4.9 Strengthening the Core Protection Mandate of NHRIs
If a NHRI cannot or will not investigate major cases involving core protection, experience shows that the NHRI is generally perceived to have failed in its work. When such an NHRI is established through UN assistance and support, experience shows that the UN may be perceived - rightly or wrongly - as sharing in that failure.
Despite the critically important nature of core protection issues, in-country experience shows that coverage of human rights issues in these areas is uneven. Some NHRIs are not addressing these issues to the extent that they could, as shown in the following scenario, drawn from facts from three countries.
You have been asked to handle the governance files in a developing country, and one of the files includes the NHRI capacity building project. The NHRI in the country has been in operation for almost seven years, and has a broad mandate to protect human rights, including civil and political rights.
The country has a history of serious and well documented problems regarding human rights violations in the area of rule of law generally and on the issues of torture and arbitrary detention more specifically. There are regular complaints about the lack of follow up on complaints of forced disappearances, which are especially severe in a part of the country occupied by a national minority.
When you review the file and request statistics, you discover that the majority of cases at the NHRI are not complaints about these “core” issues at all! Rather, about 80% are from public sector employees about discrimination related to their salaries, promotions or dismissals.
There is a possibility that the accreditation of the NHRI will be downgraded, following complaints from NGOs about failure to follow up on complaints of forced disappearances and torture.
You are asked for concrete suggestions to help the NHRI get back on track and enhance the confidence of the citizens in its capacity to address core protection cases.
Part of this challenge is to ensure that NHRIs pay particular attention to (1) keeping the caseload of core protection-related complaints current, (2) giving these cases priority and (3) communicating service standards effectively to the public – and then meeting those standards.
Strategies for addressing these types of problems, and areas where NHRIs can provide support, can be seen in:
Annex 1: Table of Core Protection Issues and Potential Activities for NHRI Involvement.
This Tool reviews core protection issues in detail, and provides concrete suggestions as to what UNCTs might do to provide support to NHRIs in each area. This is directly related to capacity building in these areas and provides concrete suggestions for UNCT interventions in areas of priority for NHRIs, if requested to provide support.
However, the NHRI cannot address all of these issues, or even most of them, alone. A key strategy for attaining these goals is to work with many actors. An example is provided from the Philippines:
CASE STUDY: THE UNDP, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - PHILIPPINES (CHR)
The UNDP supports projects promoting respect for the Rule of Law: the capacity development of Pillars of the Justice System as part of the Human Rights Infrastructure, especially for Courts and the Police transformation programme.
The UNDP supports projects to prevent torture: the national campaign for the ratification of CAT through a multi-stakeholder approach.
UNDP supported a multi-stakeholder summit on extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances where key actions were de"ned and support to CHR increased.
The UNCT established a Joint Programme on CEDAW with the National Commission on Women and the CHR. The UNDP provided support to enhance investigative capacities and harmonize investigation procedures among key government institutions including the CHR.
UNICEF supports the development of a database or monitoring child rights violations.
Source: UNDP, UNCT Support to NHRI: The Core Protection Mandate: A Case Study on the Philippines.