Draft Report of the 19th Session of the International Co‑ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC)
United Nations Office in Geneva
Room XVII
21-23 March 2007
CONTENTS
I. Organization of the session
II. Consideration of the Secretary-General’s reports submitted to the 4th session of the Human Rights Council
III. Reports of, and plans for, regional meetings
IV. Engagement of NIs with the Human Rights Council
V. Consideration and adoption of the report of the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation
VI. Role of NIs in the United Nations treaty bodies – Presentation of the Conclusions of the Berlin Workshop
VII. Follow-up to the 8th International Conference of NIs and the Santa Cruz Declaration
VIII. Presentation of activities undertaken and the next steps for NIs with regard to the implementation of the Disability Convention
IX. Plans for the 9th International Conference of NIs, including agreement on host NI and country
X. Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ICC
XI. AOB
XII. Closing business section
* * * * *
ANNEX I Agenda as adopted by the ICC (E, F, S)
ANNEX II Opening statement by Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
ANNEX III Opening statement by Mr. Morten Kjaerum, Chairperson of the ICC
ANNEX IV Opening statement by Ms. Maria Francisca Ize-Charrin, Director, Operations, Programmes and Research Division
ANNEX V Opening statement by Mr. Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator, National Institutions Unit, Capacity Building and Field Operations Branch
ANNEX VI List of ICC participants
I. ORGANISATION OF THE SESSION
1. The International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) held its 19th session at the United Nations Office in Geneva from 21 to 23 March 2007. Prior to adoption of the agenda (see Annex I), Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mr. Morten Kjaerum, Chairperson of the ICC, addressed the meeting (see Annex II and III).
2. Interventions were taken from the floor after the statement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A representative from the Philippines CHR asked the HC about her perception of the role of NIs in the new system for human rights, and the Human Rights Council specifically. A representative from the Malawi HRC stated that UNDP offices in their country were supporting NIs and said there was need for more cooperation with the United Nations Country Team and strengthened collaboration with OHCHR.
The HC replied that treaty bodies and special procedures are both interested in working with NIs, especially in the follow up of concluding observations or recommendations emanating from the same. She also said that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council will provide an impetus for Governments to engage and involve NIs. She also expressed the hope that the UPR mechanism will trigger a wave of treaty ratifications and reporting. Regarding the concept of country engagement, the HC stated that the idea of country engagement is to penetrate and implement human rights norms. OHCHR has used several ways to obtain this result, including; (1) an increase in partnership with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations; (2) the opening of OHCHR sub regional offices (this has not finished yet) in order to be responsive to needs in regions; and (3) the placement of human rights advisers in United Nations Country Teams (One UN concept).
3. The agenda was adopted by consensus (see Annex IV).
4. The 19th session was attended by representatives of National Human Rights Institutions (NIs) from Africa, the Americas, the Asia‑Pacific and the European regions. Also present were members of the OHCHR NI Unit as well as ICC Observers (see Annex VI for a complete list of participants).
5. The report of the 18th session of the ICC was adopted by consensus, after which senior OHCHR staff made statements; Ms. Maria Francisca Ize-Charrin (Director, Operations, Programmes and Research Division) and Mr. Gianni Magazzeni (Coordinator, National Institutions Unit, Capacity Building and Field Operations Branch) (see Annex IV and V).
II. CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH SESSION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
a. Secretary-General’s annual report on National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) (A/HRC/4/91)
No comments were expressed from the floor regarding report A/HRC/4/91.
b. Secretary-General’s report on process currently utilized by the ICC to accredit NIs in compliance with the Paris Principles and ensure that the process is strengthened with appropriate periodic review and on ways and means of enhancing participation of NIs in the work of the Council (A/HRC/4/92)
No comments were expressed from the floor regarding report A/HRC/4/92.
III. REPORTS OF, AND PLANS FOR, REGIONAL MEETINGS
a. Coordinating Committee of African NIs
The Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of African NIs, Ms. Kehinide Ajoni (Acting Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria) gave an overview of the activities in 2006. She informed the participants of the on-going efforts regarding the Permanent Secretariat based in Kenya. Posts had been advertised, including through international media, while the Statute of the Network was finalized. She expressed gratitude towards OHCHR for the financial support provided for the establishment of the Secretariat in Kenya. She also announced that the 6th Conference of African NIs will be held in October 2007 in Kigali, Rwanda, and stated that the African region has offered to host the next ICC International Conference scheduled for 2008.
b. Network of the Americas
The Executive Secretary of the Network of the Americas, Ambassador Javier Moctezuma Barragan (Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico) gave an overview of the activities in 2006. He mentioned implementation of the second phase of the Plan of Action for NIs on the right to education in the region. This was done through the organization of a seminar in Ecuador (24-26 May 2006) by the Network, OHCHR and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, aimed at adopting concrete actions and strategies to promote and protect the right to education. The third phase was the signing of the Plan of Action by the heads of NIs in the region at a ceremony held in Mexico City on 19 June 2006.
He further mentioned the participation in the 1st session of the Human Rights Council, as well as the 8th International Conference held in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the subject of which was migration. One of the outcomes of that event was the Santa Cruz Declaration. He finally referred to the 5th General Assembly of the Network of NIs of the Americas (Buenos Aires, 28 November 2006), where the work-plan of the Network for 2007-2008 was presented. The plan contains five priority themes; right to education, rights of persons with disabilities, right to a healthy environment, rights of indigenous peoples and prevention of torture, which are to be supported by activities at the regional level.
c. Asia and the Pacific
On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, the Hon. John von Doussa (President of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) mentioned that the 12th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum will be held in Sydney, Australia from 24 to 27 September 2007. On behalf of the Asia-Pacific Forum he extended his thanks to Mr. Orest Nowosad, former head of the National Institutions Unit, and Mr. Morten Kjaerum, mentioning that under their guidance the ICC developed enormously.
d. European Group of NIs
The Regional Coordinator of the European Group of NIs, Dr. Maurice Manning (President of the Irish Human Rights Commission) mentioned that in 2006, the Irish HRC took over the Presidency of the European Group of NIs from the French National Consultative Commission of Human Rights. He thanked the French Commission for their good work in running the European Group and for having put in place clear structures. The European Coordinating Committee of the European Group of NIs now consists of the NIs of Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Greece and has as one if its priorities the follow-up to the Disability Convention. He mentioned the upcoming Conference on the Disability Convention from 10-11 June 2007, ahead of which the European Group will meet as well.
Within the framework of the Council of Europe, the European NIs are also starting to cooperate regarding the follow-up to cases of the European Court of Human Rights. Dr. Manning also mentioned EU legislation as one of the major regional issues, in that there is no means in place for pre-legislation scrutiny from a human rights perspective. This is especially important given the recent anti-terrorism context.
He also referred to the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency, which will come into being shortly. NIs will have an important role to play regarding monitoring issues. This process is kept under review by the European Group of NIs.
Dr. Manning finally thanked Mr. Orest Nowosad for his work and also mentioned that at the European Group meeting on 20 March 2007, he was pleased to thank the outgoing ICC chairperson, Mr. Morten Kjaerum, for his work.
e. Interventions from floor
After the regional presentations, the ICC Chair solicited comments from the floor.
The representative of the Moroccan CCDH referred to the past practice of inviting representatives of other regions to conferences. The representative of the Mexican CNDH promptly replied that the American region will hold its meeting in Mexico City, Mexico in October 2007 and invited the Moroccan representative to this meeting. Mr. Morten Kjaerum, as the Director of the Danish Human Rights Institute, acknowledged the benefits of regional exchanges and referred to one such initiative; i.e. the Arab European Human Rights Dialogue.
The ICC Chair also suggested that the Costa Rican DDLH be the coordinator on OPCAT, including the coordination of joint statements on behalf of a number of NIs and serving as a link to the new Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture.
The representative of the Malawi MHRC raised the issue of NIs facing a non-cooperative UNCT in their country. Gianni Magazzeni, coordinator of the OHCHR NI Unit, acknowledged that there is still a disconnect between country activities in UNCTs on the rule of law, good governance and human rights on the one hand, and priorities as OHCHR sees them on the other. He referred to the statement of the High Commissioner which clearly referred to the importance of moving ahead in the direction of one UN. He encouraged all NIs to inform OHCHR on what it can do to unblock a situation as described by the representative of the Malawi MHRC.
IV. ENGAGEMENT OF NIS WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Because of the prolonging of the meeting of the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation, the ICC Chairperson decided to schedule the consideration of the Sub-Committee report after agenda item 9 “Engagement of NIs with the Human Rights Council”.
Report back on engagement during 2006
Ms. Anne-Marie Garrido (Programme Manager, Danish Institute for Human Rights) gave an account of the engagement of NIs with the Human Rights Council in 2006.
During the 18th ICC meeting, discussions took place on two continuous issues:
1. the need to follow-up to ensure that NI participation in and interaction with the Human Rights Council is formalized and ensured; and
2. the need to ensure that internally there is a coordination of substantial contributions to mechanisms and procedures of the Human Rights Council.
She mentioned that concrete results achieved to date include that NIs with A status accreditation have full participation rights as observers. Participation rights of NIs also include a dedicated seating arrangement, permission to issue documents under own symbol numbers, as well as the right of NIs to arrange meetings and parallel events.
She also highlighted the policy development by the ICC on NI cooperation with the Human Rights Council, and in particular drew the participants’ attention to the two latest ICC position papers:
1. ICC Position Volume III – Engagement of NIs with the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (March 2007); and
2. ICC Position Volume IV – Engagement of NIs with the Special Procedures (March 2007).
She mentioned that the Asia-Pacific Forum very substantially prepared these position papers, which were adopted by the ICC practically without changes.
Ms. Garrido furthermore mentioned some issues which require further discussion and decision, such as:
- the formalization of NI participation in and interaction with the Human Rights Council (in the revised non-paper on rules of procedure and methods of work, NIs have observer status to the Human Rights Council). This discussion is scheduled to be finalized by the end of June 2007);
- the Universal Periodic Review mechanism; she mentioned that the facilitator’s paper refers to NIs;
- Special Procedures: no explicit mentioning in the facilitator’s paper on the role of NIs, while it did mention NGOs.
She flagged that there are remaining subjects that require substantial contributions and common positions by the ICC, including:
- the Working Group on expert advice (replacement of previous Sub-Commission), and
- Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Council.
She highlighted the need to make a decision on how to ensure an ICC and NI presence during and between Human Rights Council sessions. This presence would ensure that NI views are heard in discussions and consultations. She made reference to the proposal of the French NI for an ICC representative based in Geneva. Ms. Garrido emphasized that the ICC could identify relevant time slots and thematic areas in the agenda of the HRC, in order to identify areas to make substantive interventions on. Ms. Garrido also mentioned the need of NIs to access updated information relating to the Human Rights Council and flagged the efforts of OHCHR in this regard.
Interventions from the floor
Before opening the floor, the ICC Chair referred to his meeting with the President of the Human Rights Council, who was very positive to NI participation in the Human Rights Council. The President said that a more fixed agenda will be set after the June session, which would make it easier for NIs to identify a slot in the annual programme of work. It would need to be decided under which particular agenda item this would fall. The ICC Chair conveyed the message from the President that NIs need to be more present and visible in Human Rights Council sessions.
The Asia-Pacific Forum concurred with the recommendation of Ms. Garrido that the ICC develop a position paper on the Working Methods and Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Council and proposed that the Asia Pacific Forum draft this position paper for ICC consideration and adoption.
The Moroccan CCDH stressed the need for an ICC presence in Geneva and mentioned that the ICC Working Group on the Human Rights Council agreed to the French proposal. He mentioned that this person should be located in the NI Unit, work in close cooperation with them, and be funded by the ICC. He also stressed the important role of NIs in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Ms. Garrido replied that the TORs of the ICC representative could be based on the TORs of her position as ICC representative in Geneva during 2006. Close cooperation with OHCHR should be ensured, with both playing a complementary role. She also emphasized that as NIs, there is a need to give attention and recognition to real human rights issues and experiences on the ground and asked how the ICC could ensure that all NIs know about the Council discussions and can respond in a manner that is appropriate.
The Canadian NI stated that this is an opportunity for the ICC to work with the Working Group of the Human Rights Council to develop the rules of procedure of the same.
The Korean NHRC made an observation that the status of observers poses no problem. However, the real issue seems to be the cutting off of the List of Speakers, as opposed to past Commission on Human Rights practices, where observers were given time to intervene. The issue at stake now seems to be to guarantee that NIs, and NGOs, are given time to participate in the discussions.
Ms. Maria Francisca Ize-Charrin intervened by saying that every actor in the Human Rights Council but the Human Rights Council Member States have observer status (including those Member States which are not Human Rights Council Members). She appealed for patience and reminded participants that the Council is a new organ. NIs could approach their own Governments in order to have more impact. It is important that NIs remain active and fully informed.
Discussion on ICC Geneva presence
The representative of the French CNCDH presented its proposal and mentioned that in many HRC sessions, the NI seats remain empty. An ICC presence in Geneva is crucial, particularly at the time that the working methods are decided. The decision on the presence will need to be made soon. He announced that the French can contribute 10,000 euros, while other NIs have expressed their willingness to contribute financially as well. The ICC representative should participate in all activities on human rights (not only the Human Rights Council). He voiced his opinion that since NIs should be seen as independent, the ICC representative should not be based in OHCHR. The ICC presence would be for a period of 6 months to 1 year.
The ICC Chair mentioned that 8 NIs pledged around 10,000 euros. He acknowledged that the ICC representative will have a different role than the OHCHR NI Unit, while there is a need for strong interaction with OHCHR. The ICC Chair asked for the decision on the details to be delegated to the new ICC chair.
The ICC Chair solicited comments from the floor. The NIs of the Philippines, Argentina, New Zealand, Morocco, Canada, Nicaragua, Germany, Australia, and Costa Rica took the floor to express support for the French proposal. The New Zealand HRC specified that no financial support from their side is possible for the moment, while stressing that the matter is of such importance that an interim arrangement is necessary while waiting for the appointment of the ICC representative. The ICC Chair mentioned in reply that the French CNCDH will temporarily make available Ms. Stephanie Djian as an interim arrangement. The Canadian HRC added that funding should be secured beyond the 12-month mark to 18 months or 2 years. Nicaragua added that it is ready to contribute 10,000 USD per year to demonstrate the strategic importance of the ICC presence in Geneva. Germany also pledged financial support, and added that it also can contribute to the interim arrangement.
Mr. Gianni Magazzeni (Coordinator of the OHCHR National Institutions Unit) took the floor to state that NIs should strengthen their participation in general in the human rights system (including the Human Rights Council, treaty bodies, special procedures, etc.). How this is done should be determined by the NIs themselves. He referred to the French proposal to have an ICC representative in Geneva as a wise proposal, and added that OHCHR looks forward to work closely with this person.
The ICC Chair therefore concluded that:
- there is unanimous support for the proposal to have an ICC presence in Geneva;
- the ICC presence should be independent; and
- the ICC Chair together with the ICC Bureau should look into a longer term solution (including on the legal aspects of having an ICC focal point in Geneva).
b. Participation of regional coordinating committees in the Human Rights Council
The ICC Chair referred to the discussion held during the 18th ICC meeting on this topic. Since then, consultations took place and a background paper was prepared within the context of the ICC on the topic. The ICC Chairperson mentioned that the paper contains the proposal that regional coordinating committees can participate in the sessions of the Human Rights Council with NI accreditation, and make oral statements on behalf of a number of A status NIs. These A status NIs should be explicitly mentioned at the start of the oral intervention, and all of these NIs should have expressed beforehand their consent with the contents of the statement. He also mentioned that there is a consensus on this approach, including from the President of the Human Rights Council
The proposal was agreed upon by consensus.
V. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE ICC SUB-COMMITTEE ON ACCREDITATION
The Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, Ms Kathryn Hamilton, (Director General, Discrimination Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission) presented the report of the Sub-Committee and read out the report verbatim (see Annex VIII). She stated that this year the report was far lengthier than usual, as the reasoning for the Sub-Committee decisions is spelled out in greater detail. She also emphasized that it is important to keep in mind that the mandate of the Sub-Committee is not about assessing the performance of an NI, but rather its compliance with the Paris Principles.
She highlighted that for future re-accreditation applications, in the event that an NI seeks deferral, a Sub-Committee decision can be taken only if written justification has been provided by the NI and the ICC Chair accepts the deferral as compelling and exceptional. A deferral can last for a maximum of 1 year, after which the accreditation status of the NI will lapse. If an application has been received late or if the NI has failed to submit their application documents, the status will be suspended. This suspension can be in place up to 1 year, during which time an application for re-accreditation can be submitted. If this period is surpassed, the status of the NI will lapse.
In summary, the Sub-Committee recommended status A, with regard to re-accreditation for Bolivia, Indonesia, Malawi, and Peru. It deferred consideration of Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Portugal to October 2007 when a further review of Sri Lanka and Nigeria will also take place. It confirmed status B for Burkina Faso, Jordan, and status C for Puerto Rico and Romania. It decided review status for Nepal and suspended the accreditation of Fiji: both cases will be taken up also in October 2007.
After the presentation, the ICC Chairperson expressed thanks for Ms. Kathryn Hamilton for the work performed as well as for having mentioned the role of the Sub-Committee. He then asked for approval of the report, chapter by chapter.
Chapter 1
The representative of the Philippines CHR stated that she had no objections on the decision regarding the Philippines CHR. However she stated that there is an inherent problem with the Sub-Committee interpreting the application of the Paris Principles and asked what the ratification process is of the entire ICC membership. She stressed that it is important to define the role of the Sub-Committee in relation to the entire ICC. She had the impression that currently the Paris Principles are interpreted in a constrictive manner (for example, she mentioned that some NIs do not have communication facilities).
The representative of the New Zealand HRC posed the question whether the General Observations will become rigid rules or general guidelines. She expressed her concern on the legalistic application of the General Observations. The representative of the Malaysia HRC shared the views expressed by the Philippines and New Zealand.
The representative of the Northern Ireland HRC expressed concern regarding the deferral of consideration of Afghanistan and posed the question whether there would be any support that NIs could lend.
The NIs of Malawi, Kenya and Ireland expressed support to the General Observations. It was said that “too” general guidelines would not be helpful. The Malawian HRC stressed that the guidelines would help NIs explain to their Governments, the importance of pluralism, and welcomed strengthened guiding principles. The Ugandan HRC added that it would be helpful to add a Guideline regarding NIs under threat. The Sub-Committee can then judge the efforts made by such an NI. The ICC Chairperson expressed his support to this proposal. He also added that the Guidelines should not be seen as a straightjacket.
At the conclusion of this exchange, chapter 1 of the Sub-Committee report was adopted.
Chapter 2
The representative of the Philippines CHR inquired what was meant by Standing Orders and stated that information on how the Standing Orders are created and who has the power to amend or withdraw them was already communicated to the ICC Secretariat. The ICC Chair replied that the language used in the Sub-Committee report was based on the documentation as submitted by the Philippines CHR to the ICC Secretariat. Also, the status of the NI would remain currently as status A. The Sub-Committee has given time to the NI to provide the documents. The Secretariat to the ICC also confirmed receipt of the documents, which frequently refer to the term Standing Order.
At the conclusion of this exchange, chapter 2 of the Sub-Committee report was adopted.
Chapter 3
The representative of the Puerto Rico NI intervened and expressed his surprise at the decision of the Sub-Committee to turn down their request for A status accreditation. He stated that the NI has the broadest possible mandate, covering the Paris Principles and asked for an amendment to the Sub-Committee report in order to grant the NI A status.
The Chair of the Sub-Committee replied that according to the Paris Principles an NI should be responsible both for the protection and the promotion of human rights. The Sub-Committee concluded that the Puerto Rico NI did not have a clear mandate regarding human rights promotion (for example urging the Government to ratify human rights treaties).
The Kenyan NCHR intervened by stating that at a practical level, human rights protection is the best way to promote human rights, and expressed his concern that the ICC seems to put too much emphasis on law rather than practice.
The ICC Chair stated that this case is a classical example of a discrepancy between law and practice of an NI. He mentioned that in many cases the decision of the Sub-Committee is used later on to push the Government. He also added that the ICC both looks at law as well as practice.
The Burkina Faso CNDH referred to the Sub-Committee’s decision on their NI’s accreditation and stated that it does not reflect reality. He voiced his concern that there seems to be an information gap between the ICC Secretariat and the ICC Sub-Committee. The Chair of the Sub-Committee replied that the information submitted by the Burkina Faso CNDH in April 2005 was not part of the file.
The Afghan IHRC stated that they would try to fulfil the requirements of the Sub-Committee, now that the budgeting system relies both on state and donor funds. The NI emphasised that the state does not interfere with funding coming from donors. They also expressed their concern of being excluded from speaking at the Human Rights Council based on their accreditation status. The Chair emphasised the need for NIs to be credible and taken seriously through a credible accreditation process.
The Jordan NCHR intervened and addressed the Sub-Committee’s decision. The Chair of the Sub-Committee replied in emphasizing that it needed documentation on the outstanding questions regarding funding, the application of the legislation to non-citizens, as well as pluralism and transparency.
The Chair of the Sub-Committee concluded by stating that it can not defer the situation of the Burkina Faso and Jordan NIs. These NIs maintain their current status. If documentation is submitted before October 2007, then there could be a decision on the accreditation as A status NIs.
At the conclusion of this exchange, chapter 3 of the Sub-Committee report was adopted.
Chapter 4
The representative of the Nepal HRC stated that all information had been provided and urged that the ICC take the special circumstances into consideration, i.e. the peace process which creates a delay in the appointment of Commissioners. He therefore requested that the status be reviewed and upgraded to A status. The Sub-Committee Chairperson replied that what preoccupies the Sub-Committee is still the absence of a governing body and the delay in the appointment process. The ICC acknowledges that the NI has little influence over this and it is for this reason that the accreditation status remains under review. She urged that the Nepal HRC keep the Sub-Committee informed on the progress regarding amendments to the Human Rights Act as well as the appointments process.
At the conclusion of this exchange, chapter 4 of the Sub-Committee report was adopted.
Chapter 5
The Sri Lanka HRC referred to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the ICC Sub-Committee recommendation and stated that both are incorrect. It assured the ICC that it will provide detailed documentation thereon within time.
The Togo CNDH referred to the Nigeria situation and stated that when the Nigerian case was brought before the Sub-Committee, Nigeria was asked not to be present. However, it stated that no other African country was asked to take the place of Nigeria. This was subsequently falsified by the ICC Chair who stated that the African Group was consulted at that time.
The Nigeria NHRC intervened on paragraph 5.2 (c) and stated that the NHRC forwarded the relevant documentation to support the previous review. The Chair of the Sub-Committee stated that the documentation supporting the oral presentation done in Bolivia is still missing. The Nigerian NHRC also stated for the record that the status as adopted in Bolivia would remain unchanged during the period in which the NHRC is under review (i.e. status A). The ICC Chair confirmed that the accreditation status of the Nigerian NHRC will remain unchanged, as long as it is under review.
Other general observations made included having the report translated into French for the francophone NIs, giving consideration to NIs working in conflict areas and having more clear rules for the Sub-Committee, to operate and make clearer decisions.
At the conclusion of this exchange, chapter 5 of the Sub-Committee report was adopted.
Chapter 6
Several representatives expressed their frustration at having received the Sub-Committee report so close to the consideration and endorsement in plenary. The Irish HRC proposed that the document be brought back to the national level for consultation. Comments would then be sent to the ICC Secretariat.
The ICC Chairperson endorsed this proposal and recommended that the Sub-Committee report be adopted up to chapter 6. He also added that the future procedure should be a point of serious consideration for the next ICC Chair. Nigeria requested for the ICC Chair to give ICC members a deadline for comments on the General Observations (chapter 6), to which the ICC Chair replied that this is set at two months.
The ICC Sub-Committee report was therefore adopted up to chapter 6, with annex of chapter Chapter 6 will be put in a later report.
The ICC Chairperson thanked the Sub-Committee and in particular OHCHR for its work.
Because of time constraints, the ICC Chairperson decided to organize the remainder of the ICC meeting as follows: agenda item 10 “Role of NIs in the UN treaty bodies”, agenda item 12 “Follow-up to the 8th International Conference of NIs and the Santa Cruz Declaration”, agenda item 13 “Presentation of activities undertaken and the next steps for NIs with regard to the implementation of the Disability Convention”, agenda item 15 “Plans for the 9th International Conference of NIs”, and agenda item 16 “Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ICC”.
This implied that agenda item 11 “OHCHR Public Information Program: opportunities for NIs” and agenda item 14 “Amendments to ICC Rules of Procedure” were cancelled / postponed.
VI. ROLE OF NIS IN THE UNITED NATIONS TREATY BODIES – PRESENTATION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE BERLIN WORKSHOP
Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt (Director, German Institute for Human Rights) emphasized that the cooperation between NIs and treaty bodies need to be enhanced, since:
- NIs are in a position to help make treaty body recommendations more effective on the ground;
- from an NI perspective, a continuous reference to treaty body recommendations is a way of adding to the legitimacy of an NI;
- NIs are messengers on behalf of other actors; and
- treaty bodies and NIs have an important role to play in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
He mentioned that the Roundtable was held in Berlin from 21 to 23 February 2006, and was hosted by the German Institute for Human Rights, with funding from the German Institute for Human Rights, OHCHR and the Danish Institute for Human rights. It had broad participation of all regions and there was a good exchange between participants, which included also treaty body members and NGOs.
The Roundtable had a clear focus and discussions were clearly divided along the different phases of treaty body reporting. He also mentioned some options that NIs have in their interaction with treaty bodies, including:
- NIs should make Governments aware of treaty reporting obligations and give training on reporting guidelines;
- NIs can provide substantive information for the report, but can also submit a shadow-report;
- NIs can submit information for input into the List of Issues;
- NIs can lobby at the margins of treaty body meetings; and
- NIs can be involved in the launching of individual complaints and participate in in-situ visits.
The results of the Roundtable were a set of conclusions, as well as specific proposals drafted for treaty bodies themselves (for consideration at the next Inter-Committee meeting in June 2007). Ms. Frauke Seidensticker will produce a concise handbook based on the Roundtable, which will be made available in a few months.
Interventions from floor
After the presentation, the ICC Chair stated that treaty body interaction with NIs is crucial as it establishes a constructive dialogue. NIs’ contribution is also valuable as a counterbalance to the sometimes polarizing interventions of NGOs. He referred to the practice of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which NIs can address the Committee directly during the examination of the State report.
The representative of the Mexican CNDH highlighted that there is no common approach of treaty bodies on NI participation. He stated that NIs should always be present as a standard practice.
The Algerian CNCPPDH pointed out that the involvement of the NI in the reporting process of the State has proved to be successful. Also, NI should always present shadow reports including list of human rights issues that are seen as priorities for the country. This list should be considered when the Treaty Body makes recommendation to the State.
The Irish HRC contributed by saying that one particular issue is not represented in the Roundtable report; the issue of misperception towards the NI that it is siding with the Government. Therefore, NIs should be independent from the Government and NGOs and one should be vigilant with regard to misperceptions on this. In order to avoid misperception, the Irish HRC has deeply involved civil society actors in their preparatory works for reporting, trying also to coordinate the activities with NGOs in order not to overlap and maximize the monitoring activity.
The Indian NHRC stated not to have any formal mandate to support in the reporting process. This point could be clarified so that nation states do not perceive NI activity as interference in their international affairs.
The representative of the Korean NHRC shared her experience as a member of CEDAW and stated that the NI input is very helpful before, during and after the examination of a State report. She stressed the importance that NIs use treaty body recommendations.
VII. FOLLOW-UP TO THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF NIS AND THE SANTA CRUZ DECLARATION
a. Presentation of the report of the 8th International Conference of NIs
Mr. Santiago Martinez de Orense (human rights officer, OHCHR National Institutions Unit) presented the report and stated that a special effort was made to issue the report in English, French and Spanish. He reminded the participants that the report was distributed and open for comments until 30 April 2007. He also thanked the Secretariat and the Defensoría of Bolivia for the report. The ICC Chairperson added his suggestion that the comments on the report be submitted in writing.
b. Presentation of the report on migration for NIs
Mr. Diego Carrasco, consultant, presented the report on migration for NIs as called for in the Santa Cruz Declaration of the 8th International Conference (Bolivia, October 2006).
He highlighted four main issues: human rights; prevention of trafficking; combating xenophobia; and how NIs deal with vulnerable sections of the population. He drew attention to new aspects of migration, such as South-South migration as well as ecological migration.
NIs play a fundamental role in identifying risks as well as in mapping migration flows. He furthermore mentioned examples of increasing efforts at the national level on the protection of migrants and the protection and monitoring of labour rights. NIs could play a role in the exchange of information, standardization, as well as the monitoring of migration flows. Also, more work is needed in transit countries, where structures and method of investigations are needed. He proposed a universal database on migration, a global and regional fund on migration, and maps on migration flows. He encouraged NIs to engage further on issues such as: monitoring remittances, promoting universal citizenship, campaigning for avoiding double taxation of migrants, promoting no discrimination agreements and more control on the application of the non-refoulement principle as well as on the respect of human rights of migrants under detention or custody. Media should always be involved in order to increase public awareness on migrants’ issues.
He finally congratulated NIs for the way in which they deal with the topic of migration, and asked NIs to fill out the questionnaire on migration and return it to OHCHR before 30 April 2007.
c. Working Group to follow up on the implementation of the Santa Cruz Declaration
The ICC Chairperson urged NIs to come forward with names for members of the Working Group to follow up on the implementation of the Santa Cruz Declaration.
VIII. PRESENTATION OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND THE NEXT STEPS FOR NIS WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISABILITY CONVENTION
Ms. Mara Bustelo (OHCHR Geneva) and Mr. Gerard Quinn (Irish Human Rights Commission) both gave presentations of activities undertaken and the next steps for NIs with regard to the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.
Ms. Mara Bustelo spoke on behalf of Mr. Simon Walker, OHCHR focal point on disability, and stated that the Convention will be opened for signature on 30 March 2007. She mentioned that to date some 53 countries were interested in signing the text, 18 of which were Western, 10 Latin American and Caribbean, 10 Eastern European, 9 Asian, and 5 African. The Convention will most probably enter into force end 2007 / early 2008.
The ICC Chairperson thanked Mr. Gerard Quinn for this excellent work in the area and for having taken the initiative regarding the Harvard Conference. Mr. Quinn stated that NIs were active right from the beginning through the ICC representative in the drafting process and as a consequence many articles of the Convention bear the mark of this influence. Also, many NIs attended several of the sessions of the drafting process.
In addition, he mentioned that NIs have been meeting domestically and regionally. Harvard Law School provided facilities for NIs to reflect on the topic (December 2005), and innovative methods of monitoring was on the agenda. According to the Convention, NIs have an explicit role; art 33 (2) mentions the role of NIs in the promotion, monitoring and protection of the rights of the Convention, while art 33 (3) states that the tasks should be performed in collaboration with civil society and NGOs.
Mr. Quinn ended by mentioning some proposals/recommendations for the information of ICC participants;
- there should be a distinction between the domestic, regional and international levels by NIs;
- NI links with disability NGOs should be encouraged as these alliances are necessary for monitoring;
- he called upon OHCHR to strengthen NIs to effectively execute their responsibilities;
- he expressed support for the Asia-Pacific Forum proposal for a Disability Rights Database, specified according to each region. He also mentioned that persons should be nominated to serve on the Guiding Board;
- he called for further development of the NIwebsite (www.nhri.net);
- he called for the planning for the upcoming ICC meetings, and that a space for debate on the topic would be made; and
- he called on OHCHR to continue the support it has provided.
Intervention from the floor
The representative of the French CNCDH flagged that it had received information from the French authorities that some States intend to make reservations upon signature of the Disability Convention. It stressed the need for a focal point to pick up on the reservations, as well as the working out of a common argumentation so that NIs can go back to their Government to argue for the removal of the reservations.
The representative of the Tunisia CSDHLF pointed out the need for NIs to lobby their Governments to ratify this Convention (without reservation). This set of norms will indeed be the reference standard setting to call upon states on ensuring protection to persons with disabilities.
The representative of the German HRI added that NIs need to be very careful with regard to reservations, especially reservation to article 15 (prohibition to submit persons with disabilities to medical experimentation). A further issue where NIs need to be vigilant is the translation of the treaty in other languages; the contents of the treaty should not be lost in translation.
The representative of the Nicaragua NI pointed out that Nicaragua is in the process of ratifying the Convention that has already been signed. Furthermore, the NI is working intensively in raising awareness on this Convention and to ensure that all laws are informed by the principles and standards of the Convention.
The representative of the New Zealand HRC flagged that it is important to acknowledge the results and praised the Government of Mexico who actively campaigned for the Convention. NIs have been very active with a clear impact of their actions. She also commended the work of individuals, especially Mr. Quinn as well as the ICC representatives to the drafting process. She added that the Disability Rights Database will create an evidential basis from which activities can be developed. A user manual, a dictionary of terms, a protocol, as well as a staff training manual will accompany the Database.
Ms. Mara Bustelo added that the other human rights treaties should be kept in mind as well, since the norms in the Disability Convention are also outlined in the other treaties. Therefore, the rights of persons with disabilities should be mainstreamed into human rights in general. The lack of data concerning disability is outstanding and has to be addressed.
The representative of the Malawi HRC highlighted the importance of the cooperation with the authorities in order to have entry-points for promoting both the ratification of the Convention and of concrete measures (e.g. the creation of a database).
The representative of the Afghan IHRC reported that in the country more than 1 million people are affected by disabilities. In this respect, the Afghan IHRC called for ratification of the Convention. Upon ratification, the further challenge of the Government will be to find all necessary resources to assist people with disabilities. To the NI the coordination with civil society actors is necessary.
The representative of the Togo CNDH pointed out that guidelines for NIs to address stigma and discrimination against persons with disability should be elaborated. An example could be that of the proposed guidelines provided by WHO in Brazzaville for states pending the adoption of this Convention. It seems that even after ratifying the Convention, it is difficult to take concrete steps.
The representative of the Morocco CCDH stated that three elements are equally crucial for this Convention, and therefore, deserve the same attention: the ratification process; the possibility that States undermine the meaning of the Convention through reservations; the effective implementation of that has to be monitored and followed up.
Mr. Quinn added that the issue of reservations is important and necessitates continued collaboration in the ICC. The ICC should develop common positions so that NIs can have a constructive dialogue with their Governments. He also mentioned that the Convention creates a space for the European Commission to ratify the Convention on behalf of the EU. Mr. Quinn thus suggested lobbying the EU to set up a fund to support NIs to raise capacity. He also reiterated the legal obligation to enter into partnerships and highlighted that even in the case that the Disability Convention is not signed by a country, the other human rights treaties which are signed can still be invoked before the Government.
The ICC Chairperson asked Ms. Mara Bustelo to flag patterns of reservations and requested Mr. Quinn to write a paper based on this for the consideration of NIs on how to deal with these. He also suggested creating a support or reference group for the Database, as suggested by Mr. Quinn, and called upon NIs to make joint initiatives to implement the Convention and use art. 32 as a platform for such initiatives.
IX. PLANS FOR THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF NIS, INCLUDING AGREEMENT ON HOST NI AND COUNTRY
The representative of the Nigerian NHRC intervened from the podium and announced that a decision was taken that the 9th International Conference of NIs will be held in Africa, and that the Kenyan NI offered to host this conference. The proposed dates are June/July 2008. She also informed the participants that it is seeking direction on the theme of the Conference.
The Moroccan CCDH expressed concern about the high frequency of the holding of the International Conferences. He stated that NIs should have the appropriate time to prepare a Conference, to choose its subject and to come prepared with good background in terms of the implementation of the preceding International Conference. He suggested that the ICC adopt a different periodicity of holding the International Conferences.
The Irish HRC formally proposed that some part of the 9th International Conference be devoted to the topic of disability. The French CNCDH suggested that the theme of the Conference is human rights and extreme poverty.
The ICC Chairperson added that some other suggestions were received as well, such as the topics of gender, rule of law, and fair trial. He proposed further that the next ICC Chairperson coordinate the theme of the Conference. The ICC Bureau in consultation with the regions and close collaboration with the Kenyan NCHR could decide on what the theme should be. He set the deadline at two months. The ICC Chairperson further addressed the Moroccan concern on the rhythm of the Conferences and stated that it should not change. However, the Moroccan intervention regarding implementation was noted.
X. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON OF THE ICC
The ICC Chairperson stated that according to ICC Rules of Procedure, the election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ICC is left to the Secretariat of the ICC.
Mr. Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator of the OHCHR National Institutions Unit, asked participants for proposals on the election of a new Chair, in line with the Rules of Procedure adopted at the 18th ICC meeting.
The representative of the Argentina DPN put forward Canada as Chair and the Republic of Korea as Vice-Chair. The representative of the Mexican CNDH, on behalf of the Americas region, stated that after careful evaluation, they unanimously agreed to give their vote to Canada as ICC Chair, for two reasons; (1) for its exemplary record in respecting and promoting human rights and their active participation in international fora, and (2) it recognized the capacity of Ms. Lynch, and stressed the importance of the role of a woman Chair.
The NIs of India, Morocco, Ireland, Malawi, Azerbaijan, the Philippines, Venezuela, Niger, Togo, Nigeria, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Nicaragua took the floor to express their support for this nomination. The representative of the Malawi HRC added that it preferred that the Vice-Chair went to the African region. The representative of the Venezuela DP also expressed thanks for the outgoing Chair and Vice-Chair. The representative of the New Zealand HRC commended the work of the outgoing Chair and Vice-Chair and added that the Korean MHRC has demonstrated some of the most rigorous advocacy and investigation. The Nicaragua NI expressed their gratitude to Mr. Orest Nowosad.
Mr. Magazzeni concluded that the ICC elected Canada as the Chair and the Republic of Koreas as the Vice Chair by acclamation. On behalf of the Secretariat he also expressed its gratitude to the outgoing Chair and Vice Chair for their excellent work.
Ms. Lynch, on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated that she was honored to accept the position of ICC Chairperson and thanked the outgoing ICC Chair for the outstanding work and advances made during the chairmanship. She also commended the outgoing Vice-Chair, in particular Dr. Sobaranes and Dr Moctezuma. She thanked Mr. Gianni Magazzeni and all other members of the OHCHR National Institutions Unit for their work done for the ICC. She stated that she was looking forward to work closely with the Korean MHRC as ICC Vice-Chair.
As key priorities, she mentioned:
(1) Strengthening the NIs compliance with the Paris Principles;
(2) More rigorous and independent accreditation process in the ICC (which allows for NI participation in the Human Rights Council); the development of guidelines on this issue as the Canadian HRC is at the same time the ICC Chair as well as the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation;
(3) more active involvement of NIs in the Human Rights Council;
(4) the establishment of an ICC representative in Geneva (she expressed her thanks for those NIs who had expressed their support for this initiative);
(5) Consideration of the specific local context behind each NI as well as their role in establishing national human rights protection systems.
XI. AOB
No ICC participant asked for the floor under this agenda item.
X. CLOSING BUSINESS SESSION
The session adjourned on 23 March 2007 at 13h.
**************************************
ANNEX 1
NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)
ROOM XVIII, PALAIS DES NATIONS
GENEVA, 21-23 MARCH 2007
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH 10h00 – 13h00
Pre-ICC thematic dialogue on National Human Rights Institutions and their role in the prevention of torture – Schedule to follow
WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH 15h00 – 18h00
Address of Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [tbc] (15h00 – 15h40)
Statement by Mr. Morten Kjaerum, Chairperson of the ICC (15h40 – 16h00)
Adoption of the Agenda (16h00 – 16h05)
Adoption of the report of the 18th session of the ICC (16h05 – 16h15)
OHCHR statements on the current work and future direction of the NI Unit (16h15 – 16h50)
Ms. Maria Francisca Ize-Charrin, Director, Operations, Programmes and Research Division [tbc] Mr. Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator, National Institutions Unit, CBB
Consideration of the Secretary General’s reports submitted to the 4th session of the Human Rights Council (16h50 – 17h00)
a. Secretary-General’s annual report on National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) (A/HRC/4/91)
b. Secretary-General’s report on process currently utilized by the ICC to accredit NIs in compliance with the Paris Principles and ensure that the process is strengthened with appropriate periodic review and on ways and means of enhancing participation of NIs in the work of the Council (A/HRC/4/92)
b. Other related matters
Reports of, and plans for, Regional Meetings (17h00 – 18h00)
THURSDAY 22 MARCH 1000-1300
Consideration and adoption of the report of the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation
(10h00 – 11h00)
Engagement of NHRIs with the Human Rights Council (11h00 – 13h00)
Report back on engagement during 2006 (Ms. Anne-Marie Garrido, Programme Manager, Danish Institute for Human Rights)
Participation of regional coordinating committees in the Human Rights Council
THURSDAY 22 MARCH 15h00 – 18h00
Role of NHRIs in the United Nations treaty bodies – presentation of the conclusions to the Berlin Workshop (Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt, Director, German Institute for Human Rights) (15h00 – 15h30)
OHCHR Public Information Program: opportunities for NHRIs (Ms. Susan Curran, Chief, Communications Section, OHCHR) (15h30 – 15h40)
Follow-up to the 8th International Conference of NIs and the Santa Cruz declaration (15h40 – 18h00)
a. Presentation of the report of the 8th International Conference of NIs
b. Presentation of the report on migration for NHRIs as called for in the Santa Cruz Declaration, 8th International Conference, Bolivia, October 2006 (Mr. Diego Carrasco, Consultant)
c. Working Group to follow up on the implementation of the Santa Cruz Declaration
FRIDAY 23 MARCH 10h00 – 13h00
Presentation of activities undertaken and the next steps for NHRIs with regard to the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (Ms. Mara Bustelo, Coordinator, Human Rights and Economic and Social Issues, OHCHR and ICC Disability focal point Mr. Gerard Quinn, Irish Human Rights Commission) (10h00 – 11h00)
Amendments to ICC Rules of Procedure (11h00 – 12h00)
Discussion and adoption of amendments proposed by the Working Group on Accreditation
Discussion and adoption of other proposed amendments
Plans for the 9th International Conference of NHRIs including agreement on host NHRI and country (12h00 – 12h20)
Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ICC (12h20 – 12h40)
Other business (12h40 – 12h50)
Closing business session (12h50 – 13h00)
* * * * *
ANNEX II
Address by
Ms. Louise Arbour
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Nineteenth Session of the Annual Meeting
of the International Co-ordinating Committee
of National Institutions for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC)
21 March 2007
Geneva
Distinguished representatives of National Human Rights Institutions,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you at this 19th Annual Meeting of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Today we commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The theme of this year is “Racism and Discrimination – Obstacles to Development”.
No one can deny the pervasive prevalence of racism in almost all societies. In fact, the problem is such that it directly impacts many people’s daily life, the choices they make to fulfill their needs, and the opportunities offered to them in terms of social interactions, work and leisure. Because of this, discrimination, be it on the grounds of race, ethnicity or religion, directly affects personal, professional, social, and economic development. This impact is without any doubt harmful for those discriminated against, but it also negatively influences the development of society as a whole, thus also undermining the efficient use of available resources and the opportunity for progress.
This heavy toll that racism is inflicting calls for unrelenting vigilance and persistent efforts to fight it, involving every societal group and sector. It is with this in mind that I would like to emphasize to you, representatives of national human rights institutions, your unique role and privileged position to engage in this fight.
I particularly would like to recall today the Copenhagen Declaration, adopted during the 6th International Conference of the ICC in April 2002. This Declaration spells out specific recommendations on the role of NIs in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. First, the Declaration specifies that NIs have at their disposal a broad range of remedial functions which should provide victims of racism with appropriate and just remedies and recourses. Secondly, NIs have a crucial role in monitoring and reporting on racism and discrimination, for example through special reports, public inquiries, or annual reports. Finally, the Declaration specifies the roles that NIs play in human rights advocacy and education, for example through promoting the ratification of international human rights treaties by their Government (such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Migrant Workers Convention), or through the development of partnerships with the media and educational institutions to combat racism and all related intolerance.
I encourage NIs to fully take up these roles, break the walls of silence that often hide discrimination and by that feed into it, and act as bridges at the international as well as national level.
Distinguished representatives,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The fight against racism and all related intolerance highlights the important role of NIs, although this is only one aspect of the broad mandate they have for the promotion and protection of human rights. Their central role derives from the pivotal position that NIs have as the key-stone of a strong national human rights protection system. In addition to human rights institutions in line with the Paris Principles, national human rights protection systems should also consist of an independent judiciary; a properly functioning administration of justice, a representative national parliament with parliamentary human rights bodies; and strong and dynamic civil society organizations.
The importance I attach to the development and strengthening of national human rights protection systems stems directly from the 2002 Secretary-General’s Agenda for Further Change. This report stated specifically that the emplacement or enhancement of a national protection system in each country, reflecting international human rights norms, should be a principal objective of the United Nations.
An enhanced country engagement and an increased focus on national human rights protection systems is crucial to address human rights challenges and protection gaps, as outlined in OHCHR Plan of Action and the resulting Strategic Management Plan. I am convinced that NIs are also the best relay mechanism at country level to ensure the application of international human rights norms, for example through monitoring the State’s follow up to recommendations of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies as well as the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, which currently include the Special Procedures, but may soon be expanded to a novel universal periodic review system. It is therefore of the utmost importance that NIs fully comply with the Paris Principles – especially that they are independent – so that they can optimally play their role in the protection system, act as a guarantor of international norms at the national level, and use their prominent position to effectively interact with international organizations – such as OHCHR – as well as with national Governments, State entities, particularly national parliaments, as well as the media and civil society organizations.
I should mention on this occasion that late last year, OHCHR has been given a leading role within the UN system on national human rights institutions in the context of action on the rule of law. NIs can be instrumental for the reform and the strengthening of judicial and security institutions, including the police and prison administrations, and all sectors of the rule of law, including by monitoring the application of standards of good governance. NIs must work to ensure that national legislation is consistent with the Constitution and with international human rights norms, and that the administration of justice conforms to human rights standards and provides effective remedies particularly to minorities and to the most vulnerable groups in society. In countries coming out of conflict, NIs are also key in the development of transitional justice strategies that can ensure accountability for past crimes, as well as facilitate the creation of effective mechanisms for national reconciliation.
Finally, NIs can play a crucial role in addressing critical human rights issues, such as summary executions, torture and arbitrary detention, as well as fighting impunity. It is here that NIs are especially encouraged to take the initiative and be proactive, as they are often one of the few authoritative bodies with the capacity and contacts to act urgently at the national level and ensure greater protection to individuals in need.
Our current efforts in OHCHR to establish or strengthen NIs in full compliance with the Paris Principles are grouped around four major strategic objectives:
First, on country engagement, OHCHR is supporting efforts by Governments to establish or strengthen NIs in accordance with the Paris Principles, so as to better promote and protect the application of international human rights norms at the national level. In particular, we try to assist NIs in promoting human rights, democracy and rule of law, and we engage in institutional and thematic capacity building, including linking individual institutions and encouraging engagement in their regional network.
Secondly, OHCHR has a leadership role and intends to closely monitor compliance with the Paris Principles and thus strengthen the capacity of NIs to work effectively, including on economic, social and cultural rights and the rights of persons with disabilities or living with HIV/AIDS.
Thirdly, OHCHR works to enhance the synergy in the relationship between NIs and the UN human rights system in order to close critical implementation gaps. NIs provide regular information to Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures Mandate holders as well as monitor at country level follow up action (or lack thereof) to the recommendations. Indeed, I see NIs as fundamental to ensuring the broader implementation of human rights norms and their translation into laws and practices at the national level.
Finally, I fully realise that in order to succeed in implementing the vision outlined in the OHCHR Plan of Action and the recent SG’s reform programs, NIs are critically important partners who need a support system nationally and internationally, with and through UN agencies and programs on the ground, especially UNDP. United Nations Country Teams are the most obvious entry points at the national level for action on NIs, especially where OHCHR does not have an Office or a human rights component of a UN peace mission. We are therefore expanding OHCHR-UNCT cooperation to ensure the success and sustainability of the protection and promotion of human rights, good governance and respect for the rule of law at the country level. If the UN system can more effectively support NIs compliant with the Paris Principles, we will have greatly strengthened our ability to realize norms and implement rights at the national level.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the importance of NIs as key elements of a strong national human rights protection system, which in turn will assist in fostering a broader climate of security and equitable development.
You have a full agenda, with issues spanning from the role of NIs in the United Nations human rights system to the follow-up to the 8th International Conference and the Santa Cruz Declaration. Because of the Human Rights Council, unfortunately, I am not in a position to follow the ICC session personally. However, I look very much forward to reviewing the results of your deliberations and wish you a successful and fruitful annual meeting. Thank you for your attention.
ANNEX III
STATEMENT BY
MR MORTEN KJAERUM
CHAIRPERSON
INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)
AT THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ICC
Geneva, 21 March 2007
Check against delivery
Ms. Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights
Dr. Soberanes, Vice-Chairperson of the ICC,
Chief Commissioners,
Friends and Colleagues,
First and foremost I want to thank you for the excellent collaboration and active participation in the ICC. I owe you my gratitude and profound appreciation of the trust you have shown me for the last three years as Chair of the ICC. I also want to express my deep appreciation to the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the ever increasing work load they are undertaking so excellently as Secretariat to the ICC. Let me also welcome Gianni Magazzeni as the new head of the unit.
It is my conviction that the strengthened role of the NIs and ICC in the international human rights scene should be seen as a response to a number of clearly identified needs. There is an increased recognition of the need for stronger ties between the international and national protection systems and for the strengthening of the national mechanisms that contribute to actual implementation on the ground. We, as NIs, constitute in our own right an innovative measure that holds the potential for providing input to these challenges. It is exactly this potential which we have started to articulate and define more precisely. The success of these efforts will, to a large extent, determine our future role and contribution.
As stated, there is a drastic increase in the number of opportunities open for the ICC to stimulate and coordinate NI input to key international policy areas. The ICC has successfully followed up on these through the increased institutionalization of thematic intervention structures and the issuance of ICC position papers. The challenge remains for us to continue to ensure that the momentum is upheld. This demands the active participation of ICC members in contributing to this development of the substantive areas of intervention.
It is the practical implementation of these policy decisions into specific action that will be the litmus test of the future success of the ICC in producing specific results. This touches upon the issue of the future organization of the ICC, most notably the extent to which these developments call for an ICC representation in Geneva to present, negotiate and follow-up on the commitments made.
To maintain high credibility the ICC needs to be in balance with the actual efforts taken on the ground in the individual NIs. The international recognition of NIs does not automatically translate into NIs with strong national mandates and clear and sufficient resources to meet these expectations. Thus, our monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the State and government respect the functional autonomy and independence of NIs would also need to be strengthened. This presents the need for significant and realistic policy decisions to be made by the ICC.
The ICC has, indeed, undergone an impressive development from an informal network of newly established NIs to a professionally run network focused on joint activities and substantive inputs to international policy making. It has the potential of becoming an important human rights actor at the international level, as is increasingly expected and needed. In order, however, for the ICC to successfully pass through this third phase of transition it needs to continuously address and clarify its unique contribution and comparative advantage to the international policy development.
Dear friends and colleagues,
Where are we now and which specific steps will we take during this ICC meeting to start specifying our contributions as NIs to substantial human rights implementation?
Firstly, we are in the process of creating a common platform for NI efforts by formulating common principles, standards, commitments and guidelines for all NIs. One forum facilitating the development of such common platform is the international NI conferences as demonstrated when we last met in Santa Cruz just 6 months ago. The Seoul and Santa Cruz declarations incorporated follow-up activities. This is a new and interesting approach, which can both contribute to an increased exchange of good practices and experiences. During this ICC meeting, we will be discussing the follow-up to the Santa Cruz Declaration.
Secondly, the inclusion of NIs in the UN standard-setting process, in relation to the development of the Convention on Persons with Disabilities, provides a further example of this increasing role in policy-making. The ICC appointed a representative to participate in the Ad Hoc Committee, who, together with the significant number of NIs, participated and contributed to ensuring that national implementation mechanisms and NIs are catered for in the Convention. During this ICC meeting, we will be discussing the next steps for NIs with regards to the implementation of the Convention.
Thirdly, the recognition of NIs as observers to the UN Human Rights Council further increased the need for ICC coordination of joint ICC positions. We coordinated our advocacy and interaction, including through the appointment of a temporary ICC Chair Geneva Representative. The first result was that NIs, from the outset, was granted the same participation rights as NGO observers.
As a response, the ICC established the first of a growing number of thematic working groups – the ICC Working Group on the Human Rights Council – to specify our contributions. A total of 4 volumes of ICC Position Papers on the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism and the Special Procedures have been developed and presented to the Human Rights Council as part of the ongoing discussions and negotiations.
The approach taken in these position papers is that NIs play an indispensable role in achieving the general objectives of the Human Rights Council in strengthening the promotion of the full implementation of human rights obligations and commitments by States in relation to:
· Advising the State on the scope and implementation of its human rights obligations;
· Following-up on the recommendations of the United Nations bodies;
· Educating and building capacity on human rights at the national level;
· Conducting public information campaigns on the activities of the international human rights system including the Human Rights Council;
· Supporting and participating in the monitoring and investigation of the effectiveness of human rights protection at national and regional levels; and
· Documenting the national human rights situation.
During this ICC meeting, we will follow-up on last year’s discussions on our future engagement with the Human Rights Council.
A similar development towards the increased recognition of NIs can be found in relation to the Treaty Bodies. Partly, there is an increased recognition of the role played by NIs; partly there is a strong interest in strengthening the relationship between Treaty Bodies and NIs as part of the ongoing efforts to reform the Treaty Body system. At our meeting in Berlin in November last year, we adopted a set of important recommendations regarding this interaction. The guidelines will be discussed by the Treaty Bodies later this Spring. A practical result of this development was our invitation to address the newly established Sub-Committee on Torture at its first meeting a few weeks ago. During this ICC meeting, we will discuss the status of our interaction with the Treaty Bodies and the future steps to be taken.
In conclusion, the ICC is increasingly prioritizing its mandate to coordinate the international activities of NIs and is gradually developing as a policy-making organ for NI positions on substantive issues. The challenge for the ICC will be to find appropriate ways of ensuring our institutionalization with a strong and committed participation of as many NIs as possible.
I wish to congratulate you, dear colleagues, on these advances made and I look forward to participating in the next generation of the work of the ICC under the new presidency that we will elect at the end of this meeting.
I thank you for your attention.
ANNEX IV
NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)
ROOM XVIII, PALAIS DES NATIONS
GENEVA, 21-23 MARCH 2007
Statement by Ms. Maria Francisca Ize-Charrin
Director of Operations, Programme and Research Division
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Distinguished representatives
Ladies and gentlemen
In her opening statement, the High Commissioner set out the main elements of OHCHR policies regarding national human rights institutions. In my address, I would like to highlight some of the practical aspects of these policies and provide you with some concrete examples of achievements that OHCHR has obtained during 2006.
In 2006, OHCHR has continued its activities to strengthen the role of NIs at the global, regional and country levels. This support has often been provided in collaboration with other UN partners, UNDP and human rights components of United Nations peace missions. Further, the Office has worked towards the strengthening of regional networks of NIs.
A complete overview of the implemented NI related activities in 2006 can be found in the latest report of the Secretary-General to the 4th session of the Human Rights Council on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, that is included in your folder.
Country Engagement
On country engagement, during 2006, OHCHR has provided advisory services to 23 countries on the establishment of new NIs or the strengthening of the legal framework of existing NIs. Some of the concrete outcomes include the strengthening of NI complaint-handling systems and databases, the design of effective management structures, and the implementation of human rights education and training programmes in particular on economic, social and cultural rights issues.
Leadership
With regard to OHCHR human rights leadership, OHCHR has made significant progress in 2006. Firstly, an activity worth mentioning is the Actors for Change Project. The project aims at the strengthening of the capacity of NIs to prevent torture and engage in the prevention of conflict, including early warning, through distance learning and regional training. The project has resulted in the finalization of material for conducting a long-distance training programme on the prevention of torture and the prevention of conflict, and the training of individual resource persons on torture prevention within NIs in the Anglophone African, Asian-Pacific, and European and Central Asian regions, and on conflict prevention in the Asia-Pacific, European and Central Asia, Francophone African, Anglophone African and Latin American and the Caribbean regions. It also helped establishing new regional networks between participants of each regional programme and in several instances improved policies and procedures of participating NIs.
OHCHR has also fulfilled a leadership role in supporting an ICC representative to all sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Moreover, OHCHR has supported the establishment of a Permanent Secretariat of African NIs in Nairobi, Kenya.
Let me also take this opportunity to mention the promising work being undertaken by OHCHR on the use of indicators for promoting and monitoring the implementation of human rights. As part of this work, regional and sub-regional workshops and consultations are being planned in Asia, Africa and Latin America in the course of 2007-2008. The workshops will contribute to developing the approach to identify appropriate human rights indicators. Since NIs have a prominent role in the monitoring of the national implementation of human rights norms, the development of these indicators should be a welcome development which will strengthen its work.
Another achievement I would like to highlight here is the finalization, in cooperation with UNAIDS, of a Handbook on the role of NIs in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and in combating HIV/AIDS-related discrimination. The Handbook will be published this year and rolled out through a series of workshops with NIs at the regional level. At this stage, I would like to strongly encourage you to read the draft of the Handbook and provide OHCHR with your useful comments and insights, so that the Handbook can be improved even more.
Human Rights Bodies
In terms of UN human rights bodies, OHCHR has since 2003 undertaken training workshops under an on-going EU-funded project called “Strengthening the implementation of human rights treaty recommendations through the enhancement of national protection mechanisms”. Under this project, representatives of NGOs, NIs and the media attend Geneva-based and in-country workshops built around Plans of Action for the follow-up of treaty body recommendations. The activities envisaged are designed to enhance participation of the three main target groups in the reporting process, as well as to encourage the use the international instruments and treaty body recommendations in their respective areas of work as a tool to further the promotion and protection of human rights. As follow-up activities have revealed, the workshops have led to the strengthening of national capacities to implement human rights treaty body recommendations, with NIs playing a leading role. In 2006, the countries that participated in the project included Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Rwanda and Thailand.
I also would like to mention the Roundtable on NIs and Treaty Bodies, held in Berlin in November 2006, bringing together NIs, treaty body members and NGOs. Participants discussed and further developed harmonized criteria for NI participation in the treaty body process in order to enhance interaction. The findings of the Round Table will be submitted to the next inter-committee meeting, to be held from 18 to 22 June 2007.
Partnerships
On partnerships, OHCHR is working more closely with and through partners, either at the international, regional or country level, in order to succeed in our endeavour to establish and strengthen NIs in full compliance with the Paris Principles. In its work towards and with NIs, OHCHR is engaged in many partnerships, including with l’Association francophone des commissions nationales des droits de l’homme, the British Council, the IPU, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Asia Pacific Forum of NIs, the Special Fund for Ombudsman and National Institutions of Latin America & the Caribbean, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the African coordinating committee of NIs, and the Network of West African NIs, to mention a few.
The HC mentioned the relationship with UNCTs. I cannot emphasize more the importance of this partnership for NIs. NIs are not only seen as institutions to which assistance may be provided, but also as partners that can implement specific projects and provide valuable human rights knowledge and experience. They are increasingly recognized by the international community as mechanisms that are essential to ensure respect for the effective implementation of international human rights standards at the national level.
Requests for technical assistance and advice continue to grow, accompanied by an ever growing number of ICC accredited NIs (15 in 1999, 45 in 2003 and 60 as of today). OHCHR also works to continuously improve its internal processes. For example, the National Institutions Unit of OHCHR continuously coordinates its work with other departments and units at the Headquarters in Geneva, such as the Treaty and Council Branch, Geographical desk officers, or the Rule of Law Unit, but is also actively engaging OHCHR field presences, regional representatives and UNCTs, so that its work is brought to the country level and has a direct impact on developments on the ground.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The ever-growing number of NIs and the increasing recognition of the role that NIs can play at the national and international levels reaffirms OHCHR’s position that NIs have a role to play in the international human rights system.
First and foremost, in the work of UN human rights treaty bodies, NIs are critical both in terms of information sharing as well as follow-up to final observations. The draft guidelines which will be presented to the Inter-Committee Meeting of Treaty bodies in June of this year which I mentioned as coming out of your Berlin meeting highlight the full potential of engagement with treaty bodies.
Also, in the framework of recently established human rights instruments, the newly adopted Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities holds great potential for NIs to play an important role. I would like to highlight the importance of article 33 of the Convention, which states that States Parties shall maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including one or more independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the Convention. In designating or establishing such a mechanism, the Convention calls for State Parties to take into account the Paris Principles. During this ICC meeting you will have the opportunity to further discuss this important issue.
In addition, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture is of great significance to the role of NIs in the prevention of torture. According to article 19 of the Optional Protocol, the national preventive mechanisms shall be granted at a minimum the power: (a) to regularly examine the treatment of the persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) to make recommendations to the relevant authorities with the aim of improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, taking into consideration the relevant norms of the United Nations; and (c) to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation. The Protocol therefore holds the possibility of formalizing this role for NIs at the national level through the appointment of a national preventive mechanism and its assistance in in-country inspections of places of detention. I also would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the questionnaire on torture prevention, intended to map out the nature of activities that NIs carry out in relation to torture prevention. OHCHR has sent this questionnaire to you by email. We would greatly appreciate that those who have not replied to this yet do so promptly, hopefully even before this ICC meeting is concluded. Your responses will help OHCHR assess the capacity of NIs in this respect and may be followed up with technical assistance if requested.
Furthermore, I would like to mention the Human Rights Council, the 4th session of which is currently on-going. The Council is still in the institution-building phase and is debating its working methods and rules of procedure, agenda and annual programme of work, review of mandates, universal periodic review, the future expert advice mechanism and a complaints procedures. The importance of an active participation of NIs is undeniable. Without pre-empting the outcome of the HRC Working Group on a universal period review mechanism, NIs can potentially make significant contributions in this process. Depending on the nature of the expert advice mechanism NIs may also have a role to play. Additionally, NIs have an important role to play regarding feeding into the process of preparation, implementation and follow up to the recommendations of a country visit of a Special Procedure mandate holder. OHCHR continues to strive to include NIs to the maximum extent possible in these country visits and encourages the active participation through monitoring in the follow-up.
Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to mention the World Programme for Human Rights Education, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 2004. The first phase of the Programme focuses on integrating human rights education in the national primary and secondary school systems and promotes a rights-based approach to the whole education system. The Plan of Action for the first phase proposes a concrete strategy in four steps for national implementation and provides practical guidance on how to integrate human rights education in the school system in a comprehensive manner. Human rights education should address not only educational policies, processes and tools (education legislation, school curricula, teaching methods, textbooks and other materials, teacher-training programmes etc.) but also the environment within which education takes place. The main responsibility for national implementation rests with the Ministry of Education or equivalent institution in each country, but the Plan of Action highlights the important role that NIs can play in supporting the elaboration and implementation of a national strategy for human rights education in the school system, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Education and other relevant actors. You may recall that, in January 2006, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Director-General of UNESCO wrote personally to all Ministers of Education in order to mobilize their interest and support, and OHCHR copied that correspondence to all NIs. We have received a limited feedback on progress made so far, and we would like to appeal to you to take the lead in your country in moving this agenda forward.
I thank you for your attention and would like to join the High Commissioner in wishing you all a successful and fruitful annual meeting.
ANNEX V
Statement by Mr. Gianni Magazzeni
Coordinator, National Institutions Unit
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights
Nineteenth Session of the Annual Meeting
of the International Co-ordinating Committee
of National Institutions for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC)
Palais des Nations, Geneva
21 March 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished colleagues,
It is with pleasure that I address you here in my new function as Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I would like first of all to pay tribute to my predecessors in this position over the past 12 years and namely Brian Burdekin first and then Orest Nowosad who have both done an excellent job and greatly contributed to the development of this part of the work of OHCHR.
As already indicated by the HC and the director of Division, Maria Francesca Ize-Charrin, OHCHR gives priority within the OHCHR Plan of Action to the establishment and strengthening of NIs in compliance with the Paris Principles because they are the central element of strong and effective national human rights protection systems which in turn are key to peace, security and economic and social development. As one of those staff who participated in the meeting in Paris in 1991 that set up the principles of national independent human rights institutions, I would like to recall here the fundamental importance of the 6 key criteria set out in the Paris Principles yet especially those concerning independence and pluralism. We must all strive to uphold these principles because they are a conditio sine qua non for the effectiveness of the action of Nis at the national and international levels.
At the national level, NIs are the best guarantee of the faithful application of international human rights norms both in law and practices. In particular, NIs can take the lead in ensuring that the nation’s body of law is consistent with the Constitution and with international human rights standards, and includes adequate protections for vulnerable groups such as women and minorities, against discrimination, thus developing the Government’s capacity to institutionalize law revision in order to meet the country’s ongoing and future needs.
NIs can also ensure that the administration of justice conforms to international standards and provides effective remedies to all. In particular, NIs can make sure that police and prison administrations have adequate standing orders, implementing regulations, internal accountability systems that guarantee effective internal oversight and ensure that national practices are fully in line with relevant international human rights norms.
In countries coming out of a conflict, NIs can play a key role in the development of transitional justice strategies that can ensure adequate accountability mechanisms to deal with the wounds of the past as well as national reconciliation.
At the international level, they are key to the functioning of the international human rights system, especially through their participation in the Human Rights Council and their relationship with the HR Treaty Bodies and the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. Providing information and advice to UN human rights experts as well as ensuring follow up action at the national level to recommendations and concluding observations resulting from their work are two very important aspects of the contribution of Nis to the promotion and protection of human rights, globally.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that NIs fully comply with the Paris Principles, in order to maintain the highest standard of professionalism in their work, strive for the application of international norms and use their independence to open up human rights space and engage constructively on human rights issues Governments, State entities, civil society organizations and the media.
OHCHR, in accordance with the Secretary-General reform programs, is increasing its country engagement and thus its partnerships at the national level. It is also trying to channel its national level activities increasingly through OHCHR field offices, human rights components of UN peace missions as well as the United Nations Country Teams made up of UN Agencies and Programs (such as UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, etc.), in place in some 140 countries worldwide. The NI Unit is making it a priority for 2007 to sensitize and open up UNCT support towards the establishment and strengthening of NIs. NIs are in turn encouraged to seek technical assistance and support from and through members of the UNCTs at the national level.
With an increase in country engagement and technical cooperation towards NIs, OHCHR is ever more looking towards regional and international NI networks as strategic partners for enhanced effectiveness at country level and closer engagement with NIs. It is in this light and in recognition of the significant potential of networks, that OHCHR is also supporting the establishment of new regional coordinating committees of NIs, such as the Africa Network of NIs and the Commonwealth Forum of NIs, and encouraging greater participation of regional coordinating committees in the Human Rights Council as this will in the long term also significantly contribute to close critical protection gaps and strengthen national human rights protection systems.
Another strategic partner with whom we hope to build stronger ties is the Inter Parliamentary Union, as it focuses on another key element of a national protection system, that is parliaments. The SG of this organisation, which will address you tomorrow at 9.00, much in the same way as NI networks do, assembles parliaments into an international network, creating a force which is stronger than its individual parts. By interlinking networks which focus on different elements of a national HR protection system, a truly significant momentum can be created to advance human rights at the national and international levels.
Finally, within OHCHR itself, the NI Unit will increase its support to the ICC and facilitate partnerships between NIs and all our colleagues in the various Branches – in addition to CBB, especially those dealing with the Human Rights Council, the Treaty Bodies and the Special Procedures. The Unit will also facilitate cooperation between NIs and the various OHCHR field offices, HR components of UN peace missions and the UNCTs worldwide. Greater transparency and more opportunities for dialogue and cooperation will be priorities for our action in the months ahead.
I look very much forward to working closely with all of you.
****************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment