongoing policy processes like the PRSP or to make work on the MDGs clearly based on the values and principles of human rights.
Value on NHRAP: Even if the NHRAP would not be the optimal way to improve the human rights situation in a country, the experience of the initiatives supported by HURIST shows that the approach can bring much to recommend it. The experience of the pilot countries is evidence that the preparatory process may have a value of its own. The preparation of a plan can create a forum for dialogue, making people reflect and discuss human rights. It may make human rights visible in a setting where this traditionally has not been the case. An approved plan sends a political signal of the importance of human rights. It can facilitate a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to human rights improvements in contrast to a piecemeal approach consisting of a number of disconnected interventions. It can strengthen the case for action in whatever political and administrative framework that a country finds best suited to its situation. And an implemented Plan, as in Lithuania, seems to be able to bring a genuine improvement in a country’s human rights situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)