Amnesty International Strengthening Implementation At The National Level Discussion

amnesty international strengthening implementation at the national level discussion paper on article 25 of the draft comprehensive and in

Amnesty International
Strengthening implementation at the national level
Discussion paper on Article 25 of the draft Comprehensive and Integral
International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights
and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities1
Draft Article 25
MONITORING
National Implementation Framework
1.
States Parties shall designate a focal point within Government for
matters relating to the implementation of the present Convention,
and give due consideration to the establishment or designation of
a coordination mechanism to facilitate related action in different
sectors and at different levels.
2.
States Parties shall, in accordance with their legal and
administrative system, maintain, strengthen, designate or
establish at the national level a framework to promote, protect
and monitor implementation of the rights recognised in the present
Convention.
Summary of Amnesty International’s recommendations
With this paper Amnesty International aims to contribute to the
discussion among non-governmental organizations regarding possible
elements of monitoring the proposed Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities,
which will take place in preparation for the 6th session of the Ad Hoc
Committee in August 2005. The paper builds on Amnesty International’s
experience of monitoring human rights treaties at the national and
international levels, mainly in regard to civil and political rights.
Amnesty International welcomes that the draft Convention prepared by
the Working Group in principle takes into account the relevance of
national monitoring mechanisms. However, the organization believes
that the concept of the national implementation framework contained in
Article 25 lacks clarity and some further specifications to ensure its
effective functioning as a complement to the international monitoring
mechanism of the Convention.
*
The Convention should make specific reference to the main tasks of
the government focal point. These include: (1) to facilitate
coordination across different ministerial departments as well as
local, regional or federal authorities as applicable; (2) to
ensure or coordinate the collection of data and statistics as
required for effective policy programming and evaluation of
implementation; (3) to cooperate with civil society and
organizations representing persons with disabilities as well as
national institutions; (4) to cooperate with the international
monitoring mechanism – particularly in connection with periodic
reporting, follow up and implementation of recommendations
emanating from the international mechanism; (5) to undertake or
coordinate government activities in the area of awareness-raising,
educating the general public, training and capacity-building.
*
States parties should be required to formally notify the
Secretariat of the international monitoring mechanism when the
government focal point is established, appointed or designated.
Such notification should include the focal point’s status, mandate
and contact details.
*
In addition to the designation of a government focal point the
Convention should require states to establish a broader and
inclusive coordinating mechanism such as a national coordinating
committee. The coordinating mechanism should provide a permanent
forum for policy formulation and facilitate ongoing review of the
state parties’ implementation at the national level. It should
consist of the government focal point, representatives from
relevant government authorities, national human rights
institutions or specialized human rights institutions for the
protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, relevant
non-governmental organizations, including organizations
representing persons with disabilities.
*
The role of independent national human rights institutions or
specialized human rights institutions for the protection of the
rights of persons with disabilities within the national
implementation framework should be stressed in the Convention. In
this context the relevant provision should contain reference to
some necessary attributes of independent national institutions.
This should include the following: (1) the national institutions
should be operating in accordance with the Paris Principles; (2)
they should be specifically mandated to monitor implementation of
the new Convention, concluding observations and decisions of the
international mechanism; (3) they should be able to make
recommendations as they deem appropriate to government authorities
regarding legislation, practice or necessary policy changes; (4)
they should be authorized to receive individual communications and
bring cases on behalf of people with disabilities to domestic
courts or – if there is no remedy on the national level – to
relevant international bodies.
*
The Convention should highlight the importance of national action
plans and reinforce the obligation of states to adopt and execute
national strategies. To ensure that national action plans can
contribute effectively to the implementation of the rights of
persons with disabilities at the national level, it might be
required that the Convention makes reference to some fundamental
attributes national action plans should follow. These include that
national strategies and action plans should: (1) be targeted,
specific and establish appropriate benchmarks and indicators; (2)
be subject to continuous monitoring at the national level by a
competent and inclusive body such as the coordinating committee
and to evaluation and re-adjustment as required to maximize their
impact; (3) be subject to review by the international mechanism in
the context of the reporting procedure under the Convention.
1.
Introduction
Effective implementation of the Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (the
Convention) will ultimately need to take place at the national level
and the approach to monitoring must encourage and contribute
effectively to national implementation. A well-conceived and vigorous
approach to monitoring must include effective and complementary
mechanisms at both the national and the international levels. This
paper focuses specifically on a national implementation framework as
outlined in Article 25 of the draft Convention, which was prepared by
the Working Group in January 2004 as the basis for the negotiation at
the Ad Hoc Committee.
Amnesty International welcomes that the Working Group’s draft takes
into account the relevance of national monitoring mechanisms as an
instrument to improve the realization of the rights of people with
disabilities. However, while draft Article 25 envisages that states
parties designate a focal point within government, consider the
establishment or designation of a coordinating mechanism and maintain
at the national level a framework to promote, protect and monitor
implementation, it lacks some further specifications of such a
framework, its elements and the tasks it should fulfil.
This paper discusses some elements of the national implementation
framework and outlines some attributes these should possess. The
elements considered in the following sections include the government
focal point, national coordinating committees or similar bodies,
independent national human rights institutions or specialized human
rights institutions for the protection of the rights of persons with
disabilities and non-governmental organizations, including
organizations representing persons with disabilities. The last section
before drawing some conclusions will deal with national action plans
and the role of the above mentioned institutions or structures in
their elaboration and review. The paper is neither exhaustive nor
intended as a blueprint of a national monitoring mechanism for the new
Convention. Not all of the aspects contained in the paper will
ultimately need to be spelled out in the text of the treaty. However,
Amnesty International believes that the underlying arguments should be
taken into account in the debate at the Ad Hoc Committee. The
organization recommends that the objectives and some fundamental
attributes of the national implementation framework should be
clarified and reflected in the Convention.
2.
The government focal point and intra-governmental coordination
General Comment No. 5 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) stressed: “In examining States parties’ reports the Committee
has almost invariably found it necessary to encourage further
coordination of government authorities to ensure effective
implementation: coordination among central government departments,
among different provinces and regions, between central and other
levels of government and between Government and civil society.”2
Similarly to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
cross-cutting nature of effectively implementing the rights of persons
with disabilities at the national level requires the involvement of
several branches of government authorities, which as a result poses
challenges for effective coordination. While the CRC’s General Comment
did not attempt to prescribe detailed arrangements of
intra-governmental coordination, it refers to inter-ministerial or
inter-departmental committees as examples.
For instance, with respect to the implementation of their obligations
under the Convention on the Rights of the Child many governments have
put in place specific departments in charge of addressing issues
pertaining to problems children face in the country. Within the
administration of many countries also specific entities exist whose
task is to promote equal opportunities for people with disabilities.
Such specialized entities should not operate in isolation and hence
perpetuate the marginalization of persons with disabilities. Such
entities should instead be put into a position that allows them to
effectively lead and coordinate the development and implementation of
policies relevant to persons with disabilities; and in the context of
the new Convention a strong rights-based approach needs to be
reflected in the working methods of such entities.
A government focal point for matters relating to the implementation of
the Convention, as proposed in the draft of the Working Group, could
strengthen intra-governmental coordination through inter-ministerial
or inter-departmental committees in relevant areas but also facilitate
more effective links between states and the international mechanism.
However, the idea of a government focal point to lead
intra-governmental coordination in respect of the states obligations
under the Convention should in practice be complemented by broader
coordinating mechanisms at the national level that also include
non-governmental actors and national institutions.
3.
National coordinating bodies and the national implementation
framework
Draft Article 25 (1) encourages states to give due consideration to
the establishment or designation of a coordinating mechanism; however,
it does not require states parties to ensure that appropriate
institutional arrangements for effective coordination are in place.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether this provision merely relates to
a mechanism of intra-governmental coordination or one that could also
involve other actors at the national level. Similarly in draft Article
25 (2), the provision on the establishment and maintenance of a
national framework to promote, protect and monitor implementation
lacks specificity as regards the framework’s main elements, its
infrastructure and its organisation. While the Convention will need to
be flexible it should contain some minimum requirements with regards
to such a framework.
The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons
with Disabilities, adopted by the General Assembly in 1993 emphasize
that states are responsible for the establishment and strengthening of
national coordinating committees or similar bodies and to encourage
their participation in implementation and monitoring of the rules.3
The concept of such coordinating committees goes beyond that of purely
intra-governmental coordination and of a focal point within government
as provided for in the Working Group draft. The national coordinating
committees or similar bodies envisaged in the Standard Rules are
permanent structures that should include representation from concerned
government agencies, eminent persons and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), with special emphasis on adequate representation
from organizations of peoples with disabilities. While they should be
provided with sufficient autonomy the coordinating committees should
report to the highest governmental level.4
To maintain an effective national implementation framework the
Convention on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons
with disabilities should draw on the idea of a broad and inclusive
consultative arrangement, which regularly brings together the
governmental focal point, representatives of relevant authorities,
national institutions as well as NGOs, including organizations
representing persons with disabilities. Where Coordinating Committees
or similar bodies monitoring the Standard Rules already exist, states
parties to the Convention could build on these structures to
strengthen broad participation and coordination in the formulation of
relevant policies as well as to review implementation of the
Convention at the national level.
4.
Independent national institutions and the national implementation
framework
As part of the consultative process but also with regards to an
ongoing review of implementation and follow-up, independent national
human rights institutions (NHRIs), established in accordance with the
"Paris Principles"5, as well as specialized human rights institutions
to protect and promote the interest of persons with disabilities could
play an important role within the national implementation framework of
the new Convention. Independent national institutions, including
disability rights commissions, could contribute to monitoring at the
national level, support legal cases and take further steps to
translate law into action by providing advice, training, campaigning
or awareness-raising. Effective and independent national institutions
could contribute with their expertise, networks and infrastructure to
facilitate periodic consultation between the members of national
coordinating committees or similar bodies, as referred to above.
However, the extent to which national institutions can effectively
contribute to implementation at the national level largely depends on
their mandate, their working methods and in particular their
independence.
Within the framework of existing human rights treaties, it is apparent
that the potential of national institutions has yet to be fully
realized. Currently there are only approximately 50 to 60 NHRIs which
operate in accordance with the Paris Principles, and it is not
necessarily the case that they have been explicitly mandated to
monitor their government’s implementation of treaties.6 Hence, for an
effective national implementation framework of the new Convention it
will be important that some minimum requirements as regards
independence and the effectiveness of national institutions are
fulfilled. A national institution, which is not working independently
and effectively, could in practice become an obstacle to the effective
implementation of the Convention; it can be an instrument of impunity,
rather than a tool to promote and protect the rights of persons with
disabilities. This might require that the Convention specifically
address some necessary attributes of national institutions.
Based on Amnesty International’s observations of the work of NHRIs and
their impact, the organization has made in the past a number of
recommendations concerning the establishment and effective functioning
of NHRIs, which should also be highlighted in the context of the
discussion about the role of national institutions in the national
implementation framework of the new Convention:7
*
Independence: National institutions must be independent from the
executive functions of government and its founding charter should
reflect this. It is essential therefore that national institutions
should be established by law or, preferably, by constitutional
amendment. Procedures of selection, appointment, removal and terms
of tenure of members and staff of national institutions should be
clearly specified and laid down in its founding legislation, so as
to afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence,
impartiality and independence.
*
Monitoring implementation of international human rights treaties
and follow-up to recommendations of international mechanisms: The
mandate of national institutions should specifically include the
power to monitor government fulfilment of international and
regional human rights treaties and human rights obligations under
domestic law. The power to follow-up on recommendations and
reports made in relation to implementation and compliance with
international human rights standards should include a suitable
framework within which the national institution may compel the
relevant authority to explain and report to the national
institution, within a reasonable period of time, as to why, for
example, it has not followed and did not apply recommendations
made by the international monitoring mechanism of the Convention
or other human rights treaty bodies or thematic mechanisms.
Independent national institutions should submit reports of their
assessment of the human rights situation in their country to the
UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies on their own behalf; they
should not write the state’s reports to treaty monitoring bodies.
National institutions should as far as possible attend and
participate in international meetings and fora including the
treaty monitoring bodies and UN political bodies concerned with
human rights. When doing so, they should represent themselves as
independent national institutions, rather than representing their
government.
*
Investigations: National institutions should have precisely
defined powers to conduct wide-ranging national enquiries on human
rights concerns and to investigate on their own initiative
situations and cases of reported human rights violations. In order
to discharge their mandate effectively national institutions need
to have access to government information and consider information
from any other reliable source. State officials should be legally
obliged to cooperate with the national institution’s
investigations and national institutions should seek to establish
collaborative links with national and international NGOs wherever
appropriate and necessary to obtain further information. The
result of the national institution’s investigations should be
referred to appropriate judicial bodies without delay so that they
can take appropriate action.
*
Individual complaints and participation in domestic legal cases:
National institutions should be able to receive communications not
only from the complainants themselves but also, if the
complainants themselves are unable or prevented from doing so,
from lawyers, relatives or others acting on their behalf,
including non-governmental groups. National institutions should
have powers to ensure effective non-judicial remedies, including
interim measures to protect the life and safety of a complainant;
it should ensure measures of redress and rehabilitation are taken
in appropriate cases. Wherever necessary, national institutions
have to ensure that individual cases are referred to other
competent bodies or the judiciary. National institutions should
specifically have the power to bring legal cases to protect the
rights of individuals or to promote changes in law and practice.
National institutions must also have the legal power to submit
advice to the courts, such as amicus curiae briefs or third party
interventions, on legal issues within their field of expertise in
an independent capacity, without being a party to the case. This
is important to ensure that the courts are informed about
specialized human rights law concerns and to ensure that human
rights standards are actively implemented in court decisions.
Where domestic remedies for human rights violations are exhausted
or ineffective, national institutions should raise the matter with
the international and regional bodies mandated to assess
compliance with human rights standards, such as the human rights
treaty monitoring bodies or the UN special procedures. In this way
national institutions could support the work of the international
monitoring mechanism of the Convention and contribute to
mainstreaming the rights of persons with disabilities in other
international and regional mechanisms for the promotion and
protection of human rights.
*
Accountability: National institutions should report publicly on
their activities either to an independent civil society body, or
to a functioning and exacting parliamentary body. Issues related
to the establishment of national institutions, their mandate,
activities and working methods should also be subject to
examination by the international monitoring mechanism within the
procedure of periodic reporting.
The role of independent national human rights institutions or
specialized human rights institutions for the protection of the rights
of persons with disabilities within the national implementation
framework should be stressed in the Convention. While experience shows
that it would be difficult for many states to accept in the Convention
too detailed provisions containing specific requirements national
institutions should fulfil and that it will be necessary to retain
some flexibility, the Convention should address a minimum of necessary
attributes of national institutions to ensure their independence and
effective functioning within the national implementation framework.
5.
Participation of civil society
Successful implementation and monitoring at the national level of the
Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities will depend on a
high degree of effective participation by civil society, including
organizations representing persons with disabilities and human rights
organizations. The provision on the national implementation framework
should reflect this.
The Standard Rules acknowledge not only the right of organizations of
persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at
national, regional and local levels but also specifically calls on
states to recognize the advisory role of these organizations in
decision-making on disability matters.8
The expertise of international, regional or local civil society
organizations, particularly those representing persons with
disabilities, offers a huge potential that should be used to the
maximum extent possible within the monitoring process of the new
Convention. Civil society organizations can contribute e.g. by
providing information, engaging with international regional or
national agencies, encouraging governments and national constituencies
to undertake further measures to implement the rights of people with
disabilities, and following up with governments on the implementation
of relevant recommendations. Furthermore, access of stakeholders to
contribute effectively to the process of monitoring is imperative in
order to build up the legitimacy and authority that is required for
the effective functioning of any type of monitoring mechanism – at the
national and the international level – and hence the fulfilment of the
aim and the purpose of the Convention.
A national framework to promote, protect and monitor implementation of
the new Convention should also stimulate the involvement of the
general public as well as certain professional groups acting as
multipliers or performing vital functions in the context of the
implementation of human rights provisions at the national level.
Promotional activities such as training on the rights of persons with
disabilities should be targeted at people who may have to consider and
apply human rights issues in their work – law-makers, administrative
decision-makers, judges, lawyers, the medical profession, teachers,
social workers, police officers etc.
The national implementation framework and the actors participating in
it – such as government focal points and independent national
institutions – should use the NGO sector’s wider social outreach
mechanics to publicise activities or to facilitate receiving
complaints from sections of society who are either geographically,
politically or socially remote. It will be vital to ensure that
relevant information and training materials are disseminated to
suitable target audiences and that they are accessible to persons with
disabilities.
6.
National strategies of implementation and action plans
Particularly since the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna, the call on states to elaborate national action plans has been
echoed in different contexts at several occasions. For example, the
Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women,
held in Beijing in September 1995 (Beijing Platform for Action),
called on governments to develop in consultation with relevant
institutions and non-governmental organizations, implementation
strategies for the Platform or national plans of action. As of March
2005 the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW)
had received action plans from 121 member and observer states.
However, since April 2000, there has only been one submission and no
information is available as to whether those action plans submitted
earlier have been updated since their adoption.9 It remains to be seen
whether further action plans will be submitted or those submitted
earlier will be updated following the review of the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action earlier this year.
The Beijing Platform for Action invites states parties, when reporting
to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW), to include information on measures taken to
implement the Platform.10 Picking up on the language from Beijing, the
reporting guidelines of CEDAW specifically request states parties to
include information about measures taken to implement the 12 critical
areas of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.11 Amnesty
International has not undertaken a thorough review of the extent to
which states parties systematically include this information in their
reports, but implementation of the Beijing commitments does not appear
to be a central feature of the dialogue between CEDAW and the state
party or the resulting concluding observations.
While it appears that within the existing human rights framework there
is still significant scope for improvements, national action plans and
periodic reporting to an international monitoring body of the
Convention can be seen as important elements complementing each other.
In order to equip the Convention with the strongest possible means to
ensure implementation at the national level, the provision on the
national implementation framework should not ignore this. The
Convention should reflect this complementarity; and it may also be
necessary to specify some main requirements states should meet with
regards to the elaboration and execution of national action plans.
General Comment No. 5 of the CRC contains a number of recommendations
as to the process of adopting national strategies and action plans as
well as its contents.12 Such recommendations will also be relevant for
the effective implementation of the Convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities and they point to a number of specific tasks
a national implementation framework should perform. Translated into
the context of the discussion about national implementation of the new
Convention some of the main requirements national action plans should
fulfil include the following:
*
National strategies with regards to disability should be
comprehensive and rights-based in accordance with the framework of
the Convention. They should be integrated into overall national
human rights implementation programming, effectively linked to
social development planning and endorsed at the highest level of
government in order to give them strongest possible authority and
avoid marginalization.
*
Effective implementation of the Convention on the rights of
persons with disability will require a yardstick along which
progress can be measured. Hence national strategies and action
plans should spell out specific and time-bound targets, benchmarks
and indicators. Moreover, while states have to comply with all of
their obligations under the Convention, effective national
strategies have to set clear priorities in accordance with the
situation in the state concerned and the available resources.
While resources are always limited, states have to make the
necessary budget allocations to ensure the successful development
and execution of national strategies in order to implement the
provisions of the Convention.
*
National strategies and action plans need to be subject to
continuous monitoring, review and evaluation of progress. While
national strategies should aim at setting out a mid- and long-term
programme of work to be rigorously followed through, the plans
also have to leave flexibility to adjust policies and legislations
on the basis of the outcomes of the evaluation if required.
*
In order to strengthen transparency and accountability states
should take effective steps to ensure that not only the
development of national strategies and action plans but also their
review and evaluation is subject to broadest possible public
debate and effective participation by national institutions and
civil society – in particular organizations representing persons
with disabilities and those living and working with them.
Governments should be required to report publicly and periodically
on the achievements and challenges as regards the execution of the
plans, for example, to parliament, national institutions and
coordinating committees or similar bodies as outlined above.
*
Conclusions emanating from the treaty monitoring process at the
international level should be reflected in national strategies and
action plans. At the same time, the strategies themselves have to
be subject to scrutiny at the international level. Information on
the procedure of its elaboration, its contents, achievements and
challenges should be incorporated into the reports submitted
within the monitoring process at the international level.
Periodic reporting to an international mechanism can stimulate
reflection on national strategies and action plans. At the same time,
once national strategies and action plans have been developed and an
infrastructure to coordinate activities and monitor progress has been
established it would be much easier for states to report periodically
on the implementation of the Convention to an international body.
Continuity in gathering information and follow-up activities would be
enhanced.
However, reporting to an international and independent experts’ body
should not be based solely on national strategies and reduced to
submission of action plans. An international monitoring mechanism
requires space to develop and refine its reporting guidelines,
including in relation to the type of information it requests from
states to assess their compliance with the Convention.13 A reporting
approach exclusively based on action plans developed at the national
level could limit the international mechanism’s ability to solicit and
consider the information required to review effectively states’
compliance with the provisions of the Convention. An international
monitoring mechanism should be free to seek and consider information
from all relevant sources and on all issues deemed appropriate to
assess states’ compliance with their obligations under the Convention.
7.
Conclusion
Arrangements to foster national implementation require the involvement
of a plethora of institutions and structures within a consistent
framework. Such a framework should comprise government focal points,
national coordinating committees or similar bodies, independent
national human rights institutions or specialized human rights
institutions to protect the interests of persons with disabilities,
effective procedures to ensure participation of civil society as well
as methods for the development, execution and evaluation of
comprehensive national strategies and action plans. To establish and
maintain such frameworks a high degree of political determination but
also capacity and international cooperation will be required.
Experience shows that it will be difficult for some states to accept
provisions in the Convention that prescribe in too much detail how a
national implementation framework should look like and what precisely
it should do. The Convention will need to set the frame but leave room
for states parties to fill it in accordance with their constitution,
their legal system and traditions. However, as regards draft Article
25 of the Working Group, some specifications that flow from the
fundamental objectives of a national implementation framework and its
elements will be required to ensure its effective functioning and its
ability to make a lasting contribution to the promotion and protection
of the human rights of persons with disabilities.
Concerns over resource implications and the imposition of additional
obligations on states should not lead to ultimately adopting a
Convention with an inadequate mechanism for monitoring implementation.
Deficiencies in the implementation mechanism would jeopardize the
achievement of the overall purpose of the Convention and potentially
also undermine the realization of the rights of persons with
disabilities through existing instruments. In contrast, a
well-equipped and effectively functioning monitoring mechanism at the
national level would make it considerable easier for states to expose
and respond to the de facto situation of persons with disabilities on
the ground and to interact more efficiently with the international
mechanism to monitor implementation of the Convention.
1 In June 2003 the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral
International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights
and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities decided to establish a
Working Group to prepare a draft text of a convention. The Working
Group adopted the draft Convention in January 2004 and presented it to
the Ad Hoc Committee as a basis for further negotiation. The full text
is available at
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcwgreport.htm.
2 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 5, General
measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (arts. 4, 42 and 44, para. 6), UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5, 27
November 2003, para 37.
3 See Rule 17 of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted by UN General
Assembly resolution A/RES/48/96, 20 December 1993.
4 Already prior to the adoption of the Standard Rules, in its
resolution on the implementation of the World Programme of Action,
which called upon Governments and UN bodies to participate actively in
the elaboration of the rules, the General Assembly had endorsed
specific guidelines for the establishment and development of national
coordinating committees on disability and encouraged governments to
consider these guidelines in their national programmes; see UN General
Assembly resolution A/RES/46/96, 16 December 1991. The text of the
“Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of National
Coordinating Committees on Disability” can be found in UN Doc
A/C.3/46/4, 6 November 1991.
5 The “Principles relating to the status of national institutions'' –
known as the Paris Principles – originate from an international
workshop convened by the Center for Human Rights in October 1991. The
recommendations were later endorsed by the UN Commission on Human
Rights (resolution 1992/54) and the UN General Assembly (A/RES/48134).
6 Out of 98 institutions listed in the directory of the National Human
Rights Institutions Forum 51 have full accreditation with the International
Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights (ICC), which requires its members to
operate in accordance with the Paris Principles. 8 institutions have
been granted only provisional accreditation due to insufficient
documentation. 7 institutions have only been granted observer status
as they are not considered fully compliant with the Paris Principles
and 4 institutions have been found non-compliant. The directory does
not contain information about the remaining 28 institutions; see
http://www.nhri.net/default.asp?PID=276&DID=0 (information correct as
of 3 June 2005).
7 See National Human Rights Institutions – Amnesty International’s
recommendations for effective protection and promotion of human rights,
October 2001, AI Index IOR 40/007/2001.
8 See Rule 18. The rule contains more on the role of organizations
representing persons with disability in implementing the Standard
Rules as well as a number of measures states should consider to
encourage and support their formation and strengthening.
9 See Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action & Compliance
with International Legal Instruments on Women,
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/country/compliance-table-3.2005.pdf.
In addition to the member states five organizations submitted
interregional, regional and subregional plans. The full list of action
plans submitted to DAW and those plans available in electronic format
are available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/country/national/natplans.htm. The
list has not been updated since April 2000.
10 In October 1998, DAW had also sent on behalf of the UN Secretary
General a questionnaire to governments requesting them to provide
information on the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action.
As of 18 August 2000, 155 member and observer states had responded.
The questionnaire and the responses are available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/countrylist.htm.
11 UN Doc. HRI/GEN/2/Rev.1.
12 UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5, 27 November 2003, paras 28-36. The Standard
Rules also contain provisions related to the development, execution,
continuous monitoring and evaluation of national programmes and
services concerning the equalization of opportunities for persons with
disabilities the national, see Rules 13 to 20 (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre05.htm#Rule%2014).
Another example of monitoring implementation based on national action
plans provides ILO Convention 182 on the elimination of the worst
forms of child labour. It requires ratifying states to create and
implement a national plan to eradicate the worst forms of child labour
within a specific time-frame. They are also responsible for
identifying the necessary financial and human resources to execute it
and for monitoring its progress. Although there is no blueprint for
fulfilling the Convention’s obligations, in order to be effective, the
implementation process is to be both consultative and comprehensive.
The Convention also encourages governments to assist each other with
implementation.
13 In order to ensure that the monitoring mechanism of the Convention
will be grounded within the existing framework of international human
rights treaties, the development of such guidelines would require
consultation with other treaty monitoring mechanisms.
11