Interactive panel discussion on enhancing the engagement of NHRIs across UN human rights bodies

Thursday 14 July 2016 - 1.00pm to 3.00pm Room XXIII, Palais des Nations, Geneva

Speech Jane Connors, Geneva Representative, Amnesty International

National human rights institutions (NHRIs), are part of a States’ civil society and have a key role in all human rights mechanisms. They provide input into, and strengthen, their work, transmit their recommendationsto those on the ground and work, including by building capacity of national groups, so that the recommendations of such bodies are implemented to secure improved human rights promotion and protection.

NHRIs are unique increating a bridge between the State and civil society, as they enjoy the trust of both. They also narrow the gapswhich may exist between the national and international levels andthe organs of the State - the executive, the legislature, parliament and the judiciary - and the private sector, including business. They have a State mandate, but are independent and autonomous. Irrespective of the different forms they may take their task is common: to assist and advise States on the implementation of international human rights norms, especially through the translation of recommendations of UN bodies into reality on the ground. Often they help States to create national action plans on the promotion and protection of human rights. They also raise international awareness of human rights violations in their countries, including in respect of individuals, often in partnership with non-governmental organizations and sometimes the media.

Unsurprisingly, given the importance given to national human rights institutions in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, they have had most prominence in the Geneva-based human rights mechanisms. The institution-building package of the Human Rights Council confirms the relationship and interaction of NHRIs with the Council crafted by the Commission on Human Rights, and accordingly those which fulfil the Paris Principles criteria and the principles of independence, pluralism, accountability and impartiality participate in its discussions. They have a special role in the context of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), strengthenedthrough the 2011 outcome of the review of the Human Rights Councilwhich entitles NHRIs to be part of all stages of the UPR mechanism. This ranges from consultations in the lead-up to the preparation of the State’s report, offering independent and highly persuasive information on national situations and recommendations for improvement in their contributions to the stakeholders’ report, informally at the UPR Working Group and formally when the Council adopts the review outcome, to supporting follow-up byproviding advice to States on implementation. They carry out this latter function in many ways, including by transmitting information to the Council on implementation under item 6, or through mid-term UPR reports.

NHRIs are essential to the system of Special Procedures. Indeed, several mandate holders are also chairpersons or members of NHRIs. NHRIs provide input into Special Procedures’ thematic and country work, including by encouraging and facilitating visits, and support implementation of thematic and country-specific recommendations. The outcome of the review of the Human Rights Council also gave A status NHRIs the privilege of speaking after the State concerned on visits reports of Special Procedures. Many NHRIs have also been essential in the crafting of principles and guidelines developed by mandate holders. Examples are those on trafficking and the commentary on human rights defenders. They participate actively in related fora, such as those on Minority Issues and Business and Human Rights, as well as other subsidiary bodies of the Council, such as its Advisory Committee and Working Groups. The interaction of NHRIs with the human rights treaty body system, and their singular role as national preventive mechanisms envisaged by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture is comprehensively analysed in an informal Secretariat background paper transmitted to the twenty-eighth annual meeting of chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies. That meeting acknowledged the vital role of Paris Principles NHRIs, and decided that a common treaty body approach to engagement with them would be considered at the twenty-ninth meeting next year.

Amnesty International (AI) is deeply conscious of the importance of NHRIs, and the support they require and deserve. As long ago as 1993, AI produced a document on the conditions they should fulfil, and another in 2002 on their work. Its UPR submissions routinely call for the strengthening of the independence and capacity of NHRIs where they exist, or where they do not, their establishment in compliance with the Paris Principles.During the second cycle AI made recommendations on the formerin respect of Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Burundi, Dominican Republic, the UK, India, Iraq, Ireland, Montenegro, Nepal, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Recommendations relating to the latter were made in relation to Belgium, Cambodia, Finland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein and Vietnam. AIs statements at the adoption of the UPR outcome often focus on the NHRI, or lack thereof. For example, in its intervention at the adoption of Belgium’s first UPR report in September 2011 it applauded the country for supporting a recommendation made by 18 States on the establishment of a Paris Principles compliant NHRI. Just over two weeks ago, AI drew attention to this commitment as Belgium’s second cycle UPR report was adopted. Submissions to human rights treaty bodies similarly address NHRI issues. For example, the October 2014 submission on Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Committee highlighted the lack of independence of its NHRI and the State’s failure to take on board recommendations to ensure that complied with the Paris Principles. Submissions to CEDAW and CAT on Belgium called for the establishment of a NHRI. From time to time, also, AI issues public statements, such as that on Burundi in October 2011, on individual NHRIs. The establishment of this institution, as participants will remember, terminated the mandate of the independent expert on the human rights situation in Burundi. In April this year, AI, along with Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists issues a statement calling on Nepal to stop all intimidation and harassment of the National Human Rights Commission and its staff.

For AI a well-functioning Paris Principles compliant NHRI is an essential plank in the national human rights architecture, and we have excellent partnerships with many, including those in Australia, Kenya, New Zealand and Sierra Leone, in particular in relation to follow-up to UPR. We need to work harder, however, to make this systematic and universal, and I look to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions to assist us in this endeavour.

Where the UN is concerned, there is potential for the Council, its subsidiary mechanisms and the human rights treaty bodies to strengthen their links with NHRIs. The steps taken by the treaty bodies are deserving of commendation. But the interface of NHRIs with the UN generally must also be deepened. General Assembly resolution 70/163 is an important watershed. Building on the best practice example of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Working Group on the draft convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, it recognizes the value of NHRIs for UN processes, including the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Conference of Parties. I am particularly pleased that CSWthis year adopted agreed conclusions encouraging the CSW secretariat to consider how it could enhance the participation of NHRIs. Implementation of this recommendation will mean that NHRIs will no longer need to participate in the Commission as part of their Government delegations, which, of course, flies in the face of the Paris Principles. Australian advocacy, along with that of supportive States, was crucial to this recommendation.

And this should only be the beginning. As the 2015 Merida Declaration makes clear, NHRIs have much to add to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) process, in particular in measuring progress in implementation by promoting human rights-based approached on the ground and assisting in developing the content of the SDG indicators and the generation and collection of data and information, relevant for national, regional and international assessments. They should also be included in all the processes, including the review mechanisms of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, which is currently meeting, as recommended in General Assembly resolution 70/163, OP 16, and the regional follow-up and review mechanism and national strategies and processes. Importantly, their views on the content of indicators, including 16.1.1 (the existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles) to measure target 16. a (strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and war) related to Gal 16 –promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels should be canvassed by the Interagency Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals Indicators.

Much more could be said about the importance of NHRIs and their yet untapped potential to promote and protect human rights. I am delighted that that strong national human rights institutions and capacity building are amongst the five pillars of Australia’s campaign for Human Rights Council membership for 2008 to 2021. But I would like to close on a sober note. As in the case of all parts of civil society, members of NHRIs are subject to intimidation and reprisals as a result of their engagement with human rights mechanisms. The General Assembly, the Council, the Secretary-General and successive Council presidents have deplored such acts. We must strive to create a strong, effective and coordinated policy, with accountability mechanisms, to end such behaviour and respond to them if it occurs.

1