Investigations: Hallmarks of a Troubled System
Checklist: Investigations: Earmarks of a troubled system:
√ An NHRI that is in a country with significant human rights problems is receiving few cases related to core protection issues, despite its broad mandate. This may be due to low public confidence in the NHRI’s capacity to assist victims and their families.
√ Cases are subject to endless investigations, in the two-year-plus range. This may indicate that investigation are not qualified and require re-training, that case management and statistical reporting are weak and/or that work tools or processes are faulty (with the result that there is no internal tracking system to monitor trouble spots).
√ Cases involving vulnerable peoples are not flagged and streamed properly e.g. gender cases, or cases involving other groups.
√ An “aged” Old or non-current caseload, where most cases are more than one year old or a large backlog exists (exceeding half of the annual average incoming cases), containing many unresolved cases.
√ A caseload where the vast majority of cases are resolved by referring them to other bodies, when the cases appear to be in jurisdiction, suggesting limited capacity to do full investigations. This may indicate flaws in the intake system, poor investigation capacity due to inadequate recruitment and training, or lack of will at the senior levels to move difficult cases through.
√ A caseload showing that the majority of cases addressed and investigated were closed for reasons of jurisdiction which should have been addressed at the intake stage. This may indicate that intake staff need training and/or that work tools or processes are faulty.
√ NGOs have stopped bringing complaints to the NHRI, or report that there is little follow-up on complaints that have been filed. This may indicate that management tools and processes are faulty and/or that the institution lacks resolve to move forward.
√ An inability to produce consistently reliable statistics on performance. This may indicate that knowledge management capacities and/or tools are weak. An effective system, on the other hand, is one that:
√ Handles complaints promptly and effectively by:
√ Identifying out-of-jurisdiction complaints and potential referrals out to other organisations at the intake stage.
√ Using information and tips from NGOs, advocates, and other organisations in the field to pursue investigations.
√ Using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the early stages of the complaint process (statistics show that voluntary mediation can resolve 30% - 50% of complaints submitted, if properly structured).
√ Tracks the performance of investigators in terms of the numbers of complaints they handle and close per year, depending on whether cases are systemic or complex in nature. This information feeds into both individual performance measures and institutional targets. (The target may be higher in Ombuds-style NHRIs that rely on quick, early resolution processes to resolve cases without many legal formalities).
√ Communicates regularly with parties about the status of the complaint and recording this activity.
√ Demonstrates that the NHRI has made recommendations following investigations on important human rights issues (as set out in the strategic plan) and has made efforts to ensure that these recommendations were adopted.
√ Uses case management committees, or an equivalent structure, that meets regularly and provides timely process decisions.
√ Has decision-making structures, whereby senior office-holders meet regularly to review and decide on investigation reports, and document those decisions.
√ Sets service standards for timelines for each part of the investigation process and communicating these to the public.
√ Is used to inform and improve programming and performance in investigation and in other programme areas.