“The promotion and protection of human rights is a bedrock requirement for the realization of the Charter’s vision of a just and peaceful world.”
Introduction
2008 marked the 15th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Two significant outcomes of that Programme were the emergence of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) as key national actors in ensuring respect for human rights, and the acknowledgement of the Paris Principles as the international standard for effective and independent NHRIs.
A “national human rights institution” (NHRI) is an institution with a constitutional and/or legislative mandate to protect and promote human rights. When in compliance with the Paris Principles, NHRIs are cornerstones of national human rights promotion and protection systems. NHRIs also serve as relay mechanisms between international human rights norms and the national level.
NHRIs are not only central elements of a strong national system to promote and protect human rights: they could also be an effective bridge between rights holders and duty bearers (the State). They link the responsibilities of the State to the rights of citizens. They could connect national actors to regional and international human rights systems. And at the same time, NHRIs must afford a degree of protection to victims of human rights violations and often have the power to follow up on individual complaints, usually with national authorities. This may result in a degree of tension with national authorities. This is considered normal in the sense that it is the result of an effective and pro-active stance of the independent institution.
NHRIs are new and unusual institutions – they are part of the State but are not part of the executive, legislative or judicial branches. They are arm’s length from national authorities and are funded primarily by the State. Indeed, the importance of sustainable funding for NHRIs and their activities has been highlighted by the UN Secretary-General, who has underscored the importance of “budgetary resources [being] provided to continue and further extend these activities and invites Governments to contribute additional voluntary funds to that end.”2 Their members are not elected by the people, although the institutions are accountable to the Parliaments. In many countries, the public, United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs), public opinion, the media and even the NHRI staff themselves may find it difficult or challenging to define and explain the status of these institutions.3
Questions facing UNCT’s in supporting NHRIs
- What are good and proven strategies for supporting NHRIs in-country?
- How can the UNCT assess the capacity of an NHRI, notably as regards its core protection mandate and complaints handling process?
- How can NHRIs use human rights-based approaches to support development and democratic governance?
- What are the basic guidance and process steps that UNCTs need to know as they work with NHRIs?
- How can NHRI’s be supported in providing policy advice and assistance to governments, including ratification of instruments, removing reservations, etc?
- What are the entry points and supports for UNCTs?
UNCTs, whose primary working partner is the State itself, need to understand these institutions and should support their work when needed. UNCTs are frequently called on to support and strengthen NHRIs, on the one hand, while carrying out broader governance and justice programmes in partnership with national authorities, on the other.
Supporting this delicate balance, while ensuring that the central and core elements of NHRIs’ functions – promotion and protection of human rights - are achieved effectively, is an overarching theme of this Toolkit. Providing UNCT staff with the tools to do this work is its central goal. As well, other members of the UN system will have an interest in furthering their understanding of how to work with NHRIs. Indeed, UN inter-agency cooperation is integrated into the Toolkit, in order to reflect ongoing UN reform efforts to assist countries to strengthen national protection systems and thus advance human rights at the country level.
UN inter-agency cooperation
The Secretary-General’s 2002 report on UN reform, the UN High Level Panel on System-Wide Coherence, and the 2005 World Summit have expressed a desire to foster greater UN inter-agency cooperation in advancing human rights.4 This has become a topic of inter-agency concern.
There is a need to foster UN inter-agency cooperation in supporting and collaborating with NHRIs. While both UNDP and OHCHR are the lead agencies in supporting NHRIs, it is also important for other UN agencies, to strengthen engagement with NHRIs in achieving common goals. In relevant instances, the Toolkit highlights those areas where their participation brings a clear comparative advantage in terms of expertise. For instance, an NHRI could collaborate with UNODC on maladministration and anti-corruption issues, UNIFEM on women’s rights, UNICEF on child rights, and the UNHCR on the protection of refugees and displaced persons. NHRIs can benefit from the presence of standard-setting organisations in particular, such as ILO, UNESCO, and the WHO, to reinforce linkages between their human rights-related conventions and the NHRIs’ operational activities.
The diversity of mandates of the UN system should be promoted as a source of strength for the benefit of NHRIs and as a way to bringing together the entire range of analytical, normative and technical expertise of the UN family. This Toolkit looks at a range of strategies to achieve this goal.
These types of collaborations can increase the impact and coherence of outcomes and provide richer and more holistic UNCT assessments and responses to the country’s needs. Considering human rights promotion and protection within the relevant social and cultural context can result in better understanding of complex situations, while increasing the likelihood of popular acceptance of the NHRI’s work.
Rationale
There is a good deal of documentation on “what” should be done during the establishment and consolidation phases of NHRIs, especially from a theoretical perspective. Several documents look at “how” NHRIs should function, and “what” should be considered by the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions when it accredits NHRIs.5
There is, however, no practical tool at present that guides United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs) on “how” to support NHRIs in the context of the UN country planning process, including the timing and development of technical assistance projects to develop or assess capacity, how to identify challenges and opportunities for NHRIs, or how to discern issues that lie beneath the surface and threaten and/or undermine the effective and efficient functioning of NHRIs.
It has been noted that there is a need to strengthen capacity for human rights programming at the level of the UNCT, and to boost facilitation skills, while strategies for generating debate are also especially needed. In some UNCTs, resources are often lacking at all levels. Further, there is a limit to the quality of expertise available to both UNCTs and to programme countries from the UN system, which vary considerably. These factors constrain the effectiveness of the UN system’s response at the country level.6
Within the UN system, UNDP and OHCHR have been increasingly involved in supporting the establishment and/or strengthening of NHRIs. For both organizations, engagement with NHRIs has become a priority area.7 However, this has brought with it many substantive and operational challenges. There are constraints on the UN system’s capacity to mobilize the skills required to support national development strategies and achieve development goals. Consequently, intensive, harmonised and integrated efforts are still needed. There may be difficulties in contextualising a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) at the country level: How does one reconcile universality of human rights to history, politics and the socio-economic context of the country? There remains a need to share experiences and knowledge about HRBA and developing implementation strategies tailored to particular national contexts. UNCT members stress the need for a clear framework and call for sharp, focused examples, lessons learned, handbooks, fact-sheets, modules, “tip sheets” and other tools.8
In 2004, an UNDP Issues Paper, “Supporting National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights – a Strategic Niche for UNDP?”, was commissioned through the Danish Institute for Human Rights. The Issues Paper assessed the support provided by UNDP Country Offices in the establishment and strengthening phases, and identified potential ideas for UNDP support at the international, regional and national levels, as well as the type of capacity development needed. It raised a number of key challenges and opportunities, including general capacity issues, professional leadership and management, analysis and research capacity, follow up on legislative reviews, the role of NHRIs in conflict areas, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of NHRI performance, and fund raising strategies.
The Toolkit targets these issues, as well as other challenges and opportunities, and identifies good practices and support strategies for projects aimed at supporting organisational development and capacity assessment generally, with a focus on the two substantive areas of NHRI work:
- Protection mandate: investigations, effective complaints handling strategies, alternative dispute resolution and conflict resolution (at both the individual and community levels), public inquiries and monitoring.
- Promotion mandate: good practices in public education, media relations, advice and assistance to government, reports, policy development, and programs of cooperation that can “leverage” resources and achieve broader impact.
3 Adapted from Carver and Korotaev, “Assessing The Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions” 2007. Study Commissioned by the UNDP Regional Centre in Bratislava.
4 See Secretary-General, Strengthening the United Nations: An Agenda for Further Change, UN GAOR, 57th Sess., UN Doc. A/57/387 (2002); 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res. 60/1, UN GAOR, 60th Sess., UN Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005).
5 See OHCHR, “Guidance Note: National Human Rights Institutions and the Work of OHCHR at Headquarters and Field Level.” December 2007) (National Institutions Unit); “Information Note: The Role of The UNCT in Establishing or Strengthening a National Human Rights Institution.” April 2007
6 C. Castañeda. “Relevant Findings on UNCTS, Human Rights & Capacity Development.” October 2008. The author notes that findings are based on extracts of the following documents: “Report of the Second Interagency Workshop on Implementing a HRBA in the Context of the UN Reform”, Stamford, USA, 5-7 May 2003; “Mainstreaming Human Rights. The Human Rights-Based Approach and the United Nations System, Desk Study Prepared for UNESCO”, André Frankovits, Human Rights Council of Australia, 2005; “Synthesis Report of the Global Review OHCHR Technical Cooperation Programme”; “Results-Based Management and the UNDAF Results Matrix”, UNSSC; Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2007, UN, “Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Assistance Framework. Guidelines for UN country Teams on Preparing a CCA and UNDAF”, February 2007; UNDG; “Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities of the United Nations Development System: Conclusions and Recommendations”, 62 Session of the General Assembly, 2007; and “Synthesis Report: Finding and Recommendations from a Seven Country Study of UN Engagement in Poverty Reduction and National Development Strategies”, prepared for the UNDG by Martin Greeley, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, March 2008.
7 See for example the UNDP "Strategic Plan 2008-2011 and OHCHR Strategic Management Plan 2008-2009.
8 Ibid.