commonwealth human rights initiative annual report 2013

CHRI Strategic Initiatives

C HRI Commonwealth Human Rights Initiativ e

Working for the practical realisation of human rights in the countries of the Commonwealth

CHRI 2012

COMMONWEAL TH HUMAN RIGHTS IN ITIATIVE

B-117, 2nd Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, N ew Delhi – 110017

Tel : +91-(0)11 4318 0200

Fax: +91-(0)11 2686 4688

[email protected]; www.humanrightsinitiat ive.org

THE ORIGIN OF CHRI: A MEMOIR RICHARD BOURNE

CHRI began as an idea floated at a conference in Cumberland Lodge, a residential centre in Windsor Great Park, England. The conference was called to look at the state of the Commonwealth after many African and Asian sports teams had boycotted the Edinburgh Commonwealth Games in 1986. Their protest was at the softness of the British government, led by Margaret Thatcher, on South African racism – the apartheid sy stem. At the Nassau summit the previous year she was only prepared to move a “teeny , teeny” bit to impose sanctions on the apartheid regime.

So was the Commonwealth breaking up? Was the Commonwealth worth salvaging? The conference at Cumberland Lodge included many knowledgeable people who supported the association, but they were also critical. They realised that there was hypocrisy among states which practised human rights abuse with little democracy – there were several one-party and military governments then – which were happy to ignore their own faults while attacking apartheid. South African propagandists pointed this out, and the Commonwealth had no convincing reply .

The conference broke into small groups at one point and in one of these – which included Derek Ingram, the father of Commonwealth journalism, myself and four or five others – we put forward the case for a new initiative to promote human rights throughout the Commonwealth. We had no clear idea then how to do it, but were influenced by the example of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) of 1985-6, which visited South Africa in an attempt to get talks going to end apartheid.

In the summer of 1987, with two meetings at the then Commonwealth Institute (where Derek was a long-serving governor, and I was deputy director) we fleshed out the idea and won the support of some Commonwealth bodies – initially the Commonwealth Journalists Association, the Commonwealth Trade Union Council and the Commonwealth Lawyers Associa tion. A paper went to the 1987 summit in Vancouver, calling for a Commonwealth initiative.

The 1987 summit saw some tightening of the screws on white South Africa, continuing attacks on the Thatcher government by the majority of Commonwealth states, and the setting up of a special fund to assist the embattled Frelimo government in Mozambique. But there was no inter-governmental Commonwealth initiative for human rights. It was only then, with the backing of more non-governmental bodies, that we decided to set up our own Initiative.

Our format, borrowed from the EPG for South Africa, was to appoint a high-level inquiry group nominated by supporting Commonwealth bodies and we were lucky to get Flora MacDonald, a former Foreign Minister of Canada, to chair it. Their report, “Put our world to rights” was published in 1991. It was a key influence on the Harare summit in that year, which led to the commitment to just and accountable governance, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights.

WWHHAATT

CHRI’s charter objectives are to achieve the practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth. We “believe that the promotion and protection of human rights is the responsibility of governments but that the active participation of civil society acting in concert is vital to ensuring rule of law and the realisation of human rights.” To this end, we “promote awareness of and adherence to the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, and other internationally recognised human rights instruments.”

That offers a very broad mandate. The big challenge before us in 1987 was to transform these words into actions that would bring about a tangible difference to the lives of the 2.13 billion people living in its 54 countries. As an international organisation we needed to find a focus and a way of doing things that would change lives even if we could not intervene directly to repair individual injustice and suffering.

The merest glance around the Commonwealth found much wanting: two-thirds of the Commonwealth lived on under $2 a day . Still today , 63 per cent of the world’s poor live in Commonwealth countries. We believe the presence of so much poverty is not an inevitable condition but a clear sign of bad governance. Too many governments ignore their people’s wants and needs, keep them uninformed, excluded and distant from justice, restrict freedoms and govern without being brought to book for their actions. As an organisation, the inter-governmental Commonwealth too, has been shy of holding its members to the soaring standards set for itself.

CHRI recognised that while there was a lot wrong, the Commonwealth holds the building blocks for a better tomorrow. There is plenty of good practice and a deal of willing assistance available that could change ground realities. A legacy of shared language and experience, familiar modes of governance, historic connections, a common legal architecture and engaged citizens make it easy to create a discourse between countries, share good practice and build solidarity among active citizens and responsible governments.

We realised we could not do every thing nor be everywhere in the 54 commonwealth countries. While human rights standards and accountability are set internationally , these are seldom fully realised within Commonwealth countries. Human rights are violated; we sought to find those strategic issues and ways of working that would bring about essential reforms throughout the Commonwealth through interventions at every level.

Over the years, these consultations and our own experience convinced us of the value of focussing our energies on two major areas – access to justice and access to information – while at the same time, leaving ourselves open to respond to sudden crises. This allows us an ever-deepening programme of work in seminal areas, valuable to hum an rights concerns in all countries, while being flexible enough to respond to unexpected issues of concern.

The two problems of deep-seated poverty and asymmetries of power between ordinary citizens and the State resonated throughout the Commonwealth. We felt that any attempt to tangibly affect the lives of ordinary people would never happen without their ability to participate and hold the instruments of State to account. We advocated then that people must be guaranteed a right to access information so that they can participate effectively in all the decision-making processes which impact so critically on their life outcomes. The frailties of governance within the Commonwealth meant that concerns for the people’s right to justice too came to the fore. These two efforts of access to information and access to justice were thus intertwined from the beginning.

We knew we could use international and national venues and opportunities to press for in-country reform by making problems visible (through media initiatives), offering solutions (especially on the policy level), building platforms and networks for dialogue, and building capacity .

Our vision to establish ourselves as a global South-based NGO, which is international in its work and vision has over the years come to fruition. The difficulty in achieving this recognition cannot be taken lightly ; it has required twice the purposefulness of any NGO based in the North to establish credibility and overcome the perception that if based in India, an NGO can only be capable of being a regional body , not truly an international human rights organisation. Our acceptance as a human rights organisation in disparate locations of the Commonwealth bears witness to the growth we have undergone over the last 25 years. Today , CHRI has its headquarters in New Delhi, and offices in London and Accra; we are accredited to the Commonwealth; we attained special consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the UN in 2005 and observer status at the ACPHR in 2002; we helped found the Usalama Reforms Forum in East Africa and the Right to Information network, SARTIAN, in South Asia; we serve as secretariat for NIPSA (Network for Improved Policing in South Asia); collaborate with HURINET-u and APCOF in Africa; have sent fact finding missions to Nigeria in 1995, Zambia in 96 and Fij i in 2002; have a presence as RTI experts in South Asia, West Africa and the Caribbean; have an active police programme in South Asia, East and West Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean; and a localised prisons programme in India. Even so, these are only a few of the broad range of networks and associations we are a part of and only a fraction of the work that we have undertaken over the last 25 years. Over the course of this annual report, we strive to review what we have done, celebrate our successes, while recognising how much further we still have left to go.

This remains true today .

WWHHAATT

Over the years, these consultations and our own experience convinced us of the value of focussing our energies on two major areas – access to justice and access to information – while at the same time, leaving ourselves open to respond to sudden crises. This allows us an ever-deepening programme of work in seminal areas, valuable to hum an rights concerns in all countries, while being flexible enough to respond to unexpected issues of concern.

1987 1990

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 6

2000 2005 2010 2012

2 0 0 1

Received Special Consulta tive Status at the UN

2 0 0 3

CHRI founded in London, UK

Human Rights Advocacy programme renamed „Strategic Initiatives Programme‟

2 0 0 9

CHRI moves to New Delhi, India

Report to CHOGM: „The Right to a Culture of Tole rance‟

Report to CHOGM:

„Police Accountability:

Too Important to Neglect, too Urgent to

Delay‟

Maja Daruwala

appointed as

Director

Fact Finding Mission: Zambia

Separate Police and Prison Reform programmes established

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 7

Report to CHOGM: „Silencing the Defenders‟

2 0 1 1

Report to CHOGM: „A Partnership for Human Rights‟

Program priorities decided: Police, Prisons,

Right to information

and Human Rights Advocacy

Opened regiona l Africa Office in Accra, Ghana

Report to CHOGM: „Open

Sesame‟

Report to CHOGM:

„Act Right Now‟

Report to CHOGM:

The Poverty Report Report to CHOGM: „Stamping out Rights‟

Received Observer Status at the ACPHR Fact Finding Mission:

Nigeria

Report to CHOGM:

„Rights do Matter‟

Fact Finding Missions: Fiji and Sierra Leone

CHRI TURNS 25!

MOMENTS OF CHANGE

Report t o CHOGM:

„Put Our World t o

Rights‟

Report t o CHOGM: „Over a B arrel‟

1987 1990

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 6

2000 2005 2010 2012

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 9

Report to CHOGM:

Delay‟

Maja Daruwala

appointed as

Director

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 7

2 0 1 1

Sesame‟

Report to CHOGM:

„Act Right Now‟

Report to CHOGM:

Nigeria

Report to CHOGM:

CHRI TURNS 25!

MOMENTS OF CHANGE

Report t o CHOGM:

Rights‟

GOVERNANCE

International Advisory Commission

Headquarters: Delhi, India

Executive Committee: UK

Executive Committee: India

Executive Committee: Ghana

Director

For its governance, CHRI has an International Advisory Commission comprising eminent people from

across the Commonwealth. It sets policy directions for all the offices. Each office has its own Executive Committee that oversees the day -to-day implementation of programme directions. For cohesion, the Chairs of the Executive Committees also sit on the International Advisory Commission. The Executive Director is the CEO in charge of all the offices and programmes.

At its headquarters, CHRI’s overall work is organised into programme units each with its own coordinator: access to information, access to justice comprising policing and prison reform, and the strategic interventions program. A media and outreach unit complements their work and a coordinator planning works across offices to ensure cohesion and due diligence, while the administrative manager

backstops all programme activity and the finance manager oversees all accounting matters along with

external auditors. These arrangements are mirrored in the Africa office as suitable to its size

GOVERNANCE

Director

At its headquarters, CHRI’s overall work is organised into programme units each with its own coordinator: access to information, access to justice comprising policing and prison reform, and the strategic interventions program. A media and outreach unit complements their work and a coordinator planning works across offices to ensure cohesion and due diligence, while the administrative manager

HEADQUARTERS: DELHI, INDIA

OUR OFFICES

The London Office has played a vital role since CHRI’s inception. Owing to its strategic position, it acts as a liaison between the Headquarters in New Delhi, the Africa Office in Accra and the UK government and official Commonwealth bodies, such as the

Secretariat and the Human Rights Unit. It plays a significant role in our international advocacy programmes. The Office has played a vital role in raising CHRI’s profile in the global North and Western hemisphere, as well as securing funding as a registered UK charity .

LIAISON OFFICE: LONDON, UK

In 1993 CHRI was established in New Delhi. The initial plan was to move the CHRI secretariat every five years in order to deepen expertise on all regions of the Commonwealth. Once the

logistical difficulties of frequent moves became clear, the plan was quickly abandoned and CHRI could begin to establish its roots as an international organisation in the global South. This was the area that needed most focus. Although this move was a radical thought for the time, it is now apparent that it was a successful one. Our position in the global South has allowed us access to, and primary contact with, local partners.

Today , CHRI is a well-established and well-known organisation. From the New Delhi office, we coordinate activities out of Accra and London; as we advocate for and promote awareness of human rights violations in all Commonwealth countries. Our primary mandate is to promote awareness of and adherence to the Harare Principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other

internationally recognised human rights instruments and declarations made by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, as well as domestic instruments supporting human rights in the Commonwealth. This mandate permits us to make strategic interventions even as we retain a steady focus specifically on Access to Information and Access to Justice.

The overseas territories project has built capacity for human rights within the Caribbean, the Pacific and South Atlantic;

examine the Commonwealth's Media Freedom laws and have advocated for the repeal of legislation criminalising the Lesbian, Gay , Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) community .

AFRICA OFFICE: ACCRA, GHANA As the Headquarters in India began to stabilise itself, the governing boards of CHRI decided tocreate an office in Africa to pay greater attention to the 15 Commonwealth countries in Africa. The office was set up in 2001 in Ghana, a stable, democratic and increasingly influential African Commonwealth country ,

where there was also a welcome for the initiative. CHRI’s Africa Office follows the same mandate and focus areas as the Headquarters, and mirrors the same patterns of progression in its work. As it slowly took root in Ghana, the office had to deal with similar dilemmas as the office in India had: to balance its role as an international organisation comprising a wide geographical mandate with the expectations from a

human rights organisation within Ghana itself.

The office used this situation to develop and deepen its expertise and advocacy on focus issues in Ghana, while furthering its larger mandate through strategic

interventions and campaigns. To extend CHRI’s reach in Africa, the work of the Africa Office is complemented from Headquarters, especially on policing in East Africa and at the UNHRC.The Africa Office has observer status at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. CH RI is a key member of the steering

committee and the secretariat for the Right to Information coalition in Ghana. We continue our efforts in raising awareness of the embedded constitutional right to access information. We have had several successes with advocacy efforts against instant justice, against police brutality and against extrajudicial killings in the

Gambia. We set up public-police forums and justice centres, which reduced the number of wrongful arrests. We work on minority rights, particularly on disability and mental health, advocating for the rights of a marginalised group. Today the office has eight staff, ably supported by interns and volunteers from around the world. Its work focuses on Access to Justice, Access to Information and strategic

interventions to promote human rights in Africa.

OUR OFFICES

The London Office has played a vital role since CHRI’s inception. Owing to its strategic position, it acts as a liaison between the Headquarters in New Delhi, the Africa Office in Accra and the UK government and official Commonwealth bodies, such as the

Secretariat and the Human Rights Unit. It plays a significant role in our international advocacy programmes. The Office has played a vital role in raising CHRI’s profile in the global North and Western hemisphere, as well as securing funding as a registered UK charity .

The overseas territories project has built capacity for human rights within the Caribbean, the Pacific and South Atlantic;

examine the Commonwealth's Media Freedom laws and have advocated for the repeal of legislation criminalising the Lesbian, Gay , Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) community .

STRATEGIC

INITIA TIVES

“THE COMMONWEALTH MUST BE ABOUT HUMA N RIGHTS OR IT IS ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL”

COMMONWEALTH PEOPLES FORUM

With the Commonwealth worried about its own relevance, the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was established at the 2009 CHOGM in an attempt to break new ground on attempts to sharpen its impact, strengthen networks and raise the profile of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the group prepared a report to be discussed at CHOGM, without giving it enough time; hence it was not discussed at length and many of its recommendations were disregarded. Of a total of 106 recommendations, only the first two were discussed at length, concluding in a decision to adopt a “Charter of the Commonwealth”, a further 30 were adopted without reservation, 43 were handed over to a Task Force for consideration, 12 would be subject to financial considerations and 11 were deemed inappropriate. With only 15 months left till the next CHOGM, the Commonwealth must now adapt.

EMINENT PERSONS GROUP The Commonwealth Peoples Forum, operational since 1997, is held in the run-up to each biennial CHOGM, bringing together civil society representatives from around the world, in the single biggest opportunity for civil society to engage with the Commonwealth, to discuss and debate key global development issues. A series of consultations with civil society culminate in a Civil Society Statement, which is presented to Commonwealth leaders in the run-up to CHOGM. In 2009, CHRI took the lead on the human rights assembly , which later changed format in 2011 to two meetings instead of one large forum.

But, this decade sees it struggling for

relevance. Perceptions towards the

entity as a whole are tarred with

suspicion, skepticism and often indifference. CHRI has repeatedly

stated that in a multi-polar world with

myriad regional, military and

economic alliances, the Commonwealth must be about human

rights or it is about nothing at all.

Over the years, CHRI took several

strategic initiatives on a broad

spectrum of issues that fall outside its two major focuses of Access to Justice

and Access to Information. Each has

had an important part to play in furthering human rights within

Member States and within the

association itself – in not prompting its

own institutional will and capacity to address the many challenges to human

rights that exist in the association.

The Commonwealth has now existed for over 60 years, where it was agreed that all member countries would be “ freely and equally associated”. As the outcome of a shared legacy of colonialism, Member countries came to the idea that a shared partnership between countries who suffer the same anatomical problems could be solved by agreeing on common values of human rights, democracy, freedom, peace, the rule of law and opportunity.

STRATEGIC

INITIA TIVES

“THE COMMONWEALTH MUST BE ABOUT HUMA N RIGHTS OR IT IS ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL”

COMMONWEALTH PEOPLES FORUM

With the Commonwealth worried about its own relevance, the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was established at the 2009 CHOGM in an attempt to break new ground on attempts to sharpen its impact, strengthen networks and raise the profile of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the group prepared a report to be discussed at CHOGM, without giving it enough time; hence it was not discussed at length and many of its recommendations were disregarded. Of a total of 106 recommendations, only the first two were discussed at length, concluding in a decision to adopt a “Charter of the Commonwealth”, a further 30 were adopted without reservation, 43 were handed over to a Task Force for consideration, 12 would be subject to financial considerations and 11 were deemed inappropriate. With only 15 months left till the next CHOGM, the Commonwealth must now adapt.

EMINENT PERSONS GROUP The Commonwealth Peoples Forum, operational since 1997, is held in the run-up to each biennial CHOGM, bringing together civil society representatives from around the world, in the single biggest opportunity for civil society to engage with the Commonwealth, to discuss and debate key global development issues. A series of consultations with civil society culminate in a Civil Society Statement, which is presented to Commonwealth leaders in the run-up to CHOGM. In 2009, CHRI took the lead on the human rights assembly , which later changed format in 2011 to two meetings instead of one large forum.

But, this decade sees it struggling for

relevance. Perceptions towards the

entity as a whole are tarred with

suspicion, skepticism and often indifference. CHRI has repeatedly

stated that in a multi-polar world with

myriad regional, military and

economic alliances, the Commonwealth must be about human

rights or it is about nothing at all.

Over the years, CHRI took several

strategic initiatives on a broad

spectrum of issues that fall outside its two major focuses of Access to Justice

and Access to Information. Each has

had an important part to play in furthering human rights within

Member States and within the

association itself – in not prompting its

own institutional will and capacity to address the many challenges to human

rights that exist in the association.

The Commonwealth has now existed for over 60 years, where it was agreed that all member countries would be “ freely and equally associated”. As the outcome of a shared legacy of colonialism, Member countries came to the idea that a shared partnership between countries who suffer the same anatomical problems could be solved by agreeing on common values of human rights, democracy, freedom, peace, the rule of law and opportunity.

WWWOOORRRLLLDDD LLLEEEAAADDDEEERRRSSS AAATTT TTTHHHEEE CCCOOOMMMMMMOOOWWWNNNWWWEEEAAALLLTTTHHH

Image Credit: Annaliese McDonough/ Commonwealth Secretariat

After the 2009 humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth Heads of Government deferred proposals to hold the 2011 CHOGM in the country . Despite little human rights progress between 2009 and

2012, the 2013 CHOGM is now scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka. A Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary -General recently found several allegations of humanitarian law violations. This view was

also echoed by several UN experts, such as successive UN Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings. Several well-known human rights groups also reported that many human rights abuses continue within the country even today . Many experts, including the UN Secretary General’s Panel of experts have found Sri Lanka’s domestic enquiries into

allegations to be wanting in impartiality , even as Sri Lanka refuses to accept demands for international investigations by these experts. In this context, CHRI has joined several civil society groups to urge that Sri Lanka is not an appropriate host for CHOGM, especially as the Commonwealth is try ing to strengthen itself and its stature. A number of conditions must be met by the government to improve the human rights situation in the country if Sri Lanka wishes to hold a future CHOGM. “THE MOST CONTOVERSIAL OF THEM ALL”

Every two years Commonwealth leaders meet at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to discuss global and Commonwealth issues, and agree on collective policies and initiatives. CHOGMs act as the principal policy and decision-

making forum to guide the strategic direction of the association. They are organised by the host nation in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat. Before each CHOGM, CHRI produces a biennial report which focuses in-depth on one particular issue; a way to look at the Commonwealth through a human rights lens. Many of CHRI’s projects and initiatives come out of the findings of these reports. CHRI uses these reports to lobby the Heads of Governments at these meetings to focus on the shortfalls and challenges that exist in Commonwealth countries in the realm of human rights. The reports serve to highlight Gaps. Earlier reports have ranged from a human rights approach to poverty , looking at the Right to Information, Police Accountability , Terrorism, Human Rights Defenders, and most recently , at the relationship between National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Groups. These are major components of CHRI’s advocacy work.

WWWOOORRRLLLDDD LLLEEEAAADDDEEERRRSSS AAATTT TTTHHHEEE CCCOOOMMMMMMOOOWWWNNNWWWEEEAAALLLTTTHHH

Image Credit: Annaliese McDonough/ Commonwealth Secretariat

After the 2009 humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth Heads of Government deferred proposals to hold the 2011 CHOGM in the country . Despite little human rights progress between 2009 and

2012, the 2013 CHOGM is now scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka. A Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary -General recently found several allegations of humanitarian law violations. This view was

also echoed by several UN experts, such as successive UN Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings. Several well-known human rights groups also reported that many human rights abuses continue within the country even today . Many experts, including the UN Secretary General’s Panel of experts have found Sri Lanka’s domestic enquiries into

allegations to be wanting in impartiality , even as Sri Lanka refuses to accept demands for international investigations by these experts. In this context, CHRI has joined several civil society groups to urge that Sri Lanka is not an appropriate host for CHOGM, especially as the Commonwealth is try ing to strengthen itself and its stature. A number of conditions must be met by the government to improve the human rights situation in the country if Sri Lanka wishes to hold a future CHOGM. “THE MOST CONTOVERSIAL OF THEM ALL”

Every two years Commonwealth leaders meet at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to discuss global and Commonwealth issues, and agree on collective policies and initiatives. CHOGMs act as the principal policy and decision-

making forum to guide the strategic direction of the association. They are organised by the host nation in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat. Before each CHOGM, CHRI produces a biennial report which focuses in-depth on one particular issue; a way to look at the Commonwealth through a human rights lens. Many of CHRI’s projects and initiatives come out of the findings of these reports. CHRI uses these reports to lobby the Heads of Governments at these meetings to focus on the shortfalls and challenges that exist in Commonwealth countries in the realm of human rights. The reports serve to highlight Gaps. Earlier reports have ranged from a human rights approach to poverty , looking at the Right to Information, Police Accountability , Terrorism, Human Rights Defenders, and most recently , at the relationship between National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Groups. These are major components of CHRI’s advocacy work.

RRREEEAAACCCHHHIIINNNGGG OOOUUUTTT///CCCOOONNNNNNEEECCCTTTIIINNNGGG PPPEEEOOOPPPLLLEEE

CHRI strategically engages with regional and international bodies including the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Ministerial Ac tion Group, the UN Human Rights Council, and the African Commission.

Ongoing initiatives include: reporting biennially on critical and current issues at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM); mounting fact finding missions to countries; reviewing the performance of Commonwealth countries as members of the Human Rights Commission; making submissions to the UN before country reviews at the Universal Periodic Review (UPR); building civil society capacity to examine, report on and bring the UPR process back to their countries; pressing the Commonwealth to strengthen its institutional commitment to human rights in light of its own strong declarations on human rights; advocating for stronger response mechanisms within the association when nations violate the human rights of their citizens as well as when they fall below declared human rights standards; and advocating for stronger monitoring and response mechanisms to stem human rights violations.

PPPRRRIIIVVVAAATTTEEE AAACCCTTTSSS IIINNN TTTHHHEEE

PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC EEEYYYEEE

The LGBTI community faces sy stematic persecution in many Commonwealth states and is often subject to arbitrary arrest, harassment and discrimination. Colonial era laws criminalising sodomy are in force in several states and these laws are the basis of both formal and informal sy stems of discrimination.

CHRI is currently involved with critiquing laws and attitudes within the Commonwealth regarding LGBTI advocates and supporting their fight against discrimination. We advocate for the repeal of legislation that criminalises private acts between consenting adults. We recently commented on Nigeria’s draft same-sex marriage bill; we draw attention to States’ human rights obligations as promised by them in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), recently examining Pakistan, Zambia and Ghana; we advocated for LGBTI rights at the UN Human Rights Council, which led to a resolution for the High Commissioner of Human Rights to undertake a report on discrimination towards people based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. CHRI was part of a select number of NGOs that gave an oral statement in a panel debate based on the report.

RRREEEAAACCCHHHIIINNNGGG OOOUUUTTT///CCCOOONNNNNNEEECCCTTTIIINNNGGG PPPEEEOOOPPPLLLEEE

CHRI strategically engages with regional and international bodies including the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Ministerial Ac tion Group, the UN Human Rights Council, and the African Commission.

Ongoing initiatives include: reporting biennially on critical and current issues at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM); mounting fact finding missions to countries; reviewing the performance of Commonwealth countries as members of the Human Rights Commission; making submissions to the UN before country reviews at the Universal Periodic Review (UPR); building civil society capacity to examine, report on and bring the UPR process back to their countries; pressing the Commonwealth to strengthen its institutional commitment to human rights in light of its own strong declarations on human rights; advocating for stronger response mechanisms within the association when nations violate the human rights of their citizens as well as when they fall below declared human rights standards; and advocating for stronger monitoring and response mechanisms to stem human rights violations.

PPPRRRIIIVVVAAATTTEEE AAACCCTTTSSS IIINNN TTTHHHEEE

PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC EEEYYYEEE

The LGBTI community faces sy stematic persecution in many Commonwealth states and is often subject to arbitrary arrest, harassment and discrimination. Colonial era laws criminalising sodomy are in force in several states and these laws are the basis of both formal and informal sy stems of discrimination.

CHRI is currently involved with critiquing laws and attitudes within the Commonwealth regarding LGBTI advocates and supporting their fight against discrimination. We advocate for the repeal of legislation that criminalises private acts between consenting adults. We recently commented on Nigeria’s draft same-sex marriage bill; we draw attention to States’ human rights obligations as promised by them in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), recently examining Pakistan, Zambia and Ghana; we advocated for LGBTI rights at the UN Human Rights Council, which led to a resolution for the High Commissioner of Human Rights to undertake a report on discrimination towards people based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. CHRI was part of a select number of NGOs that gave an oral statement in a panel debate based on the report.

CHRI AND THE COMMONWEALTH AT THE UN

CHRI was granted Special Consultative Status at the UN in 2005. As a trusted partner, we often act as resource persons for several UN agencies.

HELPING OUT In CHRI’s niche area of experience, we have become resource persons working across the Commonwealth, helping build capacity and give technical training to members of civil society . CHRI also contributed to the publication of two Commonwealth Secretar iat UPR best- practice guides for civil society , National Human Rights Institutions and Governments. We have resourced Caribbean, African and Asia-pacific regional training.

PRE-ELECTION PLEDGES 2010: Mauritius: “Mauritius committed to uphold the primacy of democracy and good governance, to promote its citizens’ human rights and to strengthen national institutions with a mandate to protect and promote human rights.”

Nigeria: “It notably committed itself to full cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Council and pledged to maintain an open door policy for all UN human rights inspectors, rapporteurs and representatives carry ing out their mandates.”

EASIER SAID THAN DONE

Since 2006, when the Human Rights Council came into being, several Commonwealth countries have been voted on to it. As they vie for a seat, each makes several commitments before the election.

Though broad and vague, the pre-election pledges provide a benchmark against which to judge future in-country trends, political will and honest performance. CHRI’s Easier Said than Done, periodically examines voting records and statements, and provides a summary of the domestic human rights situation in each country . In addition to this, is an overview of the Commonwealth’s collective behaviour as a grouping within the Council.

As the only comprehensive publication of its Kind, Easier Said than Done provides a useful reference guide for diplomats, NGOs, NHRIs, intergovernmental organisations and does influence the voting behaviour. In the past, the scrutiny created sharp exchanges between UN missions and their capitals about how to vote at the Council.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Universal Period Review (UPR) is a peer-review mechanism that sees the human rights situation of each UN Member State reviewed by the UN Human Rights every four and a half years. States present the actions they have taken to improve their human rights situations and fulfil their human rights obligations. Their peers offer recommendations which may be accepted or rejected. The next cycle offers the opportunity to compare promise with performance.

Each review is based on three reports – one which is submitted by the country itself, one which is a summation of reports by other UN bodies, and a third which consists of submissions from civil society . CHRI has used this space to make submissions and oral statements during the reviews of 13 Commonwealth countries.

HRCNET There is enormous scope for expansion and intensification of our engagement at the HRC in the future, building on the strong foundation as an active member of the Human Rights Council Network (HRCNet), an informal, cross-regional network of CSOs committed to the strengthening of the Human Rights Council as a more effective body to address human rights violations, and to protect and promote human rights worldwide.

WHAT CHRI DID

Easier Said than Done: 2010 FOUND… “Although South Africa’s Constitution is among the most progressive in the world on LGBT rights, discrimination and violence targeted at the LGBT community were frequent and brutal. Furthermore, women of all sexual orientations faced an extremely high risk of rape and there were concerns that South Africa’s leaders harboured attitudes towards women that were inconsistent with the country ’s human rights obligations. South Africa reportedly also had the highest number of documented cases of child rape in the world.”

During the first cycle, and over the first two sessions of the second cycle, which began in June 2012, CHRI made UPR submissions for Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Ghana, India, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan Rwanda, South Africa, United Kingdom and Zambia. For example, among

other things, CHRI’s second submission on Ghana said:

“During Ghana’s first UPR in 2008, Canada recommended that it “pass the Freedom of Information Bill…” Ghana responded by say ing that it shared the view that the bill was important and intended to consolidate democracy , and that it was “with this mind that the Right to Informa tion Bill was being prepared within the framework of ongoing consultations with relevant stakeholders”. Four years later, the current government has not passed the Right to Information (RTI) Bill, despite calling for its passage in its campaign manifesto in 2008 and continuing to express commitment to pass the bill since elected.

CHRI AND THE COMMONWEALTH AT THE UN

CHRI was granted Special Consultative Status at the UN in 2005. As a trusted partner, we often act as resource persons for several UN agencies.

HELPING OUT In CHRI’s niche area of experience, we have become resource persons working across the Commonwealth, helping build capacity and give technical training to members of civil society . CHRI also contributed to the publication of two Commonwealth Secretar iat UPR best- practice guides for civil society , National Human Rights Institutions and Governments. We have resourced Caribbean, African and Asia-pacific regional training.

PRE-ELECTION PLEDGES 2010: Mauritius: “Mauritius committed to uphold the primacy of democracy and good governance, to promote its citizens’ human rights and to strengthen national institutions with a mandate to protect and promote human rights.”

Nigeria: “It notably committed itself to full cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Council and pledged to maintain an open door policy for all UN human rights inspectors, rapporteurs and representatives carry ing out their mandates.”

EASIER SAID THAN DONE

Since 2006, when the Human Rights Council came into being, several Commonwealth countries have been voted on to it. As they vie for a seat, each makes several commitments before the election.

Though broad and vague, the pre-election pledges provide a benchmark against which to judge future in-country trends, political will and honest performance. CHRI’s Easier Said than Done, periodically examines voting records and statements, and provides a summary of the domestic human rights situation in each country . In addition to this, is an overview of the Commonwealth’s collective behaviour as a grouping within the Council.

As the only comprehensive publication of its Kind, Easier Said than Done provides a useful reference guide for diplomats, NGOs, NHRIs, intergovernmental organisations and does influence the voting behaviour. In the past, the scrutiny created sharp exchanges between UN missions and their capitals about how to vote at the Council.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Universal Period Review (UPR) is a peer-review mechanism that sees the human rights situation of each UN Member State reviewed by the UN Human Rights every four and a half years. States present the actions they have taken to improve their human rights situations and fulfil their human rights obligations. Their peers offer recommendations which may be accepted or rejected. The next cycle offers the opportunity to compare promise with performance.

Each review is based on three reports – one which is submitted by the country itself, one which is a summation of reports by other UN bodies, and a third which consists of submissions from civil society . CHRI has used this space to make submissions and oral statements during the reviews of 13 Commonwealth countries.

HRCNET There is enormous scope for expansion and intensification of our engagement at the HRC in the future, building on the strong foundation as an active member of the Human Rights Council Network (HRCNet), an informal, cross-regional network of CSOs committed to the strengthening of the Human Rights Council as a more effective body to address human rights violations, and to protect and promote human rights worldwide.

WHAT CHRI DID

Easier Said than Done: 2010 FOUND… “Although South Africa’s Constitution is among the most progressive in the world on LGBT rights, discrimination and violence targeted at the LGBT community were frequent and brutal. Furthermore, women of all sexual orientations faced an extremely high risk of rape and there were concerns that South Africa’s leaders harboured attitudes towards women that were inconsistent with the country ’s human rights obligations. South Africa reportedly also had the highest number of documented cases of child rape in the world.”

During the first cycle, and over the first two sessions of the second cycle, which began in June 2012, CHRI made UPR submissions for Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Ghana, India, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan Rwanda, South Africa, United Kingdom and Zambia. For example, among

other things, CHRI’s second submission on Ghana said:

“During Ghana’s first UPR in 2008, Canada recommended that it “pass the Freedom of Information Bill…” Ghana responded by say ing that it shared the view that the bill was important and intended to consolidate democracy , and that it was “with this mind that the Right to Informa tion Bill was being prepared within the framework of ongoing consultations with relevant stakeholders”. Four years later, the current government has not passed the Right to Information (RTI) Bill, despite calling for its passage in its campaign manifesto in 2008 and continuing to express commitment to pass the bill since elected.

Kenya was under severe scrutiny, and defensively in denial of the strong indictment of police and state in the violence that followed the 2007 contested elections. The situation in Kenya was unstable, volatile and violent. In 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston, presented a particularly damning analysis of extrajudicial killings in Kenya, which was strongly opposed to by the Kenyan government. The effects of his analysis were far-re aching and dangerous.

Kenya’s UPR review c ame on the heels of this damning report, which indicted the police and the government for the proliferation of these killings. There was international outrage, when, subsequent to the Special Rapporteurs’ visit to the country, two well- known human rights defenders, Oscar Kingara and John Olulu of the Oscar Foundation Free Legal Aid Clinic, were killed presumably for being in touch with him. There w ere death threa ts to many other prominent me mbers of Kenyan civil society and widespread protests at the police action which resulted in the death of at least one police officer and several civilians. The government delegation refused to accept the report and were aggressive in their denial.

In a pioneering effort for CHRI, its delegation to the UN Human Rights Council included partners it was working with on police accountability in Kenya. One of them, a well -known human rights defender Sa muel Mohochi, found his family me mbers threat ened while he was away, but unlike, others was not physically harmed.

In response to Alston’s report, the Kenyan government sent a strong delegation from both the government in power and opposition parties. CHRI advocated for reform of the police, greater accountability

PROTECTING HUMA N

RIGHTS DEFENDERS and reinforced the need to acknowledge the truth of the Rapporteur’s

analysis. Unable to reconcile their diffe rences, the Kenyan delegation had

no choice but to accept the embarrassing report.

The turnaround in the Kenyan government’s

position on extrajudicial killings, with an

official a cknowledgement, made for a ve ry

successful outcome. The Kenyan delegation

also publicly committed to addressing the underlying causes of extrajudicial killing (including lack of rights-based training for office rs and weak accountability

structures) as part of the President’s current

Police Reform Task Force.

CHRI’s efforts we re a ground -breaking attempt to promote dialogue on Kenyan and

East African police re form at an international forum. Raising pressure at the

Council, CHRI highlighted the need for the

UN to protect human rights defenders. For all

three of the CHRI delegates from A fric a, it was a first att empt to engage with the UNHRC and pressure the national government at the UNHRC, and both reported on its fruitfulness.

According to recent information fro m partners on the ground, the UNHRC advocacy and internationalisation of police reforms and extrajudicial killings in Kenya led to the Kenya Police Force engaging with CHRI,African

Policing Civilian Oversight Forum and the

Kenya National Commission on Human Right

on their project to develop common standards

for policing in the region. In July

2009,representatives of APCOF met with the

Kenya Police Force who committed to

providing an expert review on the draft

standards and to participate in a regional conference to launch the report.

Kenya was under severe scrutiny, and defensively in denial of the strong indictment of police and state in the violence that followed the 2007 contested elections. The situation in Kenya was unstable, volatile and violent. In 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston, presented a particularly damning analysis of extrajudicial killings in Kenya, which was strongly opposed to by the Kenyan government. The effects of his analysis were far-re aching and dangerous.

Kenya’s UPR review c ame on the heels of this damning report, which indicted the police and the government for the proliferation of these killings. There was international outrage, when, subsequent to the Special Rapporteurs’ visit to the country, two well- known human rights defenders, Oscar Kingara and John Olulu of the Oscar Foundation Free Legal Aid Clinic, were killed presumably for being in touch with him. There w ere death threa ts to many other prominent me mbers of Kenyan civil society and widespread protests at the police action which resulted in the death of at least one police officer and several civilians. The government delegation refused to accept the report and were aggressive in their denial.

In a pioneering effort for CHRI, its delegation to the UN Human Rights Council included partners it was working with on police accountability in Kenya. One of them, a well -known human rights defender Sa muel Mohochi, found his family me mbers threat ened while he was away, but unlike, others was not physically harmed.

In response to Alston’s report, the Kenyan government sent a strong delegation from both the government in power and opposition parties. CHRI advocated for reform of the police, greater accountability

PROTECTING HUMA N

RIGHTS DEFENDERS and reinforced the need to acknowledge the truth of the Rapporteur’s

analysis. Unable to reconcile their diffe rences, the Kenyan delegation had

no choice but to accept the embarrassing report.

The turnaround in the Kenyan government’s

position on extrajudicial killings, with an

official a cknowledgement, made for a ve ry

successful outcome. The Kenyan delegation

also publicly committed to addressing the underlying causes of extrajudicial killing (including lack of rights-based training for office rs and weak accountability

structures) as part of the President’s current

Police Reform Task Force.

CHRI’s efforts we re a ground -breaking attempt to promote dialogue on Kenyan and

East African police re form at an international forum. Raising pressure at the

Council, CHRI highlighted the need for the

UN to protect human rights defenders. For all

three of the CHRI delegates from A fric a, it was a first att empt to engage with the UNHRC and pressure the national government at the UNHRC, and both reported on its fruitfulness.

According to recent information fro m partners on the ground, the UNHRC advocacy and internationalisation of police reforms and extrajudicial killings in Kenya led to the Kenya Police Force engaging with CHRI,African

Policing Civilian Oversight Forum and the

Kenya National Commission on Human Right

on their project to develop common standards

for policing in the region. In July

2009,representatives of APCOF met with the

Kenya Police Force who committed to

providing an expert review on the draft

standards and to participate in a regional conference to launch the report.

CHRI AT THE AFRICA UNION

Advocacy on Extrajudicial Killings in the Gambia

In 2005, a group of approximately 50 Africans attempting to travel to Europe were detained by Gambian naval authorities without being charged, violently murdered and the bodies indiscriminately dumped along the Gambian coast. These unresolved extrajudicial kil lings and disappearances, caused a public outcry and yet, no attempt has been made to put the perpetrators to account, despite calls from human rights defenders, such as CHRI Africa, to investigate the circumstances and prosecute the perpetrators.

CHRI went on a fact finding mission in 2007 to meet the victims’ families, whose palpable frustration showed the government’s lack of effort to find their missing relatives. CHRI met Martin Kyere, a Ghanaian survivor, who gave an account of the events, the officials in charge of the atrocities, and the brutalisation of the immigrants, providing a witness account against the perpetrators, high-ranking officials in the Gambian government.

We teamed up with Africa Legal Aid, to establish the Gambian Task Force with the aim to raise public awareness and promote global sensitisation on the inhuman activities occurring in The Gambia, and sanctioned by the government. In 2007, the Task Force filed a complaint against the Gambian government at the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights. The Task Force further reported the incident to other international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court and the Commonwealth Secretariat who have pledged their support in attaining justice for the victims.

CHRI collaborated with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to create an opportunity for him to respond to their concerns regarding the investigation process, and explain the government’s actions. Even so, the government continues attempts to get the case kicked

out of the African Human Rights Commission, but it remains pending. A different NGO sent out a report detailing attempts to dismiss the case, which were clearly orchestrated by the Gam bian government. CHRI filed a complaint with the Commission.

The Commission used delay ing tactics to ignore CHRI’s submissions to i t: sending an email at each session to say our communication was not considered, but would be at the next session. In 2011, the Gambian government was still attempting to get the case thrown out. There was a settlement between the two governments,

following a UN investigative panel. $500,000 was paid by the Gambian government, however, there are worries about this money owing to allegations of corruption.

CHRI campaigned to prevent the President of The Gambia attending the 2009 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting after he made clear and equivocal threats to kill human rights defenders. The press and electronic media carried over a hundred mentions of CHRI’s posit ion and protest. The President was then absent from the meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, leading to wide debate on human rights compliance at the Commonwealth.

Taking on the President

Image Credit: Embassy of Equatorial Guinea