Human Rights Liberia: 2007

Friday, April 13, 2007

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

----- Original Message -----
From: David Omozuafoh
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org ; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]

Dear Colleagues,Please see below the process of preparing the Nigerian National Action Plan as documented by the NHRC. The main document is also linked to further understand the entire process and components of the NAP.

The Nigerian National Action Plan

1. The Federal Government of Nigeria has consciously chosen a participatory, consultative and collaborative approach to develop the NAP. The process began in November 1999 when the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), with the support of the British Council, organized a study visit to South Africa to obtain first hand knowledge of the process that led to the development of the South African National Action Plan on Human Rights. The study team was composed of representatives from the NHRC, the Ministry of Justice, the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

2. In December 1999, the chambers of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, in collaboration with the NHRC, hosted a consultation with all government ministries and justice sector institutions. The purpose of this consultation was to explain the concept of the NAP, as well as the obligations of the respective ministries, agencies and institutions in the process of developing the NAP.

3. In April 2000, the Chambers of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice of the Federation requested the NHRC to commence consultations with civil society and parliament with a view to explaining the concept of the NAP.

4. Between July and October 2000, the NHRC convened a series of meetings with civil society representatives across Nigeria. At the end of these meetings, a process for broad consultation was mapped out and the process for developing the NAP was started.

5. The first activity was in October 2000, when the NHRC, in partnership with the Senate Committee on Human Rights, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Legal Resources Consortium, convened a Parliamentary Hearing on the State of the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Nigeria. The purpose of this hearing was to familiarise members of the National Assembly, Government Ministries, Service Chiefs and organised private sector with the concept of NAP and the need for same.

6. In November 2000, the NHRC with the support of Australian Embassy to Nigeria hosted a workshop on regional and international human rights instruments. The focus of this workshop was on key international and regional human rights instruments that have been domesticated, ratified or are in the process of ratification by Nigeria or those not yet ratified or domesticated.

7. These activities provided a forum for identifying and agreeing on areas of cooperation between the National Assembly, government departments and civil society (including the private sector) in the development of the NAP.

8. In April 2001, the Federal Government of Nigeria formally inaugurated the steering and coordinating committees of the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

9. In October 2001, the Federal Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission with the support of DFID hosted the first Nigerian Human Rights Summit. Participants at the Summit included Human Rights Defenders, other NGOs, CBOs, professional bodies and other stakeholders in the civil society, Government ministries, parastatals and agencies, military, police, and other law enforcement agencies, the judiciary and parliamentarians. The summit was convened to provide a forum for government and civil society to agree on the content and framework of the NAP.

10. In October 2002, the Commission, in collaboration with the Senate and House Committees on Human Rights, with the support of MacArthur Foundation, hosted all of the Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly in an interactive session on the draft National Action Plan. The purpose was to incorporate their input into the NAP document.

11. On 10th October 2002, further effort was made towards the development of the National Action Plan when National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the National Assembly and Legal Resource Consortium with the support from McArthur Foundation organized a One-Day conference on Human Rights and the Death Penalty.

12. In November 2002, with the support of the McArthur Foundation, the Commission’s thematic program officers visited various relevant ministries/parastatals by which inputs were received on the status of various projects embarked upon by them towards the promotion and protection of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria and other relevant Regional and International Human Rights Instruments.

13. With the support of McArthur Foundation a documentary of the activities of the Commission leading to the development of the National Action was produced for public enlightenment and educational purposes in sensitising the public on the National Action Plan during the period of 2002 to 2003.

14. Between the 2004 and 2005, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa collaborated with the Commission in holding consultations with the media, government ministries/parastatals, and the Civil Society on strategies towards a successful implementation of the NAP document when adopted by the Federal Government.

15. The Commission again sent out its program officers to various ministries and parastatals to update the NAP document with developments in the various ministries and parastatals since the last consultations with such ministries and parastatals. These were further harmonized into the NAP document. Preliminary final draft copies were then printed for presentation to the Government.

16. Again on the 7th December 2005, the Commission in Collaboration with Open Society Initiative for West Africa organized a consultation with the new Parliamentarians elected in 2003 to brief them on the NAP document. Having carried out the previous consultations with the former parliamentarians elected between 1999 to 2003, it was therefore necessary to brief the new NASS on the NAP document.

17. Finally, the NAP document was handed over to the President by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice who was the Chair of the Steering Committee for the development of NAP. The Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria successfully developed and adopted the NAP document.

My comments:

1. The NAP has been reviewed twice – 2006 and early 2007. A report of how well it has performed has not been prepared.

2. The review has not informed any major changes in the way the NHRC does its job nor the implementing agencies

3. The NAP is supposed to inform the implementing agencies annual budget requests, but this is not the case. Budgets are still being made and implemented without dues recourse to the NAP by ministries, departments and agencies

4. The plan lacks monitoring mechanism. It is therefore difficult to understand how the plan is being implemented. This also makes it difficult to understand the challenges encountered by the implementing agencies in the process of implementation.

5. The plan is not action-oriented and not timed. It is therefore difficult to understand when targets have been met and how much would be required to meet set targets. Although the plan identifies challenges and bodies responsible for implementation and monitoring, it appears to leave everything for everyone identified without linking duties to each agency. This makes it difficult to link success or failure to bodies concerned.

6. To better understand and implement the plan, there should an operational plan. The operational plan should have timelines, budget, actions, methodology and implementing agencies

7. The NAP is an ideal instrument which informs the direction of government in responding to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna Austria in 1993. It is really the human rights approach to development. UNDP should use its experience in human rights based approach to development to assist the country in preparing the Plan. The country’s request for UNDP’s assistance for human rights projects should be in line with the NAP once adopted. This is why UNDP needs to participate actively in its preparation.

I hope you find this helpful. Regards,

David Omozuafoh
Programme Analyst (Governance)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
UN House
Plot 617/618 Central Area
Diplomatic Drive
Abuja

From: bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org [mailto:bounce-1078992-22698@groups.undp.org] On Behalf Of Bipin Adhikari
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 4:06 PM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: [cprp-net] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

[Facilitator’s Note: This query is cross-posted between the Human Rights Talk Network and CPRP-networks]

Dear colleagues,

The Ministry of Justice in Liberia is working with the UNDP and UN Mission here to develop a national human rights action plan for Liberia.* Such an action plan was envisaged by the Joint Needs Assessment concluded by the United Nations and the World Bank for the National Transitional Government of Liberia in 2004 to rebuild this country after a long civil war. The result-focused transition framework (RFTF) developed to implement the Joint Needs Assessment provided for a three year National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) for Liberia. The exercise is still at its early stages. We would appreciate receiving from members any recent/previous experiences on processes, lessons learnt, human rights action plans, within and outside of the region and particularly within a post conflict context. Apart from using them for our own references, we will also be sharing these resources with concerned human rights focal points in the Ministries and civil society organizations.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Bipin Adhikari
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
# 404A, Pan-Africa Plaza
Monrovia, Liberia

* Please note that the knowledge networks handled a query on the same subject in 2005: Liberia/ Comparative Experiences/ Development of national human rights action plans in post-conflict contexts However, the work on the NHRAP in Liberia was stalled for various political/technical reasons. As there sure has been new developments, we would like to get recent updates on experiences, especially in the West African region.

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

From: %%email.bounce%% [mailto:%%email.bounce%%] On Behalf Of Peter Hosking
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:30 AM
To: humanrights-talk@groups.undp.org; cprp-net@groups.undp.org
Subject: Re: RE:[humanrights-talk] Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

Colleagues, I want to offer one or two observations on NHRAPs based on experience, principally, in Mongolia and New Zealand, my home country.

The latter first. In New Zealand, the plan was developed by the NHRI, the NZHRC. The Plan is a fine document, completed a couple of years ago now, but it can really be described only as the Commission's plan, not a NATIONAL plan. This is because it has never been adopted by the government. The Commission did endeavour to involve government departments and Ministers in the planning process, and representatives did stay involved for a while but eventually they fell by the wayside. Effectively, they withdrew from the process. I think the government would say that it welcomes the plan, but it has never adopted it. Thus it is not a central planning document and while I think the Commission endeavours to keep it alive, and some of its activities do reflect priorities in the NHRAP, it is not the government's plan.
Based on this experience, I suggest that it is crucial to involve government departments from the outset, and secure government (ie cabinet in the NZ political system) commitment AND RESOURCES for the exercise. The Finance Ministry is the most important of all for without funding the plan will never be implemented and will never drive annual and long-term budgetting for the state.

A similar outcome was reached in Mongolia, where UNDP put considerable resources behind the development of the Plan and much of the work was done by a human rights adviser funded (mostly, I think) by OHCHR under HURIST cooperation with UNDP and GoM. Again, a fine plan was adopted, but it took considerable effort to get it adopted - in this case by the Great Hural (the Parliament). The government did later set up a committee to implement the plan, but as of a couple of years ago, little had been done by way of implementation and, crucially, no budget allocated to the exercise. Mongolia has had a long history, I think I can say, of national plans which never get implemented and when last I saw it, the NHRAP was well on its way to being added to the list. If there has been progress made with the plan since, perhaps someone from the country team there could update us.

All of which is to say that there is little point (aside from some human rights awareness raising which can result from the development of a NHRAP) in putting significant resources to a document which languishes somewhere gathering dust.
Best, Peter

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

Friday, March 30, 2007

HRPF Letter sent to the President regarding delay in the INCHR appointment process March 19, 2007

[Find hereunder the letter sent by Human Rights and Protection Forum (HRPF) 45 Carey Street Garnett Building, Monrovia, Liberia, to the President of Liberia and circulated among civil society groups]
***************************************

Her Excellency Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
President of the Republic Of Liberia

March 19, 2007

Dear Madam President,

We are concerned over the delay in reconstituting the Independent National Commission on Human Rights according to Article IX of the INCHR Act 2005.

As Your Excellency is aware, it is already about two months that the Independent Committee of Experts (ICE), the civil society group convened by the Chief Justice of Liberia in December 2005, recommended to you the list of 11 persons to be considered for the appointment of seven-member team of Chief Commissioner and Commissioners of the Commission as envisaged by the law.

As you are aware, according to the INCHR Act the President is to consider only such persons for the purpose of appointment for the position of Chairperson or Commissioners who are on the list of persons recommended by an independent committee of experts formed by the Chief Justice in consultation with the civil society organizations. The approval of the Senate is also part of the appointment process.

Meanwhile, I also take this opportunity to emphasize that in order to have functional independent national institution of human rights the persons recommended for review and consideration should not be politically controversial and reflect, to the extent possible, the pluralist nature of Liberian society in terms of sex, ethnicity, language and religion as well as have the representation of nongovernmental organizations or professional associations involved in the protection and promotion of human rights.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the current list which is consists of politically controversial names, needs to be avoided in order to make sure that the Commissioners appointed by you are able to maintain their professional independence and impartiality.

The list is also gender blind in its composition. There is only one woman in the list of 11 persons, which gives no choice to the President to create a more gender-balanced institution.

In view of these comments, may I take this opportunity to request you to kindly ask the Independent Committee of Experts to send Your Excellency the list of all women candidates who applied for these positions, or were recommended to the Committee by public in large, on their merit basis, so that Your Excellency can have enough space for making appropriate choices, and creating a credible national institution.

Finally, Your Excellency, the urgency of constituting the Commission as soon as possible cannot be overemphasized. The human rights organizations in the non-governmental sector emphasize once again that the INCHR is their organization and they have full commitment to work with the government in institutionalizing the Independent National Commission on Human Rights as a credible national institution of Liberia.

Please accept Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration

Sincerely Yours,

Mr. Matthew B. White
Acting Chairman
Human Rights Protection Forum (HRPF)

Cc: UNDP, UNMIL, and Human Rights Organizations

Transitional Commissioners of INCHR (Jan 2004-December 2005)

Independent National Commission on Human Rights

1) Atty. Dempster Brown, Chairperson
2) Rev. Robert K. Nyeswah, Member
3) Atty. Esther Seton-Cee, Member
4) J. Michael Kunmeh, Member
5) Zeor Daylue, Member
6) Katurah Cooper, Member
7) Rev. Ellen Fartu Varfley, Member

Comments on draft INCHR Act

29 September 2004

Mr. Bipin Adhikari
HRO (National Institution)
Human Rights Protection Section
UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)

Dear Mr. Adhikari,

As requested please find attached my preliminary comments concerning the draft legislation which you forwarded for my comments regarding a National Human Rights Institution for the Republic of Liberia. It is my understanding that this advice is being sought in consultation with the Government of Liberia. Therefore please feel free to share these comments with the relevant Government partners as required.

My comments are based on that provided with me making additional suggestions for those sections where there is no actual text and concerning those areas which I believe should be included.

Generally the drafting of such legislation is part of a consultative process with civil society, Government and other actors to educate the public about an institution which should be seen as its own; ensure that the legislation meets the needs of that public; and ensure that the legislation is in conformity with the United Nations Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) approved unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1993 (annexed to Resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993).

Our Office consistently encourages the preparation or amendment of relevant legislation in consultation with NGOs, academics, the legal profession, church leaders, parliamentary opposition leaders, or other community representatives and members of the international community as part of broad based civil society consultations. These consultations often involve several public workshops and seminars, well publicised in advance, and conducted over a sufficient period to permit genuine consultations. I understand that some consultations have been held; I would encourage that these be as exhaustive as possible.

We have found that where such consultations do not occur that institutions which are established do not have the same public legitimacy or credibility as those which have gone through an open process of discussion and debate.

In summary the six key criteria in the Paris Principles are:

 independence guaranteed by statute or constitution
 autonomy from government
 pluralism, including in membership
 a broad mandate based on universal human rights standards
 adequate powers of investigation
 adequate resources

This advice assumes that the Government of Liberia wishes to ensure that the Commission is established as an institution that conforms to the Paris Principles. The advice is based on the requirements of the Paris Principles and on the following lessons learned:

 The need for a sound constitutional and legislative foundation,
 The need for clarity of mandate,
 The need for strategic prioritisation of work,
 The need for a basis in, and strong reference to, international human rights law,
 The need for adequate resources,
 The need for demonstrated independence,
 The need for the power to act on its own initiative,
 The need to appoint high quality (expertise, integrity, independence) commissioners and staff,
 The need for effective privileges and immunities,
 The need to ensure representation of all sectors of society,
 The need to ensure physical, social, cultural and linguistic accessibility,
 The need for powers to gather evidence and call witnesses,
 The need for the power to ensure non-judicial remedies,
 The need to manage complaints efficiently,
 The need to monitor follow-up,
 The need to chart and respond to trends,
 The need to establish effective linkages with NGOs and government offices, and
 The need for transparency, consultation and participation.

It is therefore our Office’s view based on practice that it be important the institution is included in the future Constitution of the country. It is commendable that a general provision was provided in whereby "The parties agree on the need for the establishment of an Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR)" pursuant to Article XII of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in Accra on the 18th August 2003. A constitutional provision is critical to ensure the necessary independence of the institution and provide the general parameters concerning its establishment. It may be brief and concise as the powers and functions of the institution itself will be incorporated in the enabling legislation to be adopted. Enabling legislation, which is in effect the draft which I have been asked to comment on, contributes the remainder of the framework for the jurisdiction, functions and powers, procedures for appointment and dismissal and operational and administrative matters. Hence if there is a new constitution to be drafted in Liberia this will provide an excellent opportunity to ensure that the national institution is entrenched in it for its sustainability and guarantee of independence.

Article I

I have no comment under Article 1.

Article II(2)

It is not clear why there is a need to determine whether the Commission can, with reference to branch offices, “close or terminate any of them, and thereafter reopen and reactivate them according to its requirement….” as the article notes that it may establish and maintain them as necessary. Hence I would strike that section.

Article III

Subsections 1 and 2 are appropriate with an appropriate human rights definition.

Gender neutral language should be utilised throughout the legislation (his/her).

Subsection 4

It is not clear what this subsection refers to. The ability of an individual to submit a complaint to the Commission should be regulated by the institution’s enabling legislation.

Subsection III, 4 (c)

The numbering seems to have gone awry – while it is of course desirable to seek amicable settlements through conciliation this is unfortunately not something which can be imposed.

Subsection III, 4(e)

Concerning the rights to conduct on site-inspections and investigations to places of detention these should be free and unfettered. Such inspections are often only credible if they be undertaken without prior consent of the authorities.

Subsection III, 4(g)

My comments for the following subsection relate. The provision of legal services is generally one which can be costly to a national institution. Some do so (I attach a comparative table of some examples of legal aid etc) but a number have shied away for economic reasons. Also as an institution, which as mentioned earlier, should strive to find amicable solutions it may place the institution in an awkward position of choosing sides. This is not inappropriate provided all the facts may be ascertained. If this power is provided it will need to be used with great discretion with the institution able to make a determination in which instances such assistance might be provided. Any criteria will need to be clearly defined and properly enunciated.

Subsection III, 4(h)

The whole issue of quasi-judicial powers is an interesting one and tackled further in the legislation (Article IV). I would soften this language so that the institution may act as an amicus curae in proceedings before the court but not have the power of direct intervention in the actual proceedings of the court. Generally national institutions do not intervene in matters before the court unless to add further information to a process which the court may not be aware of. The service is one provided to the court. More forceful intervention could prejudice the independence of the judiciary. This of course excludes the ability – some institutions have this – of actually being a party before a case in the court on behalf of a complainant. This has been provided for in subsection III, 4(i).

Article IV

This article provides for broad powers of promotion and protection of human rights. This is appropriate and to be commended. I have some small comments on the subsections.

Subsection 2

The receipt of complaints by parties other than the individual directly the subject of an alleged violation is appropriate. However certain safeguards, such as signed affidavits or being a direct relative (where an affidavit is not possible – ie in relation to person’s in detention) may need to be considered. It is important that this article continue to permit the submission of credible complaints and that their submission be possible expeditiously so that violations are dealt with as soon as possible.

Regarding communications between the national institution and a person in custody, they must be confidential. Correspondence should be passed on without delay and delivered unopened. The legislation should stipulate that the information transmitted shall be done immediately in a sealed envelope, unopened and unaltered. There should be penalties for breaches of these requirements.

It should be prohibited to undertake any action to punish, harass, intimidate or otherwise disadvantage a person who has lodged a complaint or who is involved in a complaint, for example, as a witness. There should be penalties for breaches of this prohibition.

There should be no fee for lodging a complaint – this helps ensure accessibility to the institution which is another key principle for independent national human rights institutions.

Subsection 4

Rather than refer to fundamental principals of human rights it would be clearer if reference was made to international human rights standards or instruments.

Subsection 9

It is important that the language be reformulated to read “to contribute to the preparation of reports” so as to ensure that the report is still a State party report and that the actual preparation is undertaken by the State party. The national institution can provide input into the report but not be seen as a party to it permitting it to react to any omissions, errors or other in the report.

Subsection 15

A national institution is not a court nor should it attempt to become one or interfere with the independence of the judiciary. Therefore in this reference it should be clear that it is not the role of national institution to criticise a judicial decision but to rather use such a decision in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Subsection 17

The independence of a national institution is guaranteed through a number of mechanisms including through ensuring that the institution reports to the Parliament. It is commendable that reference is made concerning the submission of annual reports. However the article is not clear how such reports will be submitted. Generally they are submitted to Parliament with copies to the other parties. It is critical that these reports not be amended whatsoever once submitted. In this regard their early publication is critical with as wide a distribution as possible. Hence, in order for the reports to be publicly available it is appropriate that they form part of the official Parliamentary record (i.e. Official Gazette), be published and publicly available with the widest possible circulation. The law may therefore stipulate that the Annual Report should be made public upon submission, possibly through a Parliamentary Gazette. No obligation on the media to publish it should be imposed to ensure that freedom of the press is assured.

That to be included in the report should be at the discretion of the Commission but the legislation could stipulate that it provide for an overview of the human rights situation in the country and the recommendations made by the Commission. It is preferable to note that the investigations undertaken by the Commission may be published, rather than shall. It is important for the Commission to have discretion in this area depending on the sensitivity of the cases while maintaining the important principle of transparency of its operations.

Subsection 18

Such an open-ended clause is not recommended. The national institution must be able to plan and budget according to its mandate. It must also determine as an independent institution its own priorities. It is not a state agency and therefore must not be obligated to undertake responsibilities not legislatively provided for. I would recommend that this clause be removed.

Article V

Subsection 1(c)

There is no issue with this subsection though it is critical that it be understood that there be no imposition on the mass media for the publication of reports or pronouncements of the institution. While creating a culture of respect for human rights, non-discrimination and tolerance for individual differences depends on appropriate support from the media, its independence must not be compromised. Any positions or pronouncements of the institution can either be published at the will of the media, respecting freedom of the press, or as a paid supplement.

Subsection 2

This subsection is commendable and such broad inclusion of civil society in the work of a national institution is increasingly seen as relevant to the very work, functions and indeed nature of the institution (ref. my introductory comments concerning the consultative process leading to the establishment of a national institution).

Article VI

This is a very important article which leads to the extension of national institutions powers and functions to the quasi-judicial sphere. It is important as stressed in such matters to ensure full respect for the judiciary and independent judicial processes. I attach an analysis of some subpoena powers of other institutions to demonstrate that this is an important power for many.

As a general note there is often in similar legislation the importance of access to the head of state, government and ministers concerning alleged violations of human rights. When the life of an individual is at state it is important that critical action be undertaken without delay. Given the seniority of office, however, generally a period of 48 hours is appropriate unless emergencies of state are in cause.

Subsection 8

Concerning the information it is important to specify a particular time frame – for example one week – whereby information not received is deemed unacceptable permitting action by the national institution as noted in this subsection.This should not be arbitrary.

Subsection 9

I read this subsection as respecting the authority of the judiciary to determine acceptability of particular requests. This is appropriate in respecting the judiciary.

Subsection 9(d) and (e) is in full compliance with the principal of natural justice and is therefore appropriate.

Article VII

It is not clear to me the rationale behind this article. Some of the language in it can be seen as subjective (who will determine whether a junior officer was coerced or is hiding behind senior authority?; who is to determine whether an individual is a main or complicit actor in a violation and therefore should not face possible prosecution?). Again this leads into the less than clear area of the relationship of a national institution with that of the judiciary. Unless there is clear justification for this article it does not seem necessary.

Concerning immunities however, there is a need to clarify those of the Commissioner and staff. It is important the Commissioners not be threatened by civil or criminal legal proceedings arising from his or her conduct as a Commissioner of the institution provided that he or she acts in good faith in accordance with the law. While the Chair and Commissioners should be liable for criminal prosecution or civil action in relation to his or her personal affairs, as Chair/Commissioners he or she should be able to act lawfully and in good faith without fear of prosecution. The Chair/Commissioner’s decisions may still be subject to proper judicial review and the Commission should remain accountable to the Parliament. However the Office should enjoy immunity from suit for lawful, good faith actions taken pursuant to the law and in the course of official duties. Any statement relating to immunity should be provided in the legislative text establishing the Commission, and not in its rules of procedure, and should clearly stipulate that the benefit of immunity relates to that undertaken in the course of official duties.

Article VIII

The payment of reparations is a power few institutions have. It is not because it may not be commendable but rather a practical issue relating to resources. Many institutions will recommend the payment of reparations by state violators rather than pay such reparations themselves. Another option is that the violator is required to pay reparation (though this can also be subject to a judicial process). Again, this is rarely in the form of an order but rather a recommendation which is taken seriously due to the moral authority of the institution and the ability of the institution to report on any potential or lack of follow up through annual and other reports.

Article IX

Even with the best legislation possible the appointment of credible, able individuals to lead a national human rights institution is of the utmost importance. The size proposed concerning the Commission is appropriate and my comments in this section are few.

Two main observations concerning this article include: There should be no age requirement for appointment as this would be discriminatory and in itself a violation of human rights (hence subsection 6(b) is inappropriate). Rather the importance is to look at the skills, competencies and integrity of applicants. I note the recommendation that the head of the institution be a lawyer. Our experience has proven that while it is important for the institution to have legal competence within its staff that the leaders of the institution need not necessarily be lawyers to be effective.

In general concerning appointment I would like to make the following observation. An essential element in ensuring the independence of an institution is through the mode of appointment of the Chairperson and Commissioners of an institution. The Paris Principles provide that “appointment shall be effected by an official act which shall establish the specific duration of the mandate”. They do not prescribe any particular mode of appointment. The appointment process, however, can be critical to the national institution’s independence. It can also be critical to the autonomy of the institution if the person appointed is closely aligned with the Government and prepared to do the Government’s will. The Paris Principles require independence and “autonomy from government” for human rights institutions. The Chairperson and Commissioners, therefore, must be truly independent of government if he or she is to be effective in the task assigned by legislation. The appointment process must be open and transparent if the appointment is to have credibility. The legislation should provide quite specific criteria that an appointee must meet. Nominations should be sought publicly and screened by an independent committee of experts before a short list is presented to the key decision maker (the present legislation provides for candidates to be selected from amongst NGO nominees). The exact process needs to be clarified to ensure that those from civil society are representative of the whole.

Concerning the quorum it is unclear as to the number of votes by the Legislature (subsection IX, 2) required to recommend the Chairperson and Commissioners. A simple majority is used by some institutions though we encourage a 2/3 majority of the Legislature. There is, however, a risk in that if there are strong political divisions and favouritism then the selection process may be bogged down with a 2/3 majority. Whatever open and transparent process is selected the procedure should not be so complicated, or potentially controversial, as to delay appointments for a considerable period. Undue delay in the appointment of Chairperson and Commissioners will erode the credibility of the institution. Consultative processes, as that envisaged, to seek the views of civil society in the work of the national institution are commendable though as noted greater clarity needs to be made.

Article X

I have few comments save to note that the legislation is silent on whether the Commissioners are full or part-time. It is appropriate to clarify this though the text seems to suggest that they are full time.

Article XI

Subsections 7 and 8

I assume that reference to no or any person refers to Commissioners and/or staff?

Article XII

The term of appointment of the Executive Director should be specified. This is a key post and it should not be up to the Chairperson to determine the term. A clear term also helps protect the integrity and independence of the institution. Appropriate dismissal procedures can follow the practice of the public service or be regulated by the Commission (they must not be arbitrary and subject to political manipulation or subjective interpretation).

Article XIII

The structure appears appropriate and practicable.

Article XIV

Concerning dismissal this is a very serious action and can potentially undermine the independence of the institution. It should be available only in the most serious circumstances. Generally dismissal is agreed to with the consent of 2/3s of the Legislature. The independence of the institution would be severely compromised if the Commissioners were easily dismissible. There may be the need to provide for temporary suspension, rather than dismissal, in the case of temporary inability to perform the statutory functions. This process should be clear in the law.

The dismissal procedure, like the appointment procedure, should be open and transparent. It should be initiated in the same way as an appointment is initiated, not through the political path of President or Parliament but through inquiry and recommendation by an independent committee.

Article XV

The proposed term of five years for the Commissioners is reasonable. It would not be inappropriate if these terms were renewable for one further term. We have, however, found that it is not ideal when the term of the Chairperson is coterminous with that of the Members. Such an approach can result in the loss of institutional memory of the entire institution. One way of avoiding this is for the Chairperson to be appointed for a longer term – for example six years.

Article XVI

Subsections 3 and 4 are somewhat unclear to me. Whilst it is important for the Commission to be able to access other resources an obligation for Governmental bodies to agree to requests from an independent institution strikes an odd chord. I do not appreciate the need for these subsections.

Article VIII

The numeration is inconsistent.

Article XIX

Any institution which is beholden to the public, transparent and accountable must justify its budget. It is therefore not appropriate to oblige a state to accept a budget from an independent institution without discussion and scrutiny. What is important is that provision be made for the state to ensure that adequate resources be provided by the state for the effective functioning of the national institution. Generally a budget is proposed by the national institution to the legislature for discussion whereupon an allocation is made. This is critical to public ownership and to ensure transparency in the institution’s operations. Therefore I would argue that the phrase “In order to enhance the operational efficiency of the Commission, the Commission shall have continual funding on an annual basis from the revenue of the Government of Liberia as determined by the Commissioners and Director General of the Budget” could be replaced by “In order to ensure the operational efficiency and independence of the Commission, the Government of Liberia shall ensure its adequate resourcing following consultations with the Legislature, Director General of the Budget and Commission.”

Subsection 8

This section is well drafted and is appropriate for the empowerment of the Executive Director.

Subsection 9

The issue as mentioned previously is the manner in which the report is presented, to whom and when. Critical is also that the report be published without amendment.

Article XX

Subsection 3

It is not clear to me why this is included in this legislation. Whether the state constitutes state entities or not for specific courses of action is for the state to determine. In my opinion it has no place in legislation concerning independent national human rights institutions.

Subsection 4

It is commendable that the Chairperson delegates powers and there is recognition of this. However, it is not appropriate that delegation be done for persons outside of the structure of the Commission. Delegation to other Commissioners is appropriate. To delegate to “any other person” does not assure any accountability.

Subsection 6

It is not clear why an independent national human rights institution would need to communicate on issues via the office the President. Such an approach could be misconstrued as interference in the independence of the national institution.

Subsection 8

It is appropriate that a national institution be subject to scrutiny and judicial procedures. However, it is also important to take into consideration the immunity provisions already mentioned so as not to importune the independent functioning of the institution.

Subsection 9

The penultimate final clause is not clear. Why would one restrict the potential for any amendments to legislation to a period of two years? All legislation as part of a democratic process should be subject to review. I cannot comment on this as I am not familiar with the background for such a clause.

Please note that the above is provided based on a reading of the legislation as provided. I have not have the benefit of discussion concerning it with its drafters and the sole purpose of such comments is to assist in ensuring that any national human rights institution established in the Republic of Liberia is done so in conformity with the Paris Principles. I remain at your disposal for further assistance.

Sincerely,

Orest Nowosad

Orest Nowosad
Coordinator
National Institutions Unit
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Comments on draft INCHR Act

Protection concerns raised by civil society

April 3, 2007

The weekly meeting of the Human Rights protection Forum, an Umbrella NGO grouping together approximately 50 huam rights defence Civil Society Group for this raised three main questions on the measures being taken by UNMIL, Dyco and the Government to ensure future observance of human rights by the new security services under way.

1. Starting from a complaint that some LNP personnel were brutalising cilivians ( a case of use of excessive force and resulting in a death was cited) the NGO at the meeting demanded that information be provided to the public about how much human rights education is included in the training programme which LNP recruits undergo. Those responsible for the training of the new LNP - mainly UNMIL owes civil society information to allay the fears.

2. With the above in mind, the members feared that the Armed Forces of Liberia in the past reaked havoc on the civilian population and grossely violated their rights. As human rights protection activists, they see the need to ensure no repeat of that through education and sensitisation of the recruits into the AFL in human rights. Can those with authority - GoL and UNMIL as well as DyCo furnish information on the integration of the human rights component into the course or training new recruits follow?

On the two questions raised by the NGOs, it might be relevant to either seek such infromation and help in its dissemination to human rights defence NGOs,Use future meetings on capacity building or information sharing such as the last one we held to review HRPS's thematic reports. Now that the one on Orphanage has come out, we could plan such a session soon to include sharing information in our possession. UNPOL as well as someone from the Ministry of Defence/DyCo could be invited to provide some needed clarifications on the provisions made for guaranteeing citizens' HR in the future.

3. The meeting also briefly discussed the very slow speed with which the process of appointing the Commissioners to the Independent National Commission for Human Rights (INCHR). Information was shared that the original letter to the Presidency by the Special Panel with the list of the recommended 11 names was lost and if civil agitating for quick action wanted to assist, they should produce the list in question. The Special Panel was to be sought to help produce the list. This means the process is further stalled.

In another move, a public position taken by six prominent Liberian Civil Society Organisations demanding that the Government be more vigorous and indiscriminate in its measures of exposing and prosecuting persons who during their tenure of public office positions engaged in corrupt, dubious or any illegal practices. Praise is given to government for the few cases under way but much more is demanded for more thorough scrutiny into the cases of those identified by the ECOWAS and EC Reports.

Our protection role here lies in timely collection of all necessary information and effectively disseminating it to those who have a duty to know and act.

GOVERNMENT’S CALL FOR ‘COMMUNITY WATCH TEAMS’ FORMATION

GOVERNMENT’S CALL FOR ‘COMMUNITY WATCH TEAMS’ FORMATION:THE HEAVY UNDERLYING HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES

September 2006

The beginning of the month of September was marked by a troubling sudden upsurge in the crime rate and fragility in the general security situation in and around Monrovia – i.e. throughout Montserrado County. The Ministry of Justice, in reaction to the developments issued a press release on September 4, where the Minister of Justice and Attorney General said:

“…We wish to reiterate our earlier call on community dwellers, the face of the Police inability to decisively deal with the upsurge in the criminal activities in the city, to organize themselves into community watch teams or vigilante groups in helping to protect themselves against these murderers …However, the Ministry of Justice must hasten to warn the public against the use of mob justice or taking the law into their own hands in their attempt to protect themselves against these criminal gangs… Additionally, the public is asked to report to the Police any suspicious individuals in their communities.”

HRPS critically examines the decision by the Government against the Liberian Constitutional provisions and international human rights law to establish if there can be any grounds for such groups’ or teams’ legitimacy. The analysis is contextualized in that the specific realities on the ground in Liberia today must be borne in mind as arguments are listened to.

Part 1: The Liberian context: The relevant demographic statistics provided by the UNpolice and Civil Affairs show that almost half of Liberia’s population lives in the troubled area under discussion – i.e Monrovia and the environs. This is roughly 1.5 million dwellers. CA records only 67 LNP and 29 trainees as the available police personnel covering the area. The international recommended police to civilian ratio being 1:120, even with the 404Civpol, and 240 FPU at the national HQ, the total number of 711 against 1,500,000 would be 1:2109 – still far from the required ratio. Additionally, the handful LNP personnel are not armed, have no sophisticated communication means or transportation to swiftly dash to places where crime or trouble is reported.

Military and police reports on crimes show, on the other hand, that miscreants are often armed – sometimes with AK7s, cutlasses and other weapons with which they kill victims. Although operations to apprehend lawless elements involve UNMIL police and military support to the LNP, this has not necessarily made the LNP credible enough to ably confront the criminal elements. The mandate under which UNMIL’s armed personnel operate also limit the extent to which effectiveness in the fight against crime can be pushed.

Part 2: International legal framework: Liberia is a State Party to instruments cited below:

(i) the HRC reaffirms the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Resolution 1993/54,

(ii) the HRC “recognised, however, that action by civil defence forces ha(d) in some cases jeopardized the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Discussion on several Pictures on UPSURGE OF CRIME RATE

PICTURE - 1

The crosscutting nature of human rights is a constant source of heated arguments between and among intellectuals while politicians, industrialists, businessmen and scientists carry on with their occupations. Negotiators produced the CPA in August 2003. Politicians implemented it until January 2006 with UNMIL and other international community participants providing the enabling security, administrative and financial environment and wherewithal. These were the preconditions to the birth of Liberia’s present democratically elected Government under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Hardly a year in office, the underlying challenges bound to confront any team of leaders that assume responsibility of restoring a normal, credible and functional state system after nearly twenty years of chaos and disintegration are proving to be almost insurmountable. Are these birth-pains leading to the new Liberia everyone is dreaming of or is Liberia giving the last breath?

HRPS takes a clear stand: Whatever the case may be, the rights of the Liberian people must be safeguarded. What those rights are is the question this paper endeavours to investigate. The first place to look is in the Constitution where under Chapter VIII, Article 21 (a) states:

“All persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the right of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of pursuing and maintaining and security of the person and of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, subject to such”

Equally relevant in this regard for Liberians, since Liberia is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the last sentence in its preamble which states thus:

“Realising that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he/she belongs, is under responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognised in the present Covenant.”

HRPS is fully cognizant of the specific unique state of affairs in many respects concerning Liberia. As of March 2006, 85% of Liberians were unemployed; 80% lived on less than US$1 a day; Only 57.5% could read and write. 46% of the population consisted of children aged under 15 - i.e. unless subjected to child labor abuse was dependent/unproductive. If the elderly, handicapped ill are added, the dependent proportion of the population approaches 55%. These statistics tell us that government has hardly any resources with which to meet its part of the Social Contract alluded to by an unnamed author of a long article on behalf of the FORHD national NGO on September 20 and 21 in the Inquirer daily. HRPS knows that the State’s mechanisms to collect revenue, enforce the law or to provide basic services in most parts of the country disappeared during the war years.

UNMIL has deployed considerable resources and thought to accompany both the TNGL and the present leadership in trying to resuscitate local authorities, the police, prisons and the justice systems. An external study to find out how UNMIL has faired so far vis- a-vis its mission was conducted in January and published its findings in March 2006. The general conclusion of that survey was that in security matters 90+% of the respondents found the job done was very good job despite some cautions on specific points – 92% judging the LNP training programme as having been very good even though confidence in the new police was a different matter which would take time to create; 88% stated that UNMIL helped to improve the awareness of human rights and UNMIL radio was accorded a very high mark. “UNMIL …improved human rights by bringing peace to Liberian through increased security, disarmament and enabling people to have freedom of movement.” Interestingly, it is the national NGO FOHRD cited above, which took a prominent part in the evaluation exercise of UNMIL in January 2006 that came up with some damning remarks both the GoL and UNMIL over the unattained goals. Liberians are presented as innocent onlookers who must be given more assistance instead of so much being lavished on ineffective expatriates. In the name of peoples’ rights we run the risk of encouraging laziness if not a form of blaming syndrome. That would be an unfortunate result of our efforts. Elsewhere external assistance is known to produce the dependency syndrome if the “do no harm” approach isn’t conscientiously applied.

The ongoing debate, triggered by the Justice Minister’ statement of September 4, 2006 is apparently fuelled by ideas selectively snatched from major documents such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’ Social Contract, from the specific socio-political context in France around the mid- eighteenth century (1762), the UDHR 1948, the CCPR 1966, the Liberian Constitution of 1986, the CPA and probabaly Security Council Resolution 1509. Regrettably, but prominently, one crucial source whose Preamble mentions Monrovia and Liberia in the preamble’s second paragraph does not even seem to cross the discussants’ mind – This is the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – 1981. Within this region, any discussion on human rights is incomplete without reference to this authoritative instrument.

To many, Rousseau is definitely a source of great inspiration in terms of the ideas of individual and collective rights … how much an individual concents to or requires of government or political authority. Essentially Roussaeau admonishes that the best way to enjoy the individual rights by members of society is by each surrendering to the collectivity for the latter to protect the individuals’ interests. Writing on Government he wrote:

“ …in times that require a swiftness which a bureaucracy cannot attain, it is important to act quickly and in one or two ways: appoint one or two magistrates to act as a government, or place one man above the law – a dictator. Both are only temporary solutions and as soon as the danger that catalyzed the change in government abates, the officials must abdicate their position. This is in keeping with the general will because the safety of the state is of foremost concern and suspension of laws and due process is sometimes, albeit rarely, the only method to ensure this.”

While the statement made by the Minister of Justice was clearly far from coming anywhere near what is expressed above, Article IX of the Liberian Constitution on Emergency Powers (of the President) is definitely in the same vein, yet this is not to suggest that the citizens’ rights are being derogated. The features which make the ACHPR a unique human rights instrument is its clear and “Rousseaulike” insistance on the inseparability between individual and collective rights enjoyment. It states:

Consiidering that the enjoyment of rights and freedom also implies the performance of duties on the part of everyone;…

1. Every individual shall have duties towards his family and society, the State and other legally recognised communities and the international community;

2. The rights and freedoms of each individual shall be exercised with due regard to the right of others, collective security, morality and common interest…” The individual shall also have the duty:

3. To serve his national community by placing his physical and intellectual abilities at its service;

4. Not to compromise the security of the State whose national he/she is;

5. To preserve and strengthen social and national solidarity, particularly when the latter is threatened…”

It is against the above specifically African – if also Rousseau’s conception of human rights as a form of formalized collective responsibility that Cllr Frances Johnson Morris’s outraged tone needed be received. Isn’t good governance participative democracy? Isn’t the empowerment of civil society through enhancing peoples’ involvement in the decision making processes on issues affecting them?
Does Government’s admission to having limited resources or trained personnel and calling on those who put it in office to support its initiatives constitute a breach of contract or a human rights violation? If, as the long article in the Inquirer cited above argues, security and the crime rate have reached unprecedented levels in Liberia’s history, is this not ground for the Minister to resort to some extraordinary measures to check the law breakers? As responsible citizens, shouldn’t constructive criticism consist if coming up with alternatives ideas to those from the government? If we disapprove of neighbourhood watch teams or vigilante groups, what propositions are made?

Our contribution at this point in time on the sensitive subject of ‘vigilante groups’ could be to facilitate sober high level exchanges of views by providing a neutral oasis in Monrovia. We could invite approximately 20 discussants from civil society’s different walks of life – Lawyers, Human Rights defenders, Religious leaders, Traditional leaders, Student representatives, medical Doctors, Business men, etc… Using the special US$ 400 scheme of funding or a little more for this special meeting – the UL could be a venue or perhaps another place. We could indirectly help guide the thoughts and have a healthy debate on the way forward - free of political or ideological attacks and counter attacks. This could be done in such a way as to have journalists and the television service cover. The event should not take place in PAP.

Reasons for the above approach:

As stated in the first paragraph, human rights are not a distilled, pure and colourless substance. This discussion involves economics, politics, business, history and every subject fused together. Everyone must say what they want and all are entitled to their views. We should avoid trying to be judges in this – from the human rights view point so and so is right but so and so is wrong etc….

Our work continues to be important and neutral the way we work and our credibility is vital. On this political discussion resulting from the Minister’s statement we should take advantage of the vibrancy and help different voices to be heard. We will have played a useful role.

PICTURE - 2

I would suggest considering the following points for defining overall position on vigilante groups:

• Human rights law protect the right to life and security of person, however there is no international human rights instrument upholding vigilantes’ concepts , because:

•vigilante undermines all democratic principles as it operates outside the constitutional / human rights framework and formal judicial system:

• Vigilantes define violence as the normal and legitimate solution to problems.

• It supports community mistrust to criminal justice system and law enforcement and provides a justification for extra-legal violent actions.

• The human rights framework of the formal criminal justice system is fundamentally opposite from the model of instant, popular justice

• Call for vigilante reflects the degree to which due process remains an alien concept for many and implies a lack of education about due process.

• Society should operate under the rule of law and not under the rule of the mob

• The danger of ‘vigilante’ in times of political transformation and reconciliation as Liberia is emerging from a past characterised by violence and repression

• Liberia faces new challenges in building a new democratic society and vigilantes is build on a culture of violence and lead to violence even if justified as 'filling a policing gap' due to police inefficiency, corruption and failures of criminal justice system

• A state of law cannot be built on people taking matters into their own hands.
• The failings of the criminal justice system - the inefficiency, inaction, lack of resources and inadequate training, as well as corruption must be addressed directly.

PICTURE - 3

Thank you for the time devoted to this crucial matter. Your quick response is also very commendable. We shal discuss. In actual fact every recommendation you make I buy.

What we have a a difference is the appreciation of the specific urgency or crisis context where special measures may be needed, and the normal governance situations which would not necessitate special measures. Indeed the special conditions must be given a limited duration. Please see CCPR Article 8 (c) and the Liberian Hinterland Laws Article 49 para 5 on this. Dr. Dankwa touches on this delicate issue too.

What I would categorically disagree on with you is the following bullet point you make:

· Call for vigilante reflects the degree to which due process remains an alien concept for many and implies a lack of education about due process.

I fear that such a statement betrays ignorance on the part of aliens to Africa and African traditional judicial concepts. First I invite you to find an African who speaks the language to translate for you these two proverbs: "Tosala gwa kawala ...." and " Enkima tesala gwa kibira". The language is Luganda from East Africa but some equivalent should exist in Liberia's nearly thirty native languages.

In my first document I gave examples of cases where security and peace in rural communities where the received "western" or modern services existwere restored and citizens'rights protected by the community. It would be wrong to imagine that any other approach to peace or dispensing justice is inappropriate except that known by those who wrote the instruments at the time of their writing. Please take a serious note of the added value brough to the general human rights understanding by the ACHPR which lays equal emphasis on dutie and rights as opposed to the "western original tendency to overly insist on peoples' rights. Fortunately, a deeper reading of Rousseau vindicates my view.

Instead of us been theoretical about the issue on the formation of vigilantes in communities to help combat crimes, can we take a moment to look at the realities on the ground? Before President Serleaf left for the United States recently, she made a nation wide addressed in which she acknowledged the upsurge of crime and insecurity in the country, and further disclosed publicly that, they (government and its functionaries) know the people perpetrating such crimes and that they are watching them closely. This suggests that the recent upsurge of crime and insecurity in Monrovia and other places in the country is well orchestrated. It also suggests in my opinion that the arm robbery may not be for the booty alone, but been done with sinister motives. I stand to be corrected.

PICTURE - 4

Let someone tell me if these are not facts in today’s contemporary Liberia:

Fact #1: That the Liberia National Police is unequipped and most under staff to combat the wave of crime unfolding now in Monrovia.

Fact #2: That with such limited national budgetary appropriation for security for 2006-2007; the problem of insecurity in Liberia will remain for a long time probably the next 2 to 3 years. That is, if the budgetary appropriation continues to take the 2006-2007 trend.

Fact #3: That we all acknowledge that it is a national and international requirement that it is the responsibility/obligation of government to provide security for its general citizenry.

In passing, let me reveal that Liberia has a history of government oppositions doing everything possible in making sure that the incumbent leadership does not succeed in the implementations of its electoral promises. Hence, they will do anything thinkable and/or unthinkable in undermining the incumbent, even if it is at the detriment of the entire population.

So to speak, Kitty’s bullet points on this issue in my opinion are all correct, but realistically, they are only applicable and/or made practical in wholesome functioning societies. That is to say, the Minister of Justice called for the organization of vigilantes in communities is not a sign of weakness but is in consistency with the present day’s realities and resources available to government.

It is a fact that Criminal Gangs do exist in Monrovia. This is evident by the multiple report of arm robberies, the multiple deaths and forceful taking away of others properties due to arm robbery, and the general state of fear and insecurity that has grasp the Monrovia population also because of same.

Now, acknowledging that it is a fact that government is incapable of providing absolute security for its citizenry; as evidence by the present realities and further by utterances made by public officials responsible for national security, what should the citizenry do?

In answering my own question, I will say that if it is agree that self-preservation is the first law of nature, than I see nothing wrong with the formation of vigilantes who will intercede for government’s limitation until such times when government will be capable of handling its role as national security provider. The protection of the life’s and properties of the citizens in my opinion is paramount, and as such, if government have short falls in executing its mandate as protector of these inalienable rights, than let the citizens organize themselves in an orderly manner, under the supervision of the MOJ, and fill in the gap of providing security for themselves. In my opinion, Vigilante today in Liberia is an equivalent of the American Home Land Security established after 911.

PICTURE - 5

1. I have worked here for almost two years and this is not the first time that I read or hear an argument or comment from you based on your belief that the so called "aliens to Africa" do not understand African reality and try to force Africans to adopt to "western concepts".

2. Please remember that human rights are universal and human rights law is applicable in all those countries that ratified international human rights documents regardless of their geographical location or cultural background.

3. Do not deny the fact that there are African traditional judicial concepts that are actually in violation of international human rights law. And I am not saying this because I am a so called "alien to Africa" but because I firmly believe that all human beings are entitled to have the same rights and the same protection of the law may they be coming from a Western or an African background. Being an African does not mean that one deserves less than any who are "aliens to Africa".

4. We are here to work for the common goal. We might have different views on some issues but it is not because of our different geographical origin or cultural background but because of our different level of experience.

5. Please in the future do not criticize the views and statements of any of your colleagues based on their geographic origin or cultural background.

PICTURE - 6

Sorry if that is the way you perceived my remarks. We need to realise some things in life though, however gifted we may be. Cultural things are complex and truly, we may be mistaken without realising we are. Sometimes we do not see obvious things because we are not from the society where we find ourselves. I know this is hard for many of us to admit, but it is true.

Let's take two very simple examples: African women are not so nervous about exposing their breast. In fact feeding of babies in public is very common. On the contrary, exposing nay part of their body from the hip down to the knees is taboo in many places. Yet, in many societies in Europe, exposing breasts not something women would do without much restraint, and in fact even a mother to feed her baby will most times try to do it away from the public. Believe me , in Europe I am ignorant of many cultural things and I would not pretend otherwise.

You may have to consider my remarks again. Just like Elaine mentioned: I know responsibilities or duties is not completely ignored in the Western presentation of human rights, but the prominence given to right in the sense of "entitlements" in the West disproportionately overshadows the responsibility side. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights stands out in its balanced presentation of rights and duties. Even the UDHR does not bring out this aspect.

I wish your contribution was more on the substance of the subject we are dealing with. Nevertheless, you do well to express what you feel in these matters. Friedship not lost, I'm sure.

PICTURE - 7

Initially, please let me mention your following assertion "Human rights law protect the right to life and security of person, however there is no international human rights instrument upholding vigilantes? concepts , because??"

The international public law has coined the status of ?belligerent part or part in conflict? related to those insurgent groups involved in a war for the control of power between the limits of national states. But to be considered as belligerent parts or the part in conflict, these must accomplish two main conditions: a. to have control of a piece or part of the national territory, b. must to be recognized by other governments and international organizations. Please bear in mind the negotiation and signing process of the Accra Peace Agreement. These conditions were achieved.

The recognition of the part in conflict or belligerent part in this debate derives in some effects: ones recognized as part in conflict, those groups are recognized as valid interlocutors, which implies that these groups are fully entitled to sing agreements, and assume international duties, so recognized as subject of international law. This approach burst into the International Human Rights annals in 1994 with the signing of the Human Rights Agreement held in Guatemala, among the Government of Guatemala and the coordination of guerrilla groups, through this agreement was created the UN Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) which initially had only mandate of human rights monitoring. This trend currently is applicable to the Colombia?s conflict and OHCHR office?s work, whereas the international human rights law recognize as perpetrator of human rights to others groups different that governments.

In the Guatemala case, was the first time that an irregulars group was considered and pointed as a perpetrator of human rights violations[2], in the Colombian case this approach allows to point to the paramilitary Self-Defense Patrols and the guerrilla groups as eventual perpetrators of human rights violations.

At this stage, is important to identify some referents to guide the debate such as: Does Liberia has concluded the transition period? In my opinion: not yet. Do parts in conflict has been fully demobilized and have been successfully reintegrated to the Liberian society? Again, in my very personal opinion: neither. Do the parts in conflict signatories of the Accra Peace Agreement have been recognized as subject of international public law? Yes, of course.

I sustain that the parts in conflict?s approach bring a better comprehensive framework to deal and monitor the illegal activities of vigilantes. Otherwise means that the illegal activities committed by illegal groups related to one or another part in conflict must be considered as common crimes, without that plus derivated of the quality of belligerent part or part in conflict, a condition embedded in the relations of power.

We are in a junction; on the one hand we should monitor the illegal actions perpetrated by illegal groups in accordance of the classical human rights approach, whereas the Government is the responsible for the protection of its citizens because of crimes committed. In this first paradigm we just are allowed to monitor the inaction and/or omissions done by the Government of Liberia in the protection to its citizens, in this case we?ll find that the limited resources, poverty and corruption are the facilitating conditions which prevail in this scheme. That means that our main observation will be focused in the guarantees of the due process and fair trial, therefore the main responsible as eventual perpetrator will be the Government of Liberia.

On the other hand, the approach of part in conflict allows understanding the dynamic of the political transition and reintegration of these groups. In this case we should monitor the illegal activities perpetrated by individuals and/or illegal groups, thus our attention will be focused not only in the government?s ineffective policies, but also in the illegal groups related to the signatories? parts in conflict, as well. So the object of our observation will be the ineffective public policies of government and the illegal executions or illegal activities committed by those groups. So the framework here proposed is broader and allows a better understanding of the political dynamic of the Liberian transition integrating the human right approach.

So I?m sorry, but I totally disagree with your initial assertion, the international human rights law per se cannot integrate this complexity, because the human rights standards are not related to illegal activities of the vigilantes, but in this case, is the international public law which offers that comprehensive framework, and allows the application of the human rights standards to these illegal groups. I really believe, at this time of the Liberian transition that is possible to point to the illegal groups related to the part in conflict as human rights perpetrators, as well as, the international human rights law is applicable to them.

Therefore, is urgent to ask the following question: Are we dealing with illegal activities committed by illegal groups related to the part in conflict? If so, we are in the way to apply the above proposals, and pass to another level of debate related to governance, stability and the viability of the Liberian peace process.

Please see bellow my prior comments, whereas as I suggested the analysis of the vigilante activities in two different levels: operational and politically.

PICTURE - 8

I agree with you that there are so many different cultures in the world and often we find ourselves in an environment where we do not understand clearly the complexities of social relations and cultural issues. However, law (especially human rights law) does not apply differently for people from different cultural origin. On the contrary. Law applies equally to all. Liberian governments voluntarily ratified a number of international human rights instruments. Now, let's not give them the excuse of cultural differences when it comes to the implementation of principles enshrined in those instruments. But you are right this is not the main subject of the discussion so I will stop giving comments about it. I think I have already made my point. And friendship is not lost :-)

PICTURE - 9

In reaction to the upsurge in crime rate across the country, the Minister of Justice, Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia said in a statement issued on 02 September 2005: “ We wish to reiterate our earlier call on the community dwellers, in the face of the police inability to decisively deal with the upsurge in criminal activities in the city , to organize themselves into community watch teams or vigilante groups in helping to protect themselves against these murderers who are bent on disrupting our hard-earned peace”. This statement made by the Ministry of Justice in this particular context is an endorsement of the “Vigilante groups”, “watch Teams” or “civil defence forces” .

If the Liberian Government has endorsed the Vigilante groups, it means that the Government has entrusted “watch team” with the mandate of conducting law enforcement functions to a certain extend.

Vigilante groups, as law enforcement groups or civil defence forces with clear chain of command and operational functions, should be consistent with national and international human rights standards. HRPS observed that some Vigilante groups are not abiding by human rights principles. During the Sector 1 Security Coordinating meeting held on 18 September 2006, SSS Representative Col Peter Teah indicated that some vigilante Groups are collecting 200 LD “security tax” per house to sponsor their security operation in the night. He stated that failure to contribute has resulted to violence actions against members of the non contributing house. He further indicated that some members of those vigilante Groups are “isakaba boys”. Mob justice is rampant and has become the last resort of citizens who has lost confidence in the judicial system. It appears that Vigilante Groups can undermine the realization of six fundamental rights provided by the ICCPR, ratified by Liberian on 18 April 1967:

• the right to life;
• the right to liberty;
• the right to fair trial;
• the right to presumption of innocence;
• the right to physical integrity( prohibition of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment);
• the right to security of person;

All those rights are enshrined in the Chapter III of the Liberian Constitution. In line with the above mentioned, Liberian Government should:

• Ensure that vigilante groups meet human rights standards including the UNDHR, the ICCPR, the CAT, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the Chapter III of the Liberian Constitution, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law enforcement Officials.;

• Government should assess their ability to respect and protect human rights;

• Government must ensure that vigilante groups respect the presumption of innocence at all times. Suspects apprehended must be immediately turned over to LNP ;

• Government should ensure that members of vigilante groups who commit human rights abuses are brought to justice;

• Liberian Government must conduct a wide consultation of civil society 0rganizations including Human rights groups, on this particular issue.

This sensitive issue must be addressed urgently as some politicians might sponsor and convert Vigilante groups into militia, to foment political violence and jeopardize the Liberian hard-earned peace. Peace is priceless.

PICTURE - 10

I have follow closely this debate and did not comment because of the wave it is taking and wish to suggest that all of your concentrate on the substantive issues and discuss the meat of the document presented that is like what Omer, Stanley and Elaine and others did let us now make contributions and drop the arms. I wanted to make my own comment but it is one way of the other reflected in some of the contributions. Also, to big brother ...N... not all of the comments required details reactions just thank all for their contributions, no matter how it is perceived. All the best as we all strive to make Liberia human rights friendly, peaceful and democratic.

Human Rights Liberia

Friday, April 13, 2007

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

Query: Liberia / Development of National Human Rights Action Plans / Comparative Experiences

Friday, March 30, 2007

HRPF Letter sent to the President regarding delay in the INCHR appointment process March 19, 2007

Transitional Commissioners of INCHR (Jan 2004-December 2005)

Comments on draft INCHR Act

Comments on draft INCHR Act

Protection concerns raised by civil society

GOVERNMENT’S CALL FOR ‘COMMUNITY WATCH TEAMS’ FORMATION

Discussion on several Pictures on UPSURGE OF CRIME RATE

Blog Archive

About Me