HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

(Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network)

(A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC)

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India

Tel: +91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120

E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com  

 
 

PROFILE: The Asia Pacific Forum of National Institutions------------------------------------

 

Institutionalising a culture of human rights

The sixth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) indicated its potential to provide a new and much needed direction to national institutions in the region. However, much more needs to be done...

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are one of the mechanisms available to address human rights violations at the national level.

But their effectiveness, including enforcement of their determinations, depends to a large extent on their adherence to the Paris Principles, a set of standards endorsed by the General Assembly.

The Paris Principles, however, represent only the lowest common denominator and have proved to be deficient in defining the mandate and promoting the effectiveness of national institutions.

The mandates of NHRIs in the Asia Pacific region have largely been determined by the political context in which they are created. Political ‘realities’ and issues of national security have been employed as justifications to impose limitations on the scope of the institutions' mandates. National Governments and their instrumentalities often flout the institutions’ decisions with impunity, but more often simply disregard them.

These concerns were most recently addressed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in a Consultation Meeting held prior to the sixth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) in Colombo, Sri Lanka, from 24-27 September 2001.

The Asia Pacific Human Rights Network (APHRN) facilitated the Pre Forum NGO Consultation. The consultation outlined six key features highlighting regional inadequacies in the existing protection and promotion mechanisms of national institutions.

NHRIs have failed to recognise their inherent institutional relationship to the judiciary and by failing to do so, they have failed to develop an effective working relationship.

The need to go beyond the Paris Principles, which impose responsibilities rather than duties, has become more critical than ever. NHRIs need to develop a broader mandate that not only specifies their sphere of competence and jurisdiction but also empowers them to intervene in the relevant court cases.

Additionally, national institutions have been deficient in recognising their role in international fora as one that goes beyond mere contributions to State Periodic Reports and extends to notifying the relevant UN monitoring bodies about governmental behaviour.

Additionally, national institutions often do not have a transparent process of adjudication. To ensure transparency and accountability NHRIs should have print and online editions of all research and investigation reports. National institutions often lack grassroots knowledge on human rights issues, which undercuts their credibility and efficacy. Initiatives and efforts by civil society in general and NGOs in specific are therefore indispensable.

Notably, however, government imposition of restrictions on visas and travel grants has often impeded the participation of effective NGOs.

The sixth annual meeting of the APF indicated its potential to provide a new and much-needed direction to national institutions aiming for regional human rights cooperation in the Asia Pacific. Reaffirming a decision made and supported in principle at the fifth annual meeting of the APF held in Rotorua, New Zealand in 2000, the sixth annual meeting marked the APF’s coming of age in terms of its constitution and structure.

The formal establishment of the office of a chairperson and two deputy chairpersons and the decision to adopt a constitution marks its transition into an independent entity.

It now also has access to greater financial assistance - apart from the Australian Government's development aid agency AusAID, funding will also be provided by the Danish aid agency, DANIDA, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the New Zealand Government - and a broader mandate to implement and promote bilateral, regional and global cooperation. 

Since its inception in 1996, the APF has developed as a key human rights institution that mirrors the emerging regional consciousness. The number and diversity of its member institutions has continued to grow. At the sixth annual meeting, the National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia was formally admitted as a member bringing the APF's membership to nine, and giving it a broader geographical identity. 

The inaugural workshop of the APF adopted the Larrakia Declaration, which set out some basic principles to facilitate the strengthening of regional human rights commissions. Two key elements of this Declaration were a commitment to the Paris Principles and a commitment to the universality and indivisibility of human rights. The Larrakia Declaration also set out an agreed basis on which regional human rights commissions would cooperate to “promote the observances of human rights within the Asia-Pacific region.”

The annual meetings of the APF are one of the largest and most comprehensive regular human rights meeting in the Asia Pacific region. In the past, these meetings have usually been occasions for self-congratulation. However, an analysis reveals that NHRIs have failed to stand the test of time. They have failed to meet the minimum international standards for national human rights institutions set by the Paris Principles and the United Nations Handbook. Many of them are hampered by conflicting mandates, inadequate powers, lack of independence, inadequate resources, little transparency, weak leadership and inadequate interaction with one another.

These deficiencies reflect the governments’ apathy to human rights standards and a complete disregard for their own constitutions and obligations under international law. The APF, in its capacity as the regional co-ordinator for the promotion and protection of human rights, is well placed to raise and address these concerns. The sixth meeting also reaffirmed faith in the importance of cooperation between NHRIs and NGOs as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights instruments and the Vienna Declaration. On 26 September, the third day of the meeting, the session was thrown open to invited NGOs, other institutions and observers.

In its capacity as a catalyst for regional cooperation, the APF provided an opportunity to the newly established national institutions of Fiji, Nepal and Mongolia in particular, and to members and other participants in the region including members of the civil society in general, to share experiences, make recommendations and work out collective strategies to enhance individual capacities as human rights activists both at the domestic and regional level.

While the APF has demonstrated the relevance of intensive and coordinated action among regional institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia Pacific, much remains to be done. The challenges the region faces are daunting, given the nature and scope of problems. (see box below)

It is within this context that the Pre Forum NGO consultation proposed a set of recommendations intended to serve as guidelines for NHRIs in their strategies to address a range of thematic issues including HIV/AIDS and human rights, gender, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, internally displaced people, NHRI-NGO relations, regional cooperation and the work of the Advisory Council of Jurists.

While the APF has taken cognisance of these recommendations, it remains to be seen whether they are followed through.

The NGO community hopes that there will be a transition toward effective legal enforcement.

In a region that has the dubious distinction of being the only one in the world without a collective human rights mechanism, the APF can contribute meaningfully to the evolution of a human rights culture.

The Statement of Conclusions reiterated the APF's commitment to the promotion of regional cooperation and the development of national human rights institutions in the Asia Pacific region.

The APF has recognised three “core” functions of national institutions - educative, advisory and complaint resolution - and outlined initiatives expected to take shape in the next three years.

These include regional thematic workshops on issues such as HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Education, the Media and Public Affairs, regional training programmes on Forensic Investigatory Techniques and the management of a regional staff exchange programme between APF member institutions and the APF Secretariat.

Judging by the initiatives and commitments made by the APF, there is much to look forward to. The important gauge however will be the extent to which these resolutions and commitments prevent the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

Only then will the APF deserve the dignified appellation of an “institution for the promotion and protection of human rights.”

ODD ONES OUT: Bangladesh & Nepal

BANGLADESH: In the absence of an NHRI, systematic attacks against the religious and ethnic minorities of Bangladesh continue unabated. Such activities have reached alarming proportions. Some 1500 incidents of human rights violation including incidents related to political clashes, terrorism and violence on women are being reportedly recorded every month.

The establishment of an NHRI was included in the election manifesto of the newly-elected Bangladesh National Party (BNP) Government in Dhaka. However, with the issue having been kept in cold storage  by the previous Awami League government since 1996, whether - and when - the bill will see the light of day remains to be seen. In the interim, the Government passed the draconian Public Safety Act, 2000.

NEPAL: The Government of Nepal passed the Human Rights Act to establish a National Human Rights Commission in 1996.

However, the Commission was finally set up only four years later.               

The government was part of the reason for this delay.

Following a month-long protest in 1998 then Prime Minister Koirala promised to set up the Commission but failed to follow through.

In 1999, the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of the Commission.

With the government showing no signs of implementing the order, human rights activists again demonstrated in Kathmandu in August 1999, and the Commission finally came into being in July 2000.