Challenges for NHRIS - Moving from establishment to impact

• Pages: 41-75

41

The setting up of NHRIs is just af‌irst step– the mere existence of an NHRI

is, in itself, not agoal. What is of critical importance is how NHRIs can be

effective and impactful when delivering on their raison d’être, that is the

promotion and protection of human rights. The Paris Principles and the SCA

stress that the mandate of NHRIs “should be interpreted in abroad, liberal

and purposive manner to promote aprogressive def‌inition of human rights

which includes all rights set out in international, regional and domestic

instruments, including economic, social and cultural rights”.1

In this regard, the SCA has provided further guidance on the meanings of the

two core responsibilities for NHRIs: “promotion” and “protection”:

“The [SCA] understands ‘promotion’ to include those functions which seek

to create asociety where human rights are more broadly understood and

respected. Such functions may include education, training, advising, public

outreach and advocacy. “Protection” functions may be understood as those

that address and seek to prevent actual human rights violations. Such functions

include monitoring, inquiring, investigating and reporting on human rights

violations, and may include individual complaint handling”.2

NHRIs must have a“willingness to engage with challenging or controversial

human rights issues, particularly where this goes against the position of

the government”.

3

Responsiveness, strategy and the relevance of their

work to the human rights situation on the ground are key factors. This

is why it is crucial that an NHRI is given the broadest possible mandate,

preferably aconstitutional legal basis (as agreed in the international human

rights standards), independent leadership selected on merit, functional

immunity for leadership and staff, and adequate resources. With these

preconditions, an NHRI is able to maintain its impact, even in the most

challenging circumstances.4



CHALLENGES FOR NHRIS MOVING

FROM ESTABLISHMENT TO IMPACT

42

.. AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR NHRIS

NHRIs depend on democracy, the rule of law, and good administration

and human rights to operate independently and effectively. T he Council

of the European Union has “underline[d] the necessity of safeguarding an

enabling environment for independent national human rights institutions,

Equality Bodies and other human rights mechanisms”.5 The Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe, in arecommendation on the civil society

space, acknowledged the NHRIs as human rights defenders, contributing

to an environment of respect for and the active promotion of human

rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. At the same time, the

recommendation highlights that, where human rights defenders face threats,

such violations “may indicate the general situation of human rights in the

State concerned or adeterioration thereof”.

Civil society organisations also face anumber of challenges in this regard, such

as “disadvantageous changes in legislation or inadequate implementation of

laws; hurdles to accessing f‌inancial resources and ensuring their sustainability;

diff‌iculties in accessing decision-makers and feeding into law and policy

making; and attacks on and harassment of human rights defenders”.6 Taking

stock of these issues, civil society organisations, as is the case for all human

rights defenders, “need to be able to exercise their rights fully and without

unnecessary or arbitrary restrictions” and states should “fully implement

their positive obligations to promote human rights and create an enabling

environment”.7 The leaders and staff of NHRIs should not face any form of

reprisal or intimidation. AUN General Assembly resolution formulates this as

“including political pressure, physical intimidation, harassment or unjustif‌iable

budgetary limitations, as aresult of activities undertaken in accordance with

their respective mandates, including when taking up individual cases or when

reporting on serious or systematic violations in their countries”.8

References to intimidation of and reprisals against the NHRI in Poland, and

its Commissioner for Human Rights personally, were included in areport

by the UN Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council.9 Responding to

threats to NHRIs in the European region, in 2016 ENNHRI issued guidelines on

support for NHRIs under threat. These provide an overview of the options in

terms of the support available and clarify the procedures that are followed in

such cases (ENNHRI, Guidelines on ENNHRI Support to NHRIs under Threat,

2016).

10

Likewise, the Venice Principles of 2019 highlight the leading role

of states in adopting models that strengthen the institution and enhance

the level of protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental

freedoms in the country. Systematic work, involving collaboration with other

43

networks, such as those for equality bodies and ombuds institutions, as well

as international organisations, has evolved to respond to emerging issues

that NHRIs face on the ground.11

The research for this report looked into the nature and frequency of physical

and verbal threats by state or non-state actors and whether these threats

could be linked to any particular issues, such as gender, ethnicity, age,

disability, religion or belief, political opinions, (national) minority status,

sexual orientation or gender identity. Representatives of NHRIs were asked:

―

‘Have any of your employees/volunteers been threatened and/or harassed

(verbal or written, including online) in relation to their work for your body,

in the last 12months?’

―

‘Have any of your employees/volunteers been attacked physically or

beaten up, in relation to their work for your body, in the last 12months?’

In both cases, respondents could choose to answer that this had occurred

daily, weekly, monthly, once per year, never or that they did not know. The

representatives of the interviewed NHRIs were then also asked the following

‘yes’ or ‘no’ question about threats to the institution as an entity:

―

‘Has your organisation, as awhole, been subject to threats and/or physical,

verbal or online attacks, in the last 3years?’

Then, respondents could choose to elaborate on whether their work on

specif‌ic issues (gender, ethnicity, age, disability, religion or belief, political

opinions, sexual orientation or gender identity, or other) may have prompted

the aforementioned threats and attacks, as well as their perceived frequency

(daily, weekly, monthly, once per year, do not know).

The responses suggest that asignif‌icant number of employees and volunteers

had been subjected to threats or harassment (verbal or written, including

online) in relation to their work for their NHRI within the previous 12months

(FRA consultation with NHRIs, 2019). More specif‌ically, four out of 31 NHRIs

stated that employees or volunteers were threatened or harassed on

amonthly basis; one NHRI reported threats or harassment on aweekly

basis. Afurther nine reported this happening closer to once ayear. In total,

14 NHRIs reported that their employees and volunteers had been subjected

to threats and harassment due to their work within the past 12months. Four

NHRIs did not respond to this question.

On the other hand, 14 NHRIs stated that their employees and volunteers

had not been attacked or harassed in the previous year, while afurther four

answered that they did not know whether this had occurred. With regard

to actual physical violence, none of the 31 NHRIs that responded to FRA’s

questions reported any instance of physical attacks to their employees and

volunteers in the previous 12months. With regard to threats and attacks

(physical, verbal or online) to the NHRIs as awhole, 11 out of 33 NHRIs

noted that their organisation had been the victim of such occurrences in

the previous 12months.12

NHRIs were also asked whether any of the aforementioned instances of

attacks, threats or harassment could be linked to their institution’s work on

arange of issues. Focusing exclusively on the responses from NHRIs that had

reported being subject to any kind of attacks, threats or harassment to their

employees, volunteers or organisation, ‘ethnicity’ was explicitly listed in f‌ive

out of 18 responses as the likely motivation for at least one attack, threat or

episode of harassment in the previous year. The second most frequent answer

was ‘political opinions’, mentioned in four out of 18 responses, followed by

‘national minority’ and ‘religion or belief’ in three responses each.