“International human rights bodies worldwide need more
support and more self-criticism”
[14/04/08] Governments have agreed to set up multilateral mechanisms
to monitor and assist the realisation of international human rights
norms. This reflects a recognition that these standards are indeed an
international concern and that cooperation on their implementation is
desirable. However, it does happen that these bodies are criticised by
the same governments. Some of this criticism is not well-founded and
rather reflects an unease about hearing uncomfortable truths. This does
not mean that international human rights mechanisms are free from flaws.
There is a need for an open and constructive discussion on how to
improve their capacity and overall efficiency.
Quite a number of human rights mechanisms have been established since
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 60 years ago,
within the United Nations but also on European level. Several of them
are underfunded which has caused difficulties for them to undertake
serious, professional work. Committee members and rapporteurs are in
several cases not even paid but act as volunteers. My own office -
supposed to assist 47 countries - still has a modest, though expanding budget.
This will hopefully change when governments realise the full importance
of these human rights mechanisms, diverse as they may be. For that to
happen it is essential that these bodies do their utmost to prove their
value – and learn from the experiences so far in order to improve their
effectiveness..
One very clear lesson for both governments and the international
organisations is that the human rights mechanisms are more effective
when their independence is recognised and respected, as it is the case,
I am pleased to say, for those mechanisms created in the Council of
Europe framework. This experience should influence the definition of the
mandate of the mechanisms and the appointment of office holders. It
underlines also the importance of ensuring funding which would not
create dependencies.
The human rights bodies should of course avoid any country stereotyping
and always stand above the party-political struggles. The protection of
their impartiality is of key importance. Governments on their side must
be prepared to listen to well-founded criticism even when such messages
could be utilised by the opposition. They should also accept that the
international representatives are in touch with and listen to
non-governmental groups.
Another lesson is that the various human rights bodies must cooperate
and coordinate their activities. Some governments have genuine problems
in coping with the many human rights visitors and the reporting
requirements and to integrate the recommendations into concrete
policies.
This underlines the need for information sharing, rational division of
labour and coordinated actions between the international actors.
Confusing overlap should be avoided and a principle of subsidiarity be
established. It is absolutely essential that the various mechanisms
avoid giving conflicting messages.
For the moment there is a good atmosphere of cooperation between the
European human rights institutions, including with the relevant parts of
the United Nations. I myself spend quite a lot of time on such
coordination and feel that it is worthwhile in order to maximize our
combined impact. Usually, we do build on one another’s findings in a
meaningful manner.
The coordination between the monitoring mechanisms and the assistance
bodies has also improved. For instance, UNICEF is analyzing the
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child when
designing its programmes and the European Union has helped to fund some
of the follow-up programmes of my Office.
Though problems have been reduced by the good will and cooperation of
the actors involved, I would recommend a very critical attitude towards
suggestions of new international or European human rights mechanisms.
Many of the newly defined issues can be tackled within the existing
structures.
The key aspect in any analysis of the international human rights bodies
has to be whether they have a real impact and genuinely protect and
improve the concrete situation of people. This is what it is all about.
This requires a clear mandate, necessary resources and an approach which
is strategic – recognizing the enormous difficulty of the task and its
political sensitivity.
A major point is how the international actors relate to actors at the
national and local levels – the authorities but also the media and the
civil society, including representatives of the victims. This is not an
easy task. It takes a lot of experience to grasp the real problems and
to give useful advice.
This is not only a question of good appointments and sending the right
delegates, it also touches on basic approaches. It is essential that the
international actors avoid being seen to “take over” the role of
national forces and institutions. International monitoring should to a
large extent focus on whether there are national capacities to spot
problems and address them adequately and effectively– to “monitor the
monitors”. Our advisory services should focus on strategic points like
the work of the ombudsmen, the functioning of independent specialised
agencies and of course the functioning of the judiciary.
Advice may be given on, for instance, education and training but
international bodies should avoid taking over such functions and thereby
steal the space from domestic actors, who know better the local
possibilities and problems, and how to address them. We have to scrap
the idea that the international institutions are at top of a hierarchy –
we are rather at the service of the members or supporters of these
bodies. The international actors should also focus on the sharing of
knowledge about successful approaches in other countries.
There is a need now for a broader evaluation of ways of improving and
strengthening the international human rights system. The leading
agencies should set up a task force for this purpose. Independent
experts should be invited, among them persons with genuine experience of
working for human rights in their own societies– persons we have in mind
when we talk about Human Rights Defenders.
Questions which could be addressed would include:
• How can the independence and integrity of the monitoring mechanisms be
best protected and upheld?
• What further steeps are needed to facilitate coordination and division
of labour between the agencies on different levels?
• What more could be done to relate problem definition to concrete
advice and support to the national level?
• What should be done to ensure sufficient financing of international
human rights work, and the recruitment of the necessary staff?
• What is the experience of “mainstreaming” of human rights into
development and security programmes? How should these efforts be
pursued?
Such an evaluation should of course also draw lessons from the successes
– and there have been successes. To take but a few examples from the
Council of Europe monitoring bodies, I have seen prisons rebuilt to the
better after criticism from the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture (CPT) and new laws against racism adopted after recommendations
from The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).
Recommendations from my predecessor or myself have led to the closure of
outdated prison facilities, improvements in asylum procedures, creation
of Ombudsman institutions, changes in laws concerning the compulsory
placement in psychiatric institutions, adoption of laws against
discrimination.
A review of the practical impact of the Council of Europe mechanisms in
improving respect for human rights in member states was published in
April 2007. It contains a large selection of policy reforms and
legislative changes, which can somehow be linked to judgements of the
European Court of Human rights , the ECRI, the CPT, the supervisory
mechanisms of the European Social Charter and the European convention
for the Protection of National Minorities. While we all, of course,
recognize that changes are usually the result of multiple forces, the
compilation is indeed encouraging.
However, there is no place for complacency. Instead we should constantly
remind ourselves about the enormous responsibility that comes with the
fact that so many people all over the world have put their trust into
our serious efforts.
Thomas Hammarberg
This Viewpoint can be re-published in newspapers or on the internet without
our prior consent, provided that the text is not modified and the original
source is indicated in the following way: "Also available at the Commissioner's
website at www.commissioner.coe.int"
RSS
Twitter
Print 
Send 
Version française