Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Background document nhrm report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Background document nhrm report

272

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
272
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report(Prepared for Discussion and Submission to the Council of Commissioners) EHRC Reporting Team Tuesday, August 18, 2009EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 1 of 36
  • 2. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportContents1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................32 Conceptual and Methodological Framework....................................................................4 2.1 Conception of Monitoring..........................................................................................4 2.1.1 Meaning and Purposes........................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies......................................................................6 2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring..........................................................7 2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies................................................................ 8 2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators..........................................9 2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information....................................14 2.3 The National Human Rights Framework.................................................................15 2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission............................................................. 183 The National Human Rights Monitoring Report............................................................20 3.1 Basis and Nature of the Report................................................................................ 21 3.1.1 Guiding Principles and Values..........................................................................22 3.1.2 Purpose and Objectives.....................................................................................23 3.2 Scope and Coverage.................................................................................................24 3.3 The Research Process.............................................................................................. 25 3.4 Indicators and Benchmarks......................................................................................28 3.5 Sources of Information............................................................................................ 30 3.6 Implementation/Work Plan......................................................................................32 3.7 Inputs/Resource Requirements................................................................................ 35EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 2 of 36
  • 3. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report1 IntroductionThis background paper is for the most part a compilation of the results of activitiesconducted by the HRC Reporting Team of the EHRC. The purpose of the document is toprovide clear, coherent, comprehensive and rights-based conceptual and methodologicalguidelines for the development of the EHRC national monitoring report. Towards thisend, the general objective of the background paper is clarifying the profile of theundertaking and developing uniform understanding among EHRC staff and leadership, aswell as key human rights actors and stakeholders. Within this general objective, thespecific objectives of the paper are: – Establishing a clear basis in the national and international human rights framework for the planned national human rights report in terms of the recognition of specific rights, the role of NHRIs, and the mandates of the EHRC; – Determine the scope and coverage of the national human rights report thematically, geographically, and in terms of targets; – Identify key actors and stakeholders and their involvement in the research process; – Identify relevant and appropriate methodological approaches to be used for the development of the report based on existing best practice in human rights monitoring research; – Outlining the objectives and results (outputs, outcomes and impacts) expected upon and subsequent to the completion of the research; – Developing a detailed work plan and budget framework for the development of the national human rights report.The background paper outlining the basis, nature and methodological framework of theplanned national human rights monitoring process is prepared for submission to theEHRC senior management, i.e. the Council of Commissioners, for approval. Onceapproved by the EHRC management, the background paper will be considered inconsultation sessions with EHRC staff so as to build consensus on the research process.The contents of the background paper are presented in two major parts. The first part,which may be considered the background, contains a brief overview of the theoreticaland methodological framework for human rights monitoring with a view to establishingexisting best practice. The national human rights framework in Ethiopia and the profile ofthe EHRC are also dealt with within this part. The implications of the identified bestpractice and the national and institutional contexts to the national human rights reportare dealt with in the second section. In addition, the second section outlines the proposedsubstantive, institutional and methodological approaches for the conduct of the researchprocess. The section concludes with a detailed budget.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 3 of 36
  • 4. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report2 Conceptual and Methodological FrameworkThe conceptual and methodological approach to be adopted for the development of theEHRC’s National Human Rights Monitoring “Baseline” Repot should be informed by: – best experience among international, regional and national human rights organizations with particular attention to National Human Rights Institutions; – the FDRE Constitution, the UDHR, and other international human rights instruments duly ratified by Ethiopia; and, – the mandates of the EHRC as defined under its establishment proclamation and interpreted by its high level management.Accordingly, the HRC Reporting Team has conducted a review of relevant literature,legislation and practice on the basis, nature, structure and scope of monitoring by NHRIs,and human rights monitoring approaches applied by international, regional and nationalhuman rights institutions, especially NHRIs. 2.1 Conception of Monitoring 2.1.1 Meaning and PurposesMonitoring means the close observation of a situation or individual case over a longperiod of time, with reference to accepted norms, with the purpose of providing anassessment as basis for further action.1 The following elements constitute monitoring:2  It is carried out over an extended period of time.  It involves collecting or receiving a large quantity of data.  Close observation of the situation is done through constant or periodic examination or investigation and documentation of developments.  Standards or norms are used as reference in objectively assessing the situation or case in question, especially in determining what is wrong with it.  Tools or instruments are used in identifying how the situation compares with established standards or norms.  The product of monitoring is usually a report about the situation.1 United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic Governance Group, March 20062 Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and Documentation Series, Volume 1: WHAT IS MONITORING, HURIDOCS, 2003EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 4 of 36
  • 5. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report  The report embodies an assessment of the situation which provides a basis for further action.The most common general purpose of monitoring is to be able to pinpoint what is wrongwith a situation or a case and to indicate what steps can be taken to remedy it.Monitoring is also undertaken to see whether steps that have been taken to improve asituation are working. Human rights monitoring has the following particular purposes,among others:3 – To ensure compliance with international and domestic human rights law by government authorities and citizens;4 – To provide remedies for the victims of human rights violations and address impunity for human rights abuses by collecting evidentiary material for court cases, investigations by national human rights institutions, etc … – To identify patterns of human rights abuses and violations in terms of the types, frequency, and causes of human rights violation with a view to systemic solutions for addressing them; – To inform and educate the public about human rights situations5 and ensure transparency for government and individual actions by establishing the human rights situation in a particular context thorough documentation; and, – To offer validation to victims of human rights violations by amplifying the voices of victims and providing opportunities for those voices to be heard.While sharing similar purposes, monitoring is distinct from investigation anddocumentation of human rights abuses. Monitoring involves the repeated collection ofinformation often involving investigating and documenting a large or representativenumber of human rights events. Investigation, on the other hand, refers to the process offact finding focused on an event which carries or is suspected to carry one or more humanrights violations. The final stage in human rights investigations is documentation or thesystematic recording of the results of the investigation as a basis for advocacy orcomparison.6 Data documented over a period of time and covering a large number ofspecific cases can be analyzed so as to get a fuller picture of the human rights situation inthe context of a monitoring process.3 Mona Nicoara, Human Rights Observation and Monitoring, Independent Consultant, Columbia University, Monday, June 28, 20044 This is often referred to as the preventive aspect of human rights monitoring since the aim is to ensure that human rights safeguards are implemented.5 This is the public education aspect of human rights monitoring6 United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic Governance Group, March 2006EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 5 of 36
  • 6. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report 2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring BodiesMonitoring may be conducted by a wide profile of human rights actors among whichthree actors, namely inter-governmental bodies, NGOs and government organizations –especially national human rights institutions, take important roles.Intergovernmental − Treaty monitoring bodies; − Set standardsOrganizations (IGOs) − The Commission on Human − Monitor compliance of Rights governments with their − Special Rapporteurs and treaty obligations Working Groups, − Monitor certain situations − Specialized agencies (e.g. ILO, involving violations WHO, UNDP, …), − Regional IGOs, and − The Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights7Governmental − Government agencies or sector − Encourage ownOrganizations (GOs) ministries responsible for treaty- governments to adopt based reports, international standards − National human rights − Monitor compliance of institutions, own governments with − Policy monitoring executive treaty obligations bodies, − Monitor violations − Specialized commissions/ agencies (e.g. anti-corruption commissions)Non-Governmental − International advocacy groups − Lobby with IGOs towardOrganizations (NGOs) and organizations, setting standards − National human rights NGOs − Lobby with governments toward adopting international standards − Monitor compliance of governments with their treaty obligations − Monitor violationsA national human rights institution is usually any of the following:  Human rights commission – a body composed of several members usually from diverse backgrounds which discharge various functions (usually different from one commission to another) that range from human rights education to investigation of complaints.7 previously known as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of MinoritiesEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 6 of 36
  • 7. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report  Ombudsman – an individual or group of persons generally appointed to protect the rights of individuals who believe themselves to be the victim of unjust acts on the part of the government  Specialized commission – a body composed of several members which function to protect the rights of a particular vulnerable group such as ethnic and linguistic minorities, indigenous populations, children, refugees or women.National human rights commissions are generally mandated to study internationalstandards, encourage their governments to adopt these, and call the attention of theirgovernments if the adopted standards are not met. One way through which they monitorthe compliance of their governments with obligations is by making contributions to therequired periodic reports.Another common duty of national human rights commissions as well as specializedcommissions is to call the attention of the government to areas of violations and instancesof discrimination in the country. Many human rights commissions, either national orspecialized, and certainly the national ombudsmen, are mandated to monitor violations,especially if a complaints procedure is in place. 2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights MonitoringThe approaches adopted by various actors in monitoring human rights may differ as afactor of what is monitored, thematic scope or focus, and the intended purposes.Situation vs. Performance of Duties: The perspective adopted by a monitoringinitiative may fall into one of three general categories: a situation monitoring; or a duty-bearer analysis. A situation report seeks to monitor progress in the realization of humanrights, i.e., whether and the extent to which the rights are enjoyed by the rights-holders.As such, the focus is on the status of human rights and the situation of vulnerable groups.While such reports abound at the national level, the reports prepared under the UniversalPeriodic Review (UPR) mechanism8 within the framework of the UN Human RightsCouncil are also a good example. On the other hand, a duty-bearer analysis report, suchas most of the treaty-based reports, monitors the fulfillment of obligations to realizehuman rights. Such a process thus focuses on mapping human rights actors, and examiningactions taken by the State and other legal and moral duty-bearers to realize human rights.In some cases, these two perspectives may come together in a multi-perspectivemonitoring report dealing with the status of rights, situation of vulnerable groups andfulfillment of legal/moral duties by the duty-bearers.Comprehensive vs. Specialized: Human rights monitoring processes and reports arealso different in terms of the range of issues/rights to be covered. Some reportscomprehensively cover the whole range of rights while others opt for a more in-depthcoverage of selected thematic issues/rights. Most national human rights reports, however,have an overview section dealing with the whole range of rights/issues as well as specificsections for more in-depth discussion of selected issues/rights.8 United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution Building, Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 7 of 36
  • 8. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportSituation vs. Case Monitoring: Human rights monitoring can be of two generalkinds, depending on their focus: situation monitoring and case monitoring. Under eachkind, there can be various forms, as summarized below:Situation monitoring − monitoring human rights violations − monitoring the drafting and passing of legislation − monitoring the implementation of laws and policies − monitoring the establishment and progress of human rights institutionsCase monitoring − monitoring the legal process undergone by a case − monitoring relief and rehabilitation services provided to a client − monitoring other forms of intervention in a caseSituation monitoring focuses on a situation in general in terms of the recurrence ofviolations, progress in relevant human rights legislation and the performance of humanrights institutions. This form of monitoring is useful for the purpose of monitoringgovernment compliance with treaty obligations as well as for domestic monitoring. Casemonitoring, on the other hand, is very focused and victim-oriented and involves work foror on behalf of an individual victim or a group of victims. Follow up and documentationof developments in the case is an essential and integral part of case monitoring. 2.2 Human Rights Monitoring MethodologiesTwo dominant methodologies in monitoring human rights situations are the "events" (oracts-based) methodology and the indicators-based methodology.9The “events methodology” for monitoring involves identifying the various acts ofcommission and omission that constitute or lead to human rights violations. In otherwords, it is a concrete form by which the “violations” approach takes shape. Thismethodology involves investigating and documenting an event that is suspected of orconfirmed to be consisting of one or more acts considered as violations.A limitation of the “events” methodology is that it usually does not aim, or often fails, toarrive at a complete picture by giving the total number of violations, much less theproportion of actual victims to the whole population. There are two problem areasidentified in this regard: – The monitoring body does not hear of all events involving the violations covered by its mandate; and, – Even if the monitoring body learns of events that are likely to contain violations, it is unable to investigate and document these for reasons such as ongoing military actions, hesitation of witnesses to come forward, and lack of resources.Indicator based human rights monitoring, on the other hand, involves the use ofperformance standards for the core components of specific rights in the form of indicatorsand benchmarks to determine patterns and trends. The advantages of this methodological9 Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 57EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 8 of 36
  • 9. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportapproach have been noted in terms of enabling the identification of problems andpotential major violations, expressing the magnitude of the problems, comparisons overspace, determination of the status of groups within a country, and facilitating theevaluation of trends over time.10 However, indicators and benchmarks may not beappropriate in addressing grave violations since they tend to aggregate the situation ofindividuals. Indicators-based methodology is especially weak in situations were victimsrequire direct and individualized assistance.In short, the combination of the “events” methodology and the indicators-basedmethodology should result in a comprehensive and detailed picture of a situation. 2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking IndicatorsAn indicator is a tool that shows where something is, what direction it is leading to, andhow far it is from that objective. It serves as a sign or symptom that tells what is wrong ina situation and helps in pointing out what needs to be done to fix the problem. A humanrights indicator may be defined as “a piece of information used in measuring the extent towhich a legal right is being fulfilled or enjoyed in a given situation.”11 Indicators may bebased on quantitative or qualitative information and may assess inputs or outputs.Quantitative indicators measure change through numerical or statistical facts of physicaloutputs. A more accurate description would thus identify indicators as “quantitative orqualitative statements that can be used to describe situations that exist and to measurechanges or trends over a period of time”.12 In this definition, indicators are seen as bothqualitative and quantitative descriptions of situations and as elements that are employedto define a particular process.International, regional, and national human rights institutions have developed widelyaccepted indicators for a range of rights. At the international level, UN agencies such asUNICEF, UNESCO, and WHO, Special Rapporteurs such as Paul Hunt on the Right toHealth, and inter-agency working groups have developed rights-based measurementsystems in their respective spheres of expertise. Most notable among these are thedetailed CESCR Guidelines,13 the draft harmonized reporting guidelines, the humandevelopment indicators and indices of UNDP, the national context-specific benchmarksunder the Common Country Assessment (CCA) framework of UNDAF, 14 and indicators10 Audrey R. Chapman, Indicators and Standards for Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Science and Human Rights Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000, p. 111 Maria Green, When We Talk about Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement, report written for the Human Development Report Office, United Nations Development Programme, July 199912 Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 5513 UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 199114 UN, Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Framework: Guidelines for UN Country Teams (Geneva: July 2004) 6 (http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20andEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 9 of 36
  • 10. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportdeveloped for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).15 Generally, three kinds ofrights-based indicators have been identified for human rights monitoring.16 These are:structural, process and result indicators measuring commitment, efforts and results,respectively.17Structural indicators measure whether or not appropriate legal, regulatory andinstitutional structures considered necessary or useful for the realization of a human right18are in place as an indicator of the extent to which human rights are guaranteed throughratification and adoption of legal instruments and existence of basic institutionalmechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realization of human rights (such as courtsystems, human rights commissions and ombudsmen, and formal complaintmechanisms).19 They capture commitments or the intent of the State in undertakingmeasures for the realization of the concerned human right to monitor the stateobligations of conduct, i.e. the effort the government has put forth towards therealization of a human right. Structural indicators have to focus foremost on the nature ofdomestic law as relevant to the concerned right, i.e. whether it incorporates theinternational standards, and the institutional mechanisms that promote and protect thestandards. Structural indicators also need to look at policy framework and indicatedstrategies of the State as relevant to the right. Most structural indicators are qualitative innature, and a number of structural indicators may be evaluated by a simple “yes“ or “no“answer, e.g. if a particular law or policy is in place or not. However, sometimes theseyes/no answers need follow-up questions and additional clarification, to capturequalitative dimensions of the law or policy.A process indicator on the other hand measures the degree to which the state iscomplying with its obligations as well as the effectiveness of the structural realities, thelaws and institutions that exist. In most cases, process indicators relate State policy %20UNDAF.pdf)15 United Nations Development Group, Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources (New York: United Nations, 2003). (http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mispa/Metadatajn30.pdf)16 Paul Hunt, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Agenda item 117 (c), 10 October 200317 Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights, HRI/MC/2008/3, Twentieth meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies, Geneva, 26-27 June 200818 This refers to national law, constitutions, regulations and legal, policy frameworks and institutional organization and mandates.19 The existence of institutions of civil society, including the independent media, universities, and human rights organizations is also considered a structural indicator.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 10 of 36
  • 11. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportinstruments20 with benchmarks that cumulate into outcome indicators, which in turn canbe more directly related to the realization of human rights. Process indicators capture: – quality of a process in terms of its adherence to the key human rights principles (is the process non-discriminatory, accountable, participatory and empowering, and can duty bearers be held accountable?), and – type of policy instruments, and public resource allocations and expenditures invested to further the progressive realization of a specific right.Examples of process indicators include the amount of government spending on femaleprimary education, and the degree of independence of the judicial system.A result indicator measures the outcome of efforts, or the lack of them, to meet aparticular obligation and success in bringing about greater equity and wellbeing.21 It istherefore an indication of the current status of the enjoyment of a certain right and amore direct measure of the realization of rights. Outcome indicators capture attainmentsthat reflect the status of realization of human rights in a given context. For instance, aresult indicator may relate to whether and to what extent individuals and groups enjoyfreedom of religion and free speech, or an increase in government spending on femaleprimary education actually yield improvements in the literacy rates of girls relative toboys. Salient features of the OHCHR indicators framework – A common approach to identifying indicators for monitoring civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, thereby strengthening the notion of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights; – The framework translates the narrative on the normative content of human rights (starting with the related provisions of international human rights instruments and general comments by treaty bodies) into a few characteristic attributes and a configuration of structural, process and outcome indicators. – The identified indicators bring to the fore an assessment of steps taken by the State party in addressing its obligations – from acceptance of international human rights standards (structural indicators) to efforts being undertaken by the primary duty- bearer, the State, to meet the obligations that flow from the standards (process indicators) and on to the outcomes of those efforts from the perspective of rights- holders (outcome indicators); – The framework makes it is easier to identify contextually meaningful indicators for universally accepted human rights standards. It seeks neither to prepare a common list of indicators to be applied across all countries irrespective of their social, political and economic development, nor to make a case for building a global measure for cross- country comparisons of the realization of human rights;20 State policy instruments refers to all such measures including public programmes and specific interventions that a State is willing to take in order to give effect to its intent/commitments to attain outcomes identified with the realization of a given human right.21 A human rights inquiry is ultimately interested in the way people actually experience their rights, so it is important for us to measure outcomesEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 11 of 36
  • 12. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report – The framework focuses on two categories of indicators and data-generating mechanisms: (a) indicators that are or can be compiled by official statistical systems using statistical surveys and administrative records; and (b) indicators or standardized information more generally compiled by non-governmental sources and human rights organizations focusing on alleged violations reported by victims, witnesses or NGOs; and – The framework also focuses on quantitative as well as qualitative indicators to assess the implementation of human rights effectively. Efforts have been made to keep the identified indicators simple, based on objective and transparent methodology and, to the extent feasible, there is an emphasis on the disaggregation of identified indicators by type of prohibited discrimination (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, etc) and by vulnerable or marginalized population groups. UN- OHCHR’s work on indicators for human rights assessments, Status Note August, 2007Most existing frameworks, such as treaty body guidelines,22 focus on structural andprocess-level indicators rather than outcomes due to ease of measurement, and emphasison government obligations. One visible exception is the Committee on Economic, Social,and Cultural Rights (CESCR) whose Guidelines require states to provide specific outcomelevel statistics disaggregated by social group, sex, geographical location and other criteria,and supplemented with information about the rates of change over the past five and tenyears.23 However, the principle of interdependence among the whole spectrum of humanrights requires that a system of rights-based measurement incorporate indicators for bothenforceability (structure and process) and actual rates of enjoyment (outcome). As CraigMokhiber of OHCHR has noted,24 “… simply measuring status, or degree of realization, is not sufficient. There is a need to ensure the existence of an express right, and to monitor and measure effectiveness of institutions and mechanisms of redress and enforcement as well”.Moreover, the use of structural, process, and outcome level information gives us a morecomprehensive picture of the human rights situation as well as a clearer indication ofaccountability. These would in turn lay the basis for more relevant recommendations torealize human rights.The various frameworks developed through the above indicated efforts provide us with achoice of indicators. Yet, there are a few more challenges that have to be addressed toensure the contextual relevance and effectiveness in addressing the objective(s) for whichthe indicators are to be used. A major general concern in this respect is the fact thatalmost all available attempts were principally geared towards treaty-based reporting by22 See for instance: General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic Reports to be Submitted by States Parties under Article 19, Paragraph 1, of the Convention , United Nations Committee Against Torture, revised 1998, Document C/14/Rev.1.23 UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding t he form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 199124 Craig G. Mokhiber, “Toward a Measure of Dignity: Indicators for Rights-Based Development,” The Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 18 (2001) 159EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 12 of 36
  • 13. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportStates; a point that may give us pause in applying the same indicators for a reportdeveloped by an independent national human rights institution. Moreover, concernsrelating to validity, reliability and transparency in terms of triangulation/cross-confirmation among data sources, capturing the essential aspects of the normativeframework, and appropriate methodology have to be addressed.25 More specifically, theselection of human rights indicators is also necessitated by the following methodologicalconsiderations: − Simplicity, timeliness and number of indicators : Indicators that are too complex, take too much time to measure or are too numerous would be useless in practice in light of inherent limitations of expertise, time and other resources; after all, indicators are expected to indicate; − Objectivity : indicators should be directly observable and independently verifiable based on objective information and data-generating mechanisms following relevant international statistical standards, rather than perceptions, opinions, assessments or judgments made by experts/individuals − Comparability : monitoring indicators should be suitable for temporal and spatial comparison since we are interested in measuring changes and differences; and − Disaggregation : monitoring indicators should be amenable to disaggregation in terms of sex, age, and other vulnerable or marginalized population segments.26In general, indicators should be produced and disseminated in an independent, impartialand transparent manner and based on sound methodology, procedures and expertise.Finally, the indicators we have selected have to be benchmarked to make them open toregular monitoring of progress over successive time spans that takes into account thecurrent situation. A benchmark is the level that is aimed to be met when using a certainindicator. An example of a benchmark, when using adult literacy rate as an indicator, is75% literacy among adults nation-wide. Unlike human rights indicators which measurehuman rights observation or enjoyment in absolute terms, benchmarks generally refer totargets established by particular governments in relation to specific rights. The primary useof benchmarks is to offer a tool to assess the performance of states in reaching the goalsthey have set for a particular interval of time as part of the process of fulfilling theirobligations.25 Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Workshop on Measurement and Human Rights, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, July 6-8, 200626 General Comment No. 19 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sets out an exhaustive listing of grounds for non-discrimination, which may require disaggregation of data, if feasible.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 13 of 36
  • 14. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report 2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of InformationHuman rights monitoring reports generally focus on two complementary sources ofquantitative data: socio-economic and other administrative statistics; and, events-baseddata on human rights violations.Socio-economic statistics refers to quantitative information compiled and disseminated bythe State, through its administrative records and statistical surveys, usually in collaborationwith national statistical agencies and under the guidance of international and specializedorganizations. The use of a standardized methodology in the collection of information,whether it is through census operations, household surveys or through civil registrationsystems, and usually with high level of reliability and validity, makes indicators based onsuch a methodology vital for the efforts to bring about greater transparency, credibilityand accountability in human rights monitoring.Events-based data, on the other hand, is information relating to alleged or reported casesof human rights violations, identified victims and perpetrators. The most importantsources are cases entertained by national human rights institutions and UN specialprocedures both of which normally process allegations in a standardized manner. Whilesuch data does not provide comprehensive information on violations and precludescomparison over time or across regions, such indicative data has significant potential interms of elaboration. Other sources of qualitative information used in human rightsreports include household perception and opinion surveys and data based on expertjudgments.27One should however be cautious and selective in the use of available secondary sourcesbe aware of the possible limitations. At the outset, comprehensive informationconsistently covering all categories and dimensions of human rights is not available due toreasons attributable to limited objectives, scope and coverage. Moreover, the datasources often manifest problems relating to source biases, validity, reliability,transparency, variance truncation, and aggregation.28Information source bias relates to the availability of information and the possible biasesstemming from the type of organizations that produce the information. Most availablereports by human rights organizations, having access only to those violations that arereported, are based on reported cases of violation rather than a comprehensive database.Moreover, the very nature of the organizations may entail inherent bias in the wayinformation is collected, compiled, analyzed and reported. For instance, foreigngovernment reports such as those produced by the US State Department and the UKForeign and Commonwealth Office will necessarily have certain biases and differ frominformation provided by international governmental and non-governmentalorganizations. There are also differences in reporting and interpretation among different27 Rajeev Malhotra and Nicholas Fasel, “Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A Survey of Major Initiatives,” draft for discussion at Turku, 3 March 2005. (http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/Background.doc)28 United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic Governance Group, March 2006EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 14 of 36
  • 15. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reporthuman rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and FreedomHouse as well as between government agencies and CSOs. In relation to narrative andqualitative reports, there will be varying degrees of bias and uncertainty associated withdifferences in source material, ideological influences, and the fact that there are manyincentives not to report human practices and problems accurately or at all.29Validity concerns the degree to which an indicator actually measures what it purports tomeasure. There may be some ‘distance’ between the category and/or dimension of aparticular human right and the indicator that is being used to measure it. Certainly the useof proxy measures runs up against this problem.Reliability concerns the degree to which the indicator can be produced consistently acrossdifferent contexts by different groups at different times. Can the indicator be produced bydifferent people using the same coding rules and source material?Transparency concerns the degree to which the coding rules and procedures forproducing an indicator are publicly available. For example, while some human rights datawebsites are explicit about its coding rules and sources for coding its different indicators,other are less transparent about the sources that are used for each country and how itschecklists are used to produce their different scales.Variance truncation concerns the degree to which information on human rights at thenational level is forced into limited categories, such as those found in the standardizedscales derived from expert judgments. These standardized scales, which fail to showchanges over shorter periods, are only useful for those countries in which there has beengreat variation in human rights protection over time.Aggregation concerns the ways in which indicators are combined as well as the degree towhich they provide information on different groups of people in a country. For example,the HDI, which employs different aggregation and weighting rules for the variouscomponents, rarely provides information that helps identify the rights conditions forsignificant sub-populations within countries. 2.3 The National Human Rights FrameworkUntil the mid-1970s, Ethiopia is best described as a feudal state under a centralizedimperial government. The last Imperial government was replaced by a socialist orientedmilitary dictatorship after a popular uprising in 1974. The military government was itselfabolished by a coalition of rebel forces under the name Ethiopian Peoples RevolutionaryDemocratic Front (EPRDF) in May 1991. In July of the same year, the EPRDF and other29 Human Rights Watch, for instance, relies heavily on communication with a network of “local human rights activists and civil society members” throughout all stages of its research. As such, there is always a risk that HRW reports channel the institutional and methodological biases inherent in using secondary sources as the principal basis for monitoring. Moreover, such selective approach is by definition non-responsive to comparisons across time and space.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 15 of 36
  • 16. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportpolitical organizations established the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) under anational charter.30In June 1994 elections were held for the 547-member constituent assembly that adopteda federal constitution in December 1994. The Constitution provides for a tieredgovernment system consisting of a federal government, 9 ethnically-based regional statesand two city administrations: Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.31 The Constitution assignsextensive power to regional states to establish their own government complete withlegislative, executive and judicial branches under the Federal Constitution.32. The federalgovernment is organized in a parliamentary system with two chambers: the Council ofPeoples Representatives elected for five-year terms in single-seat constituencies; and theCouncil of the Federation designated by the regional councils. The prime minister isdesignated by the majority party or coalition in the HPR following legislative elections.The Constitution also guarantees judicial independence.33The first democratic elections for the federal parliament and regional legislatures, whichmost opposition parties chose to boycott,34 were held in May and June 1995 giving theEPRDF a landslide victory. The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia was officially established in August 1995 under the new constitution. The EPRDFdominated government was re-elected 2000 in Ethiopias first multi-party elections. Thethird general election was held in May 2005 with a record 90% voter turnout. Theresults of the elections, which received mixed reviews from observers,35 were delayedamid claims and counter-claims of vote rigging, intimidation, and fraud. The final officialelection results were released on 5 September 2005 confirming the EPRDF coalitionsufficient majority to form the federal government and the four major regions while theopposition increased their share of parliamentary seats, from 12 to 176. The Coalition forUnity and Democracy, a recently formed coalition of opposition parties, won all the seatsin Addis Ababa, both for the Parliament and the City Council. However, internationalobservers and human rights institutions have raised serious doubts and concerns on thecommitment and promise of the Government to democracy and the rule of law30 However, some of the major partners of the EPRDF in the TGE, notably the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Southern Ethiopia Peoples Democratic Coalition, subsequently left the government.31 The status of Dire Dawa as a federal city administration is not confirmed in the Constitution.32 Article 50 of the FDRE Constitution: Although the Constitution confers upon regional states extensive legislative, administrative and judicial powers, some scholars and politicians argue that33 The president and vice president of the Federal Supreme Court are recommended by the prime minister and appointed by the House of Peoples Representatives; for other federal judges, the prime minister submits candidates selected by the Federal Judicial Administrative Council to the House of Peoples Representatives for appointment.34 International and non-governmental observers concluded that opposition parties would have been able to participate had they chosen to do so.35 While the election was deemed by the European Union election observer team to fall short of international standards for fair and free elections, other teams drew different conclusions.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 16 of 36
  • 17. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportfollowing the May 2005 elections. The government was severely criticized byinternational human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch.36Currently, the Ethiopian Human Rights regime substantively consists of: − International and regional human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia; − Commitments of the Ethiopian Government under charter-based instruments by virtue of membership in international and regional IGOs; − Non-binding resolutions, declarations and guidelines issued by international and regional IGOs and signed by Ethiopia; − The provisions of the FDRE Constitution on human rights, democracy, governance and policy principles; − Subsidiary laws and legal standards duly promulgated by the appropriate national legislative and executive bodies; and − Benchmarks set within the national policy frameworkEthiopia has ratified all the major international (and regional) human rights instrumentsincluding the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, the International Convention on theRights of the Child (ICRC) and the African Charter on Human and peoples’ Rights. Theseinstruments set down international standard for the protection and promotion of humanrights.Table 1: Major Human Rights Instruments Ratified by the Government of Ethiopia 37 The human rights instrument Adopted Ratified by Ethiopia (UN) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and 1966 June 11 1993 Cultural Rights The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 June 11 1993 International Convention on the Elimination of All 1965 June 23 1976 Forms of Racial Discrimination Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane 1984 March 14 1994 or Degrading Treatment Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 1979 September 10 1981 Discrimination against Women Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 May 14 1991 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 June 2 1998In addition to commitments under the international and African human rights systems,the FDRE Constitution dedicates Chapter III to fundamental rights and freedoms. The36 Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Overview: Ethiopia Country Page, January 18, 2006 (available at: www.hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=ethiop)37 Pursuant to (Art. 9(2) of the constitution such instruments are considered as part of the law of the landEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 17 of 36
  • 18. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportrights set forth in the text of the Constitution cover civil, political, economic, cultural,social, environmental and developmental rights. The document emphasizes that Humanrights and freedoms emanating from the nature of mankind, are inviolable andinalienable (article 10/1). Main Features of the Human Rights Chapter of the Ethiopian Constitution − Follows the holistic approach: It covers both civil and political and economic, social and culture rights. − Provides also for collective rights: These include the right to development of nations, nationalities and peoples to self determination, full measure of self government promotion and preservation of language, cultural values and history − Recognizes, adopting separate provisions, rights of vulnerable groups. The rights of workers, women and children. − The language used and limitations prescribed generally follow standards set by international human rights instruments. − Provides for derogatory clause which makes only right to self determination, equality before the law and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and from slavery absolute rights while the right to life is absolute according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. − Provides for a wide range of human rights recognized under international human rights law. There are by and large equivalent provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. − Contains exceptionally detailed provisions for the protection of the rights of the arrested, accused and convicted persons. − Adopts a unique categorization of rights as human and democratic rights (14-28 Human 29-44 Democratic)The Bill of Rights in the Ethiopian Constitution, which is modeled on international humanrights conventions, is further subjected to a special interpretative regime, which shouldcomply with principles of the international law adopted by Ethiopia. However,international law is narrowly construed to cover only the UDHR and those conventionsratified by Ethiopia. In addition, article 9 (1) affirms the supremacy of the Constitution. Itfurther noted that all laws, which contravene this Constitution, shall be of no effect. Asno additional detail is provided for, it can be argued that where there is an inconsistencybetween the provisions of the Constitution and international human rights standards, theformer prevails. 2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights CommissionThe Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was established by Proclamation No 210/2000on 4th July 2000. The establishment of the EHRC was a requirement of Article 55(14) ofthe Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), which came intoforce on 21 August 1995. In compliance with this Constitutional provision, the House ofPeoples’ Representatives approved Proclamation 210/2000, which established theCommission and defined its mandate and powers on 4th July 2000. The ChiefCommissioner was nominated by the HPR in July 2004 following a procedure thatincluded public consultations. Similarly, the deputy Chief Commissioner andEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 18 of 36
  • 19. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportCommissioner for Children’s and Women’s Rights were nominated in July 2005. With theappointment of the Commissioners, the Commission was able to constitute a Council ofCommissioners, as required by the establishing law and become functional.The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission aims to serve the citizens and peoples of theNation by promoting, protecting and enforcing the human and democratic rights ofcitizens and peoples of Ethiopia as enshrined in the Constitution and other laws of theland, as well as the international human rights conventions and instruments adopted byEthiopia, and by ensuring that citizens and peoples can claim these rights. The majorobjectives of the EHRC include: – educating the public to be aware of human rights; – seeing to it that the human rights are protected, respected and fully enforced; and, – taking the necessary measure where they are found to have been violated.More specifically, the EHRC aspires to develop its institutional capacity to fully promoteand protect human rights throughout the country in accordance with recognizedinternational and regional best practice and the normative standards devolving from theParis Principles, and in full compliance with the Federal Constitution. The budget of theCommission shall be drawn from the following sources: (a) budgetary subsidy to beallocated by the Government; and, (b) assistance, grant and any other source.The EHRC constitutive proclamation establishes the Council of Commissioners as thehighest policy and decision-making body within the Commission. The Council iscomposed of: the Chief Commissioner functioning as the Executive Head of theCommission; the Deputy Chief Commissioner; the Commissioner for Vulnerable Groups;and, the Regional Commissioners. The Commission has also established departmentsresponsible for education, training and research, information and documentation,compliant investigation, and vulnerable groups. The Core Programs of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission – Human Rights Education- the core of this activity revolves around creating public awareness on human rights or on specific rights through face-to face contacts or via the media, publications; supporting awareness raising education and promotion by being a depository for human rights materials as well as through training key professionals – Human Rights Protection (complaint Investigation) – includes activities dealing with inherited backlogs, filed complaints, sensitive or priority cases, systemic or group issues; ensuring the application of remedies, attempting amicable resolution of cases as well as ensuring the implementation of settlements. – Human Rights Monitoring – under this category the Commission monitors places of detention; ensures the implementation of recommendations; monitors the general human rights situation of the country; as well as undertakes event monitoring. – Advising Government- this program involves the Commission’s provision of advice on existing legislation, policy and practices; provision of advice on proposed legislation, policy and practices as well as provision of advice on Treaty Bodies Reportingto the Government.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 19 of 36
  • 20. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report – Human Rights Research– under this Program, the EHRC seeks to conduct in-house or contracted research into human rights issues; carry out in-house or contracted research to support the development of guidelines, policies, procedures, etc; carry out in-house or contracted research to support program delivery; encourages academic research into human rights issues and develop a program of action research. – Democratic Institutions Programme (DIP): under the DIP, major donors and UN agencies working in Ethiopia have agreed to collectively support the strengthening of the capacity of the main democratic institutions in the Country including the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The current program aims at strengthening the capacity of the EHRC to be in full compliance with international standards for national human rights institutions (such as the Paris Principles). The Program is being implemented through a UNDP National Execution Modality with the EHRC as the national implementing partner and in close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).Since its establishment, the Commission has carried out a diverse set of activities plannedto accomplish the core mission, values and objectives of the Commission in partnershipwith a variety of national and international entities working with issues of human rights.Accordingly, it has managed to produce a number of reports on human rights situation ofthe country as well as conducted various human rights trainings and monitoring activities3 The National Human Rights Monitoring ReportThe Ethiopian Human Rights Commission has initiated a process to prepare the firstnational human rights report for Ethiopia. To date, the Commission has conducted thefollowing preparatory activities towards this undertaking: – Strategic Planning: including the preparation of a national human rights monitoring report among planned human rights promotion strategies/activities; – Action Planning: scheduling the preparation of a national human rights report in the Work Plan for 2009; – Securing Funding: under the UNDP/DIP initiative; – Setting up Office: office space has been acquired, furnished and equipment purchased; – Support to State Reporting: The Commission has provided technical support to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the preparation of more than 17 overdue reports to treaty monitoring bodies; – Prison Monitoring Report: Preparation of a monitoring report on the correctional system in Ethiopia: – Engaging Staff: As part of its organizational capacity building initiative, the Commission has engaged a coordinator, three project officers (for research, vulnerable groups, and investigation), and 3 research assistants (with experience inEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 20 of 36
  • 21. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report supporting State reporting by the MoFA) for the preparation of the national monitoring report; and, – Organizing a Stakeholders’ Consultation Forum: forum organized to popularize the process and seek input on the scope and methodology to be adopted for the national human rights report.These and other activities of the EHRC have cumulatively established conducive internaland external conditions for the design and implementation of the national human rightsmonitoring report preparation process. Currently, the requisite organizational andexternal conditions have been put in place with a few remaining challenges relating tointernal factors. These challenges mainly relate to staff recruitment and office setup whichare being addressed presently. 3.1 Basis and Nature of the ReportThe mandate of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission to prepare periodic nationalhuman rights reports is based on the provisions of the FDRE Constitution, the EHRCestablishment Proclamation,38 and the EHRC Strategic Plan.The EHRC establishment Proclamation sets the objectives of the Commission in broadterms making it responsible for ensuring the protection, respect for, and enforcement ofhuman rights in Ethiopia (Articles 5 and 6/1).39 More specifically, the Commission has theduty to: − ensure that the human rights and freedoms provided for under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia are respected by all citizens, organs of state, political organizations and other associations as well as by their respective officials; − ensure that laws, regulations and directives as well as government decisions and orders do not contravene the human rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution; − make recommendations for the revision of existing laws, enactment of new laws and formulation of policies.These mandates inherently require the regular monitoring of the human rights situation inthe country. In addition, the reporting mandates of the Commission are reiterated in theprovisions determining the powers and duties of the Chief Commissioner (Article 19) andguiding reporting by the Commission (Article 39). The first provision mandates the ChiefCommissioner to: “undertake study of recurrent cases of human right violations andforward together with remedial proposals to the House” and “submit a report, to the38 Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Establishment Proclamation No. 210/2000, Federal Negarit Gazeta - No. 40 4thJuly, 200039 As per Article 2/5 of the Proclamation, "Human Right" includes fundamental rights and freedoms recognized under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and those enshrined in the international agreement ratified by the countryEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 21 of 36
  • 22. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportHouse, on matters of human rights and on the activities of the Commission”.40 Thesecond provision further gives the Commission specific mandate to issue regular officialreports.41The role and mandate of NHRIs, including the EHRC, are also recognized under variousinternational guidelines on the role of NHRIs such as the CESCR General comment 10,42CRC General Comment No. 2,43 UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134,44 and CRCReporting Guidelines.45 3.1.1 Guiding Principles and ValuesIn line with standards drawn from the Ethiopian and international human rightsframework as well as good practices among NHRIs, the preparation of the report wouldbe guided by the following values and principles: – Commitment to human rights: The leadership and staff of the EHRC are committed to human rights principles and values recognized under the Ethiopian and international human rights frameworks in substance, methods, and organization. Such commitment shall in particular be owed to the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and the FDRE Constitution as an expression of their will. – Independence: With due regard for the status of the State as the primary legal duty bearer and non-state actors as moral duty bearers, the EHRC will maintain its organizational independence and seek to establish partnerships across sectors and levels for the design and implementation of the report. The EHRC’s relationships and dealings with human rights actors, stakeholders and rights-holders will be guided by equality, fairness mutual respect, non-discrimination and good-faith. The leadership and staff of the EHRC shall in particular uphold the public trust and demonstrate integrity in all their dealings with the public. – Impartiality and neutrality: The leadership and staff of the EHRC shall be, and shall be perceived to be, neutral and without personal or institutional bias in their40 Article 19/1 (d) and Article 19/1 (g)41 Articles 39/1 and 39/242 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The role of national human rights institutions in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/1998/25, CESCR General comment 10, Nineteenth session, Geneva, 16 November-4 December 199843 Committee on the Rights of the Child, The role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, General Comment No. 2 (2002), Thirty-second session, 13-31 January 200344 Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (The “Paris Principles”), General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993, annex45 General guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by States parties under article 44, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention (CRC/C/58), para. 18EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 22 of 36
  • 23. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report duties. However, such neutrality shall not extend to the values of the EHRC and the public interest. – Integrity: The leadership and staff of the EHRC will perform their official duties so as to conserve and enhance the integrity and objectivity of, as well as public confidence in, the Commission. In implementing this principle, they shall in particular avoid any form of discrimination or harassment that are contrary to law, either within or external to the Commission, ensure that their personal biases do not compromise the Commissions role in promoting human rights, ensure that there is no misuse of power or knowledge acquired through their position at the Commission, including no gain, profit, self-dealing, improper use of inside information, advancement or benefit accruing to them or members of their immediate family. – Transparency and public information: The Commission’s services, procedures and communications with the public will be clear, honest, respectful, transparent, fair, reasonable and consistent. The public has the right to receive accurate reports on the Commission’s processes, procedures and policies in a format that is understandable and accessible. As such, staff of the EHRC shall in particular ensure that information is accessible, user friendly, complete, understandable and truthful. – Information Security: Staff of the Commission shall ensure the security of printed and electronic information in their possession; disclosure of information through mass media shall be guided by the Commission’s policy guidelines and guidance provided by the Commissioners. In particular, Staff shall not knowingly take advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their official duties and responsibilities, and which is not generally available to the public.With a view to providing staff with clear guidelines on the implementation of theseprinciples, the Commission will introduce a Code of Ethics that will include standards ofprofessional conduct as well as procedures, manuals, and performance standards. 3.1.2 Purpose and ObjectivesThe overall purpose of the National Human Rights Monitoring Report is to design andimplement a comprehensive, periodic and regular national human rights monitoringsystem in Ethiopia. Within this general purpose, the specific objectives of the Report are: – Designing a coherent, comprehensive and rights based conceptual and methodological framework for national human rights monitoring relevant to the Ethiopian human rights framework; – Establishing comprehensive and systematically organized baseline information on the status of human rights and situation of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia; and,EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 23 of 36
  • 24. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report – Enabling a periodic monitoring of changes in the status of human rights and situation of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia.To achieve these objectives the report is designed as the first phase of a continuousprocess involving the preparation of annual human rights reports. 3.2 Scope and CoverageThe scope and coverage of national human rights monitoring processes can be broad ornarrow, with variations in terms of the rights covered, target groups, and geographicalcoverage.46 In terms of thematic scope, monitoring can be comprehensive or specialized.Comprehensive monitoring reports cover the whole spectrum of human rights or at leasta broad thematic area constituting a wide ranging list of rights or issues. A typical exampleis a report on the performance of the government in regard of civil and political rights.Specialized human rights reports, on the other hand, are more focused reports in one or afew issues, incidents or rights. For instance, a report may only cover specific human rightsissues such as the disappearances in a country. Human rights monitoring reports are alsodiverse in the size and profile of target groups covered. In this respect, a monitoringprocess can cover the whole population or be focused on specific sectors like children,ethnic minorities, workers, prisoners, etc. Finally while the usual coverage of monitoringconducted by national human rights institutions is country-wide, there are a number ofsuch reports that focus on smaller areas, e.g., a locality or region in a country.As an initial baseline assessment the report has to be comprehensive, i.e., thematicallycovering all rights, geographically national, covering the activities of all human rightsactors, and involving key actors and stakeholders in the process – State and non-stateactors as well as rights holders. It should provide a general view of the overall humanrights situation in Ethiopia and come up with actionable recommendations as well asissues for further attention by the major audience, i.e., the State, other human rightsactors and the general public. The National Human Rights Report is thus expected toidentify critical human rights issues including the status of rights, situation of vulnerablegroups, and roles of key human rights actors. Proposed Thematic Outline for the National Human Rights Report Introduction Background – Overview of the National Human Rights System – The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission – The National Human Rights Report Fundamental Rights and Freedoms – Personal Freedoms and Individual Liberties – Equality before the Law, Access to Justice and Fair Trial – Democratic/Participation Rights – Economic Rights, Social Rights and Access to Social Services – Rights of Vulnerable Groups – Rights of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (Collective Rights)46 Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and Documentation Series, Volume 1: What is Monitoring, HURIDOCS, 2003EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 24 of 36
  • 25. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report Investigations by the Commission – Complaints Before the Commission – Investigations Initiated by the Commission Summary and Analysis of Findings – Application of Human Rights Principles – Achievements, and Opportunities – Gaps, and Challenges Conclusions and Recommendations – Conclusions – Recommendations References AnnexesOn the other hand, time and other resources put limits on the scope and coverage of thereport indicating that it could not be both extensive and in-depth. To balance these twoconsiderations, the development of the report will adopt strategies such as utilizingavailable secondary sources including reports issued by the State and non-state humanrights actors, promote the involvement of human rights organizations as well as academicinstitutions, and focus on identifying issues for further and in-depth consideration underthe research, monitoring and other programs of the EHRC.Finally, the design and implementation of the national monitoring system should bebased on a realistic recognition of monitoring as an ongoing process. It should especiallybe noted that the current baseline report anticipates the development of morethematically focused, and geographically limited reports targeting the situation of specificgroups in subsequent months. 3.3 The Research ProcessIn preparing this proposal the HRC Reporting Team (hereafter the Team) has reviewedrelevant literature and attempted to address challenges identified through ongoingdiscussions within and outside the team. The points raised during the initial workshopwith stakeholders have also provided the team with important ideas such as the need tohave a very clear and shared understanding of the task. In as much as possible, the Teamhas tried not to make the process comprehensive, relevant and realistic.The proposed process involves four consecutive stages with each stage producing outputsfor the next or cascades. These are: – Clarifying the process and building consensus – Identifying and benchmarking indicators – Setting the baseline situation (human rights situation analysis) – Monitoring progress periodicallyThe fist and second stages are preparatory in the sense that the focus is on the ‘design’ ofthe research framework. The actual implementation occurs at the third stage involvingEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 25 of 36
  • 26. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportdata collection, compilation, analysis and report preparation. Only the first three stagesare relevant to the first national report.Table 2: Summary of the Proposed Research Process Purpose Specific Objectives ResultStage One: Clarifying the – Establish a clear basis for A background paperClarifying the profile of the the planned research in outlining the basis, natureProcess and undertaking and the national and and methodologicalBuilding developing uniform international human framework of the plannedConsensus understanding rights framework; national human rights among all involved – Design or review the monitoring process (staff, key actors, objectives and results stakeholders) (outputs, outcomes and impacts) expected upon and subsequent to the completion of the research; – Determine or review the scope and coverage of the national human rights report thematically, geographically, and in terms of stakeholder involvement in the process; – Determine or review the methodological approaches to be used for the development of the report.Stage Two: Design measurable – Describe an ideal state A set of measurableBenchmarking indicators to where all human rights indicators of status and determine the have been realized for all progress towards the current status of or where all persons realization of human human rights in enjoy dignified human rights in Ethiopia Ethiopia and set existence; benchmarks to – Identify the core measure progress in components (structural, the future process and results) constituting the vision; – Identify the most proximate measurable indicators of quality and quantity for each core component; – Select or prioritize indicators most relevant to the context of the planned national monitoring process taking into account issues such asEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 26 of 36
  • 27. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report the availability and accessibility of information, capacity, and time-frame; and, – Identify sources, types and quality of information needed to measure the selected or prioritized indicators.Stage Three: Establishing the – Measuring the Baseline data on the statusSetting the initial or current quantitative and of rights as well as focalBaseline situation of human qualitative aspects of issues, recommendations rights and creating a prioritized or selected and intermediate targets frame of reference indicators of structural for future action by for future conditions, processes, and human rights actors as monitoring of outcomes; well as the interventions progress – Identifying areas of of the EHRC relative progress and gaps in the realization of human rights in terms of intensity and expanse of effects on rights holders and vulnerable groups; – Tracing the immediate, intermediate, structural and root causes for the non-realization and/or better progress towards realization of identified rights; – Identify measures needed to address the structural and root causes and bring about positive progress towards the realization of all human rights for all persons; – Identify actors legally and morally responsible or better placed to take identified measures.Stage Four: Measuring progress – Measuring the same A national human rightsMonitoring towards realizing indicators covered in the monitoring reportProgress human rights since baseline within the same indicating: the baseline or the or comparable context; – The current status and last monitoring – Calculating the quantity quantified changes in report and direction of change the state of human for each indicator vis-à-vis rights in Ethiopia; the baseline and ideal – Second baseline state of realization or reference points for dignified human further monitoring and existence; periodic progress (rate)EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 27 of 36
  • 28. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report – Identifying areas and monitoring; levels of achievement – Information to enhance above and below progress in subsequent planned/anticipated levels periods; and, of performance vis-à-vis – Actionable the recommendations of recommendations. the last human rights report and time bound plans; – Tracing the immediate, intermediate, structural and root causes for the non-realization and/or better progress towards realization of identified rights; – Identify measures needed to address the structural and root causes and bring about positive progress towards the realization of all human rights for all persons; – Identify actors legally and morally responsible or better placed to take identified measures. 3.4 Indicators and BenchmarksAs the first national human rights report, the current need is for a baseline human rightssituation report that would establish the current situation and provide a reference pointto monitor changes. Thus, indicators and benchmarks have to be established for each ofthe rights recognized in the national (and international) human rights framework. Thefirst task to this end should be a review of existing indicator frameworks to assesspropriety for the purpose at hand, i.e., we do not have to invent the wheel in humanrights monitoring. Obviously, the frameworks found to be generally or partly relevanthave to be adapted to the specific national context as well as the profile of the EHRC andthe planned report.The existing best practice in relation to regular human rights monitoring suggests a systemof structural, process and output/result indicators measuring quantitative and qualitativeaspects of a basic feature/core element of each right. Within such a framework, thegeneral principles of human rights are integrated both as core elements of normativerights and as cross-cutting issues. To be practically relevant, the selected indicators shouldbe informed by the availability and accessibility of relevant, disaggregated, and periodicinformation at the appropriate level as well as the link to the normative contents of therights.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 28 of 36
  • 29. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring ReportTable 3: Status of Indicator Identification (along Articles of the FDRE Constitution) Rights for which Indicators Rights for which appropriate have been identified indicators are yet to be identifiedPersonal Freedoms and − Right to Life (Articles 14 and − Right to Honor and ReputationIndividual Liberties 15) (Article 24) − Security of the − Non-Retroactivity of Criminal Person/Protection from Law (Article 22) Bodily Harm (Articles 14 and − Prohibition of Double 16) Jeopardy (Article 23) − Freedom of Movement (Articles 14 and 32) − Protection from Inhumane Treatment (Article 18) − Right to Privacy (Article 26) − Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion (Article 27)Access to Justice and − Protection from Arbitrary −Procedural Due Process Deprivation of Liberty (Article 17) − Rights of Persons Arrested (Article 19) − Rights of Persons Accused (Article 20) − Rights of Persons in Custodial Institutions (Article 21) − Equality Before the Law (Article 25) − Access to Justice (Article 37) − Juvenile JusticeDemocratic/ Participation − Rights of Nationality (Article −Rights 33) − Freedom of Thought, Opinion and Expression (Article 29) − Access to Information (Article 29) − Freedom of Assembly, Demonstration and Petition (Article 30) − Freedom of Association (Article 31) − Right to Participate in Government and take Part in Public Affairs (Article 38)Economic Rights, Social − Right to Work and Gainful − Right to Private PropertyRights and Access to Employment (Articles 41/6 (Articles 40/1-3, 40/6-8 andSocial Services and 41/7) 44/2) − Right to Improving Living − Economic Freedom (Articles Standards, and Consultation 41/1 and 41/2)EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 29 of 36
  • 30. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report (Article 89) − Marital, Personal and Family − Right to Health, Education, Rights (Article 34) and Other Social Services (Articles 41/4 and 90)47Rights of Vulnerable − Women’s Rights (Article 35) − Rights of Farmers andGroups − People Living with HIV/AIDS Pastoralists − Children’s Rights (Articles 36 and 41/5) − Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 41/5) − Rights of Elderly Persons (Article 41/5) − Rights of Farmers and Pastoralists48 − Children’s Rights (Articles 36 and 41/5) − Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 41/5) − Rights of Elderly Persons (Article 41/5)Rights of Nations, − − Right to Cultural, Linguistic andNationalities, and Ethnic Identity (Article 39/2Peoples (Collective and 39/5)Rights) − Right to Self-Determination (Articles 39/1, 39/3-5, and 88) − State Responsibility to Protect and Promote Cultural Legacies (Article 41/9 and 91) − Right to Development (Article 43) − Environmental Rights (Articles 44 and 92)The HRC Team has so far identified relevant structural, process and result indicators forthe bulk of rights recognized under the national and international human rights systems.The identification of indicators for the remaining set of rights is expected to be completedby the end of the current week. 3.5 Sources of InformationExisting frameworks of quantitative human rights indicators may be grouped into fourbroad categories based on the sources of information used. These are:47 Right to social security (UDHR, Art. 22); Right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (UDHR, Art. 25); Right to Education (UDHR article 26); Right to adequate housing (UDHR, Art. 25); and, Right to Food (UDHR article 25)48 Access to Land (Articles 40/4, 40/5 and 44/2); and, Right to Receive Fair Price for Their ProductsEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 30 of 36
  • 31. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report – documentation of events-based data on human rights violations; – compilation of aggregate socio-economic and other administrative statistics; – household perception and opinion surveys; and, – data based on expert judgments.The national human rights monitoring report will use a mix of these sources withemphasis on official statistics, and cases investigated by the Ethiopian Human RightsCommission. In light of the broad scope and coverage of the Report as well as time andresource constraints, the principal sources utilized will be secondary. The Report is thusexpected to utilize the following sources of quantitative and qualitative information: – databases of international and regional IGOs, and treaty monitoring bodies; – policy and legislative documents of the Federal and Regional legislatures; – official statistical data issued by the Government of Ethiopia, especially the reports of the CSA, MoFED, and other policy monitoring bodies; – human rights monitoring reports submitted by the Government of Ethiopia in compliance with its treaty obligations; – periodic reports and official records of executive, judicial and legislative bodies as well as independent agencies at Federal and Regional levels; – databases maintained by international IGOs and other organizations in line with the UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics;49 – the case files maintained by the Investigation Department of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman Institute; – the reports and case files of government and non-government organizations providing legal, medical, social and other relevant services to victims of human rights violations; and, – other human rights reports prepared by human rights organizations operating in Ethiopia.The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission will develop appropriate guidelines andstandards with a view to ensuring the relevance, validity and reliability of data andinformation collected from unofficial sources. In particular, the use of information, data,reports, etc … as inputs for the EHRC’s National Human Rights Report would be basedon an objective assessment of: the relevance of purpose and scope; reliability of methods49 UN Economic and Social Council, 1994, Report of the Special Session of the Statistics Commission, E/1994/29, New York, 11-15 April, 1994EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 31 of 36
  • 32. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report(research design, data collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation and reporting);comprehensiveness and depth of coverage; timeliness of data; triangulation and crossconfirmation; and, other scientific/accepted criteria. 3.6 Implementation/Work PlanThe HRC Team has reviewed EHRC organizational and project documents including thestrategic plan, the DIP program document and the EHRC annual work plan as a basis forthe development of the work plan for the Report. Accordingly, the tentative deadline forthe completion of the Report has been set at the end of December 2009 and thefollowing timeframe developed for the major activities/phases in the process: Major Activity/Output Time Allocated 50 DeadlineDesign a conceptual and 5 weeks August 20, 2009methodological frameworkCollect, compile and analyze 6 weeks November 30, 2009baseline informationFinalize the report 4 weeks December 27, 2009Total Time Starting 3 rd Week 14 weeks of JulyAfter assessment of the structural, material, human and financial resources available withinand at the disposal of the Commission, the Team has determined that the involvement ofexisting departments and engagement of their resources is of paramount importance. Ithas especially been emphasized that the Research and Training Department and theInvestigation Department as well as the department responsible for the rights of women,children and other vulnerable groups is critical. Thus, with a view to ensuring thecomprehensive and active engagement of EHRC departments and staff, a detailedallocation of responsibilities and harmonization of activities should be conducted. To thisend, the proposed work plan will have to be revised in consultation with the responsibledepartment heads once the overall framework has been approved by the Council ofCommissioners.The following table provides the detailed tentative work plan for the development of theNational Human Rights Report.50 Some of the specific activities and tasks will run concurrentlyEHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 32 of 36
  • 33. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report Table 4: Work Plan for the Development of the National Human Rights Report Major Activities/Expected Specific Time- frame 51 Focal & Outputs Activities/Tasks (Months) Responsible Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6Design a coherent, comprehensive Conduct a review on DIP POs andand rights based conceptual and the basis, nature, HRC Teammethodological framework (July structure and scope14 – August 20)52 of monitoring by NHRIs Conduct a review of DIP POs and human rights HRC Team monitoring approaches Organize ‘in-house’ DIP POs and consultation and EHRC consensus building department session with EHRC heads staff Design a system of DIP POs and indicators and Reporting benchmarks Team Develop a draft DIP Research background paper Officer and submit to EHRC management for approval Finalize the DIP Research background paper OfficerEstablish a comprehensive and Design a research DIP POs andsystematically organized baseline plan/protocol HRC Reportinginformation on the status of Teamhuman rights and situation of Compile relevant DIP POs andvulnerable groups in Ethiopia (15 secondary sources HRC ReportingAugust 2009 – 30 November Team2009) Develop, pre-test, DIP POs and and duplicate data HRC Reporting collection tools Team Identify, recruit, train DIP POs and and orient EHRC enumerators to be departments deployed for data collection Organize logistics for DIP POs and field visits to data EHRC51 Starting 3rd Week of July52 Some of the specific activities/tasks under this expected output have already been completed. In fact, this background document is the result of such activities. The remaining tasks by the date of submission are the in-house consultations and finalization of the document, both of which require approval of the current draft by the Council of Commissioners.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 33 of 36
  • 34. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report Major Activities/Expected Specific Time- frame Focal & Outputs Activities/Tasks (Months) Responsible Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6 collection sites departments Conduct data DIP CU, POs collection in the nine and EHRC Regional States as departments well as Diredawa and Addis Ababa Compile and review DIP POs and data from all sites HRC Reporting Team Review cases DIP POs and investigated and EHRC determined by the Investigation EHRC53 Department Analyze collected DIP POs and and compiled data HRC Reporting TeamPrepare a national baseline report Prepare a draft DIP POs and(December 2009) national report and EHRC submit to EHRC department management heads Organize validation DIP CU and workshop POs Finalize the report DIP POsFinally, it should be noted that the implementation of this work plan is subject therealization of some assumptions relating to expediency in the approval of the backgrounddocument, resource allocation, harmonization with other EHRC activities planned for thelast two quarters of 2009, and possibility of addressing constraints in relation to officefacilities. Most importantly, the plan has made critical assumptions on the active andsmooth engagement of EHRC staff including department heads, experts, administrativeand support staff. Failing this assumption, the engagement, orientation and deploymentof external personnel would extend the deadlines for all remaining activities and expectedoutputs.53 Since the planned comprehensive case management system may not be in place for the current report, this activity involves the development of a simple digital database using the SPSS statistical software. Such an approach would ensure the timely availability of case-related information forming a significant part of the Report. Moreover, in light of the fact that two of the DIP project officers already have experience in the application of SPSS, it would enable the utilization and sharing of existing expertise within the EHRC. Ideally, secretarial staff in the Commission could be given a short orientation briefing by the POs and assigned to undertake the data entry once the system has been designed.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 34 of 36
  • 35. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report 3.7 Inputs/Resource RequirementsThe following table describes the resource requirements of developing the nationalhuman rights report. While financial inputs have been stated more explicitly, the tablealso indicates the human and material requirements of the task.Table 5: Resource Requirements Activities Cost Items Computation SumOne day orientation session Transportation 1,500/day x 3 days 4,500for data collectors (25 Rental of venue 4,500/day x 1 day 4,500persons) Per diem 150/person/day x 25 11,250 persons x 3 days Lunch and refreshments 50/person x 25 persons 1,250 Stationary and supplies 1,500 Labor and publicity 1,500 Contingency 2,500 Sub-Total 27,000Organize logistics for field Fees and reimbursement 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000visits to data collection sites to local contact persons Communication, 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 stationary and supplies Labor and publicity 500/region x 10 regions 5,000 Contingency 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 Sub-Total 50,000Field visits to 10 out of Transportation 1,500/day x 15 days/region 22,500town sites (9 Regional x 10 regionsStates and Diredawa) Per diem 150/person/day x 2 persons 45,000 x 15 days/region x 10 regions Fees and reimbursement 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 to local contact persons Stationary and supplies 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 Labor and publicity 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 Contingency 5,000/region x 10 regions 50,000 Sub-Total 162,50 0Data collection in Addis Transportation 1,500/day x 15 daysAbaba Reimbursements for data 150/day/person x 5 persons 11,250 collectors x 15 days Stationary and supplies 1,500/region x 10 regions 15,000 Labor and publicity 1,500 Contingency 5,000 Sub-Total 32,750Monitoring visits Transportation 3,000/ visit x 5 visits 15,000 Per diem 150/day x 6 days/visit x 5 4,500 visits Labor and publicity 1,500/ visit x 5 visits 7,500 Contingency 1,500/ visit x 5 visits 7,500 Sub-Total 34,500Three day out of town Transportation 1,500/day x 5 days 7,500EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 35 of 36
  • 36. Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Reportvalidation workshop Rental of venue 4,500/day x 3 days 13,500 Per diem 150/person/day x 50 37,500 persons x 5 days Lunch and refreshments 50/person/day x 50 persons 7,500 x 3 days Stationary and supplies 3,000 Labor and publicity 5,000 Contingency 5,000 Sub-Total 79,000Publication Translation and editing 25,000 Desktop publication and 5,000 layout design Printing 50,000 Translation, dissemination 15,000 and publicity Sub-Total 95,000 TOTAL 480,75 0In estimating the resource requirements of the Report, the HRC Team has taken intoaccount the financial provisions with the EHRC Work Plan for 2009 as well as theresources available to the Commission. However, time and related constraints haveimpacted upon the selection of more cost-effective alternatives to realize expectedoutputs in a timely manner. As a result, the overall financial requirements may exceed thetotal amount allocated for the Report within the Work Plan.EHRC Reporting TeamTuesday, August 18, 2009 Page 36 of 36

×