What is human rights monitoring and why do we do it? Share your own examples of what you are monitoring, why you monitor it (objectives and goals), who is involved, and what are your guiding principles.
- What do we monitor? What kinds of abuses do you monitor (events, cases, situations, systematic abuses, etc)? How do these different contexts impact the goals of monitoring efforts?
- Who monitors? Who is involved? Who are the stakeholders?
- What does it mean to be a “watchdog”? How does does this term impact your work in a positive or negative way?
- How do you determine what information is needed and how to obtain it?
- What are the general principles that guide human rights monitoring?
Share your thoughts, ideas and stories to this discussion thread by adding your comments below, or responding to existing comments.
The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) is a Network of 297 NGOs which aims to fight against torture, summary executions, enforced disappearance and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In order to do so, OMCT has developed several tools of action, including urgent interventions (urgent appeals, press releases and bilateral letters) which objective is to respond as quickly as possible to reports of grave human rights violations received from its affiliated and partner organisations. By monitoring situations and anticipating events, the urgent interventions seek to protect victims from further violations, as well as to pressure governments to respect international human rights norms and prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the violations. These interventions also enable OMCT to inform various human rights mechanisms, including at the United Nations level, of the cases occurring around the world. The urgent interventions also deal with cases relating to specific groups, such as children, women and human rights defenders. OMCT circulates urgent interventions practically on a daily basis. These are widely distributed, including to OMCT Network members, international and regional organisations and individuals.
Thank you, Alexandra, for this introduction to the monitoring work of OMCT. This is a great place to start!
I see that OMCT has a network of 297 members (organizations) that are carrying out on-the-ground monitoring. I would be curious to know how OMCT decides where it will monitor torture, summary executions, enforced disappearance and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Do the requests come from the members, themselves?
Also, how long does OMCT and/or its members carry out the monitoring? Are there specific time-limited projects or is it an ongoing monitoring initiative so that, as you say, the process of alerts and pressure on international institutions can be triggered by events that happen on the ground? Or, perhaps, OMCT has a combination of short-term monitoring projects as well as ongoing monitoring?
Hi everyone,
Another tool developed by OMCT to monitor the implementation of recommendations adopted by the UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies is the submission of alternatives reports and follow-up notes to these bodies. These contributions are jointly drafted and submitted in close partneship with members of the SOS-Torture network and partners NGOs. Translation of recommendations adopted into one of the national languages and follow-up missions in the field - together with joint lobbying - with members and/or partners aimed at urging State authorities to fully comply with their international human rights obligations.
Best,
Anne-Laurence Lacroix, OMCT
Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos” (RedTDT) is a Network of 72 NGOs based in Mexico. Our NGOs work on a variety of issues. Some NGO do education, other legal defense, or dissemination. Some of them fight against torture, summary executions, enforced disappearance, there are NGO that focuses on specific groups as migrants, women or indigenous people. As a network we collect information from the NGO and we use this information to draft reports on human rights violations. We also have projects to strengthen the capacity of the NGO to document and monitor human rights violations. We also are using our own database to register the human rights violations documented by our NGO.
Saludos, Agnieszka
Thank you for sharing this introduction to the monitoring work of Red TDT! It's great to have you in this dialogue, Agnieszka.
Red TDT has an impressive network of organizations all working to collect and share information on the human rights situations around Mexico. I would be interested to hear about the kind of impact you have seen as a result of the use of the information collected by Red TDT and its network. Would you recommend this kind of collaboration and coordination for networks of human rights organizations in other countries? Also, how visible are your monitors to those being monitored and also to the communities that they are working in? Thanks, again, for sharing your experience in this dialogue!
My name is Stewart Vriesinga, and I am part of Christian Peacemaker Teams in Colombia. A large part of our work is the accompaniment of civilians in rural areas threatened by violence. Denouncing Human Rights violations is one way we try to be allies to the victims of extrajudicial killings, forced displacement and false accusations of communities struggling to assert their right to life with dignity and right to land here in Colombia.
We have found that in order to be effective monitoring and denouncing human rights abuses is not enough. There is a gross power imbalance that ignores human rights violations of indigenous, Afro-Colombian and campesino communities, who have been displaced by the millions, massacred by the tens of thousands, and falsely accused of treason and jailed, for the most part by paramilitaries with the collaboration of the state. Victims who have the audacity to denounce human rights violations or seek restitution or to return to the lands from which they were displaced often end up as the victims of new extrajudicial killings. These crimes against humanity almost all remain in impunity, and pave the way for transnational and national business interests (multinational mining companies and Bio-fuel oil palm growers for example) to gain free unfettered access to the resources located on the lands formerly occupied by the now-displaced rural population.
For these reasons we along with our Colombian partner organizations spend a great deal of time and energy raising the profile of the communities and their struggle for justice nationally and internationally. Once the community and their struggle for justice is sufficiently visible it is far more difficult to deny them justice and kill them with impunity. We use non-violent direct action locally, nationally and internationally, as well as social media --YouTube, Facebook, Our webpage, list-serves etc. --in our efforts, not only keep the folks we accompany safe, but also to ensure that they receive justice and restitution for previous human rights violations.
In is imperative to try to correct the power imbalance that leaves so many people vulnerable to violence and human rights violations. This can only be done by raising the profile of those whose rights are being violated.
Hi Stewart!
It would be interesting to know how you assess the opportunites provided by social media such as Facebook and YouTube for human rights monitoring? Moreover, were you able to evaluate whether it created further risks for the communities you assisted or not? How do you deal with safety issues in that regard?
Thanks!
Delphine - World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
This is in part a reply to the questions posed by Delphine - World Organization Against Torture (OMCT):
It is difficult to empirically measure the impact of using social media, and how effective a particular media has been. In some cases it is possible to monitor how many views a website or video has received, but to what extent each particular media impacted the outcome or prevented violence remains unclear.
However I remain convinced that once the situation of a particular community is in the public eye nationally and internationally the balance of power shifts in favour of the community, and it becomes more difficult to kill its members with impunity, and to deny them justice. Both nationally and internationally most of the victims of violence here in Colombia are little more than a statistic --one more internally displaced person or victim of extra-judicial killing. But occasionally, through the combined efforts of many allies, a community is able to overcome its vulnerability to targeted killings and achieve justice. I offer you the example of one internally displaced community of the south of Bolivar, Colombia, who, after many years of struggle, were finally recognized by the Colombian Constitutional Court --the highest court in the land-- as the rightful owners of their traditional territory from which they had repeatedly been violently displaced --first by paramilitaries and in July of 2009 once again displaced, this time by the Colombian state security forced themselves.
The fate of most communities who attempted to recover their land after forced displacement is something other: Try Googling "Colombia, Displaced, Leaders, Killed" and you will get a sense of why so few displaced/dispossessed Colombians even try to seek restitution. Although police in the company of one of the paramilitaries who formerly displaced the community (an indication of on-going state-paramilitary collaboration) tried to dissuade the community leaders of Las Pavas from returning to their land earlier this year, the leaders are still alive and well and the community is now living on their land. Now as the next step in the experiment try Googlling "Las Pavas, Colombia". See what kind of hits you come up with from social media and other media, and then do the same for communities whose leaders were killed when they attempted to recover their lands. I think you will find that those who had a higher profile were less likely to be killed.
The evidence is all anecdotal I suppose, and such success stories are few a far between, and there were certainly other factors, but I personally attribute the exceptional success of the community of Las Pavas to their own willingness to assume risks and their success in finding allies --allies who not only helped them take legal action, but also used every means at their disposal to raise the profile of the community through non-violent direct actions, letter righting and other campaigns , public demonstrations, use of social media, etc., all of which were designed to ensure, not only the safety of the community members, but also the success of their quest for justice and titles to the lands which were stolen from them. The net result of these combined efforts was that the authorities could no longer deny justice to or ignore the community without severe damage to their reputation nationally or internationally. In this context killing community leaders ceased to be a viable option because it would inevitably be a well-publisized event that would be tried in the court of public opinion both nationally and internationally --a no-win scenario that would only underscore the truth and justice of the community's demands for the restitution their lands.
But can we turn the case of Las Pavas from a rare exception to the norm into the new norm? When it comes to dealing with those threatened with or victimized by forced displacement, will the case of Las Pavas be trend-setting? Can the tactics employed in the case of Las Pavas ensure that all campesinos, Afro-Colombians and indigenous peoples enjoy the right to life with dignity, the right to traditional territory, cultural autonomy, and guarantee restitution for the other four million dispossessed/displaced Colombians?
Human Rights monitoring will undoubtedly continue to be an integral part of the struggle, but justice, restitution, an end to impunity and guarantees of an end to further violations also require a major shift in the balance of power. Can we ahieve a huge a shift in the balance of power that will protect all peoples in Colombia and elsewhere from cultural genocide and forced displacement as neo-liberal global expansion seeks to colonize and commodify other peoples' lands and resources? Or must we settle for small victories on a case-by-case basis, contingent on finding and mobilizing enough allies to generate another exception to the norm?
Ultimately respect for the human rights of victims of violence in Colombia and much of planet requires that the local populations' right to retain land on which they can grow food crops trumps the global demand for minerals, bio-fuel, and other resources. Unlike Las Pavas, who were able to enlist and mobilize a great number of national and international allies, the vast majority of peoples who present an obstacle to corporate access to local resources will continue to be killed, displaced and otherwise dispossessed and victimized. Alas, on the whole, human rights, like everything else, have become commodities available only to those who can afford to pay more for them than their competitors are willing to pay for bio-fuel, gold, other minerals, oil, lumber and other resources. It seems that demands, be they for human rights or resources, are only recognized insofar as they are articulated with dollars.
Therefore protecting human rights, much like protecting the environment, requires nothing less than changing the global balance of power and the status quo.
Stewart Vriesinga --Christian Peacemaker Teams Colombia
http://cpt.org/work/colombia
We fully agree, it is indeed very important to provide background information when raising cases to better understand the violations victims are subjected to. In that perspective, OMCT always tries to provide such background information to explain the context in which violations take place, including the economic, social and cultural root causes.
Moreover, in other cases, non-public actions are more relevant, in particular when we fear that publicity will trigger new violations against the victim rather than helping him or her. In all its activities, OMCT's priority is always to make sure that the victim will not suffer from its actions, which sometimes leads to the decision not to take action or to take action in a more "diplomatic" way. OMCT also always acts upon agreement of the victim and/or of the local organisation that represents him or her.
Certainly the approval and active participation of the victims of violence must always be sought before embarking on any course of action on their behalf. Failure to do so would be peace imperialism, and, since the victims are demonstrably more vulnerable than those who advocate for them, any intimidation and reprisals on the part of their oppressors are most likely to target and further victimize the victims rather than their "advocates". It is only those victims who refuse to be intimidated, identify themselves as victims and name their oppressors, and demand justice that will seek and benefit from allies raising their profile nationally and internationally.
Here in Colombia even non-public advocacy on behalf of individuals, organizations and communities must be carefully considered. Para-politics --the collaboration of the state with paramilitaries--means that informants and corrupt officials may even divulge private conversations with authorities and officials that may result in further intimidation and reprisals.
To raise the profile of victimized individuals, organizations or communities who don't have sufficient access to allies who can help them minimize the risks may well result in further repression and all too often their deaths. For this reason many victims choose to remain invisible, forgoing any prospects of justice or compensation. That is their choice to make, based on their own cost/benefit analysis of the risks involved. Their decision must always be respected.
--Stewart Vriesinga
Hi everyone - I wanted to start things off by sharing a few definitions of human rights monitoring that I have found in my research. The first definition comes from the guide: What is Monitoring? published by HURIDOCS and written by Guzman, Manuel and Verstappen, Bert. Here's an excerpt:
Monitoring means the close observation of a situation or individual case carried out so as to determine what further action needs to be taken. The following elements constitute monitoring:
a. It is carried out over an extended period of time.
b. It involves collecting or receiving a large quantity of data.
c. Close observation of the situation is done through constant or periodic examination or investigation and documentation of developments.
d. Standards or norms are used as reference in objectively assessing the situation or case in question, especially in determining what is wrong with it.
e. Tools or instruments are used in identifying how the situation compares with established standards or norms.
f. The product of monitoring is usually a report about the situation.
g. The report embodies an assessment of the situation which provides a basis for further action.
***
Another definition comes from A Practitioner's Guide to Human Rights Monitoring, Documentation and Advocacy, published by the Advocates for Human Rights. Here are a few excerpts that I pulled from this guide:
Human rights monitoring refers to the collection, verification, and use of information about human rights violations. Monitors use a systematic approach to collect, verify, and analyze information to identify violations of human rights.
Human rights monitoring can also serve as a tool for systematic and long-term social or legal change.
Human rights monitors seek to identify and investigate the extent to which the reality of a given situation falls short of the standards set forth in international human rights law. Monitors collect accurate and objective information based on fundamental principles of monitoring. The methodologies and scope of each monitoring project vary depending on the project‘s objectives, resources, and design.
Monitoring methodologies are based on the issue being evaluated and include interviews, media monitoring, forensic exams, process observation, on-site inspections, surveys, and audio-visual recording.
***
Do these definitions cover what human rights monitoring means to you? Anything you would like to add to this? Thanks!
I’m interested by these definitions of monitoring. It seems to me that there are two kinds of monitoring. The first involves the monitoring of a particular situation or event on the ground. Those who monitor the situation collect information that demonstrates where the gaps are in terms of implementation of human rights norms and standards, and use that information to develop recommendations for future action on the part of relevant stakeholders. This monitoring aims, in the first place, at trying to get a particular response from those stakeholders (be that other civil society organisations, national human rights institutions, governments, regional or international human rights systems).
The second kind of monitoring begins with those actors, examining their response to those situations or events on the ground. Through examining their response to multiple situations, those doing the monitoring identify systemic failures, and make recommendations for how those failures can be addressed. This is the kind of work that we carry out at the International Service for Human Rights, where (amongst other things) we monitor the regional and international human rights systems, with the goal of assessing how effectively they fulfil their mandate of upholding and implementing international and regional human rights standards.
Both kinds of monitoring are essential to hold those actors accountable for their actions, and to produce improvements in the response of those actors in the long term.
While the definition given by HURIDOCS would cover both kinds of monitoring, the excerpts from A Practitioner’s Guide to Human Rights Advocacy, Documentation and Monitoring seem more clearly to cover monitoring of the first sort, with its focus on collection, verification and use of information about human rights violations.
Heather Collister, International Service for Human Rights
Thanks, Heather - this is really helpful for me when thinking about the different types of monitoring! Is this how others see the types (or perhaps, "stages") of human rights monitoring? Do these types of monitoring require distinct approaches or are the tactics similar?
Thank you, Kristin,
I really interested the further explanations you provided the monitoring process,
Abdulkadir,
Human right Activist.
Hi everyone - the UNOHCHR has written the 18 Basic Principles of Human Rights Monitoring. I wanted to post them here in full because I hope that we will be referencing these principles throughout the dialogue week. I am eager to hear about what these principles really look like on the ground and what kinds of challenges you have come across in putting these principles into practice.
this Training Manual, with translations in Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish, is also available on the OHCHR web site: http://www.ohchr.org/en/publicationsresources/pages/trainingeducation.aspx
The OHCHR monitoring manual referred to in Bert Verstappen's comment above is over ten years old, and the process of monitoring by OHCHR in the intervening years has developed a great deal. In particular, after the 2005 Plan of Action led by then-High Commissioner Louise, OHCHR developed a revised training manual with a greater focus on monitoring as an active tool for protection in the field, with detailed guidance not only on the collection of information but also on the effective USE of the information to push for corrective action: i.e. protection.
Unfortunately, that new manual has not been publicly made available by OHCHR.
A common weakness in the overall human rights movement is an excessive focus on information gathering with insufficient linkage to follow-up action. In the UN system, for instance, a great many well-researched reports are used for little more than informing the internal hierarchy of human rights situations, and otherwise do not see the light of day. Others are released publicly, perhaps with a brief flurry of media press releases, but have no real advocacy strategy associated with them. The same is often true of Amnesty International: many excellent and well-researched reports which go relatively unnoticed, because there is never the matching level of investment of human resources in the follow-up process.
The human rights movement is sometimes at risk of being a huge paper-production machine, when it needs to be an advocacy machine. There is a huge imbalance of effort. Why?
Also, one of the frequently lost opportunities of field research processes is the advocacy potential of the research itself. Human rights researchers who go into the field to gather data have a tendency to focus primarily on speaking with victims, and in so doing they miss the opportunity to have a broader impact. If field researchers learned some nuanced diplomatic skills which helped them to also carry out more interviews with state authorities, perpetrators, and all other actors who inluence perpetrators, these discussion would have a two-fold impact: they would have a more balanced analysis, but they would also be sending a constant message to these actors that the outside world is concerned about the issues being investigated. This message can be conveyed without making any denunciations or even putting on any direct pressure. Simply be asking about situations and incidents of concern, the researchers is conveying the message of concern.
Another thought: we should try to avoid getting too focused on terminology. Some will define monitoring as collecting information and writing reports, while other definitions are stratched to include the follow-up process. But sometimes, the words applied to these activities in the field are constrained politically. For instance, in Latin America, most UN human rights monitoring missions are officially called "Observation" missions, because the word 'monitoring' was seen to be too intrusive by some governments. But these missions in Latin have carried out the same active advocacy follow-up on information as other field missions. Similarly, in some countries, the term "protectino monitoring" is being used by numerous institutions, while in others, the word "protection" is considered too threateneing to the host government.
Thanks for sharing all these great questions and comments, Liam! I wanted to respond to one specific part of your post:
You raise, what to seems like an unfortunate dilemma. We monitor and document human rights abuses in order to improve the protection of human rights. But in order to do this, we need to remain "impartial" and "objective." Bert explains this tension well:
We need to collect reliable "evidence" to document the truth, but we also need to advocate for change. Is it possible that our current (human rights) system does not allow information-gatherers to also be the advocates? If the monitor is also the advocate - would that discredit the information collected and the recommendation for change? Does human rights work require seperate "camps" in this regard?
Has this dilemma around advocating for change yet staying impartial and objective impacted your monitoring efforts? If so, how?
And back to Liam's question about the imbalance of effort going into the advocacy work - I would really like to hear from others about this. Is it easier to write papers than it is to manivure the political and legal systems to bring about change (not that all the work that goes into writing those papers is "easy"!). I mean, is the risk of failure in advocacy just too big of a barrier? Or, perhaps more likely, is it that the advocacy work (pushing for those policy and legal changes) is just not as successful and doesn't have the same concrete outcome as monitoring and documenting? Would love to hear from all of you!
On the issue of whether those who monitor can also be advocates for change, one issue ISHR comes across in its monitoring and advocacy work is the tension between criticising the functioning of a human rights mechanism, while keeping in mind that the goal of our monitoring and advocacy is to increase the responsiveness of those mechanisms to the concerns of human rights defenders. That is, we do not want to burn bridges in terms of our ability to engage with those mechanisms. While of course we take steps to ensure that our reporting on the activities we monitor is accurate, there are also occasions when it can be strategic to be less strong in our criticism in order to maintain our ability to continue to engage key players in our advocacy efforts. I see this as a particular feature of monitoring and advocacy work that focuses on the behaviour of the agents who are charged with implementing human rights standards, since those agents are in this case both the monitored and those to whom advocacy efforts are ultimately directed. To my mind this tension would be less direct when the situation monitored is distinct from those to whom advocacy efforts are then directed. Would be interested to hear from those who carry out monitoring of the second kind whether this assessment is correct.
Heather Collister, International Service for Human Rights
I would absolutely agree that in many cases there is an imbalance of effort in creating a well-researched document and developing a well-thought through advocacy strategy. I’m not quite sure why that is, but I’ve seen it in many cases where an NGO will spend huge amounts of time and resources to create a report, with very little idea of what it plans to do with it. After publication and some half-hearted attempts to get it into the hands of relevant people, it reverts to the shelf.
Perhaps funders need to think more carefully about the projects that they fund and seek out those that have well-developed advocacy strategies attached?
There are similar attitudes amongst some of those who use the international and regional human rights systems, who see engagement with those systems as the be all and end all of their advocacy. There is no attempt to see it as part of a broader advocacy strategy. This may in part be due to an overoptimistic understanding of the will and readiness of the international and regional systems to act. Perhaps this is linked to the broader failure to develop advocacy strategies – a sense that if the research is impeccable then the report will not fail to be taken on board by those who are in a position to create change – a naïve faith that the will already exists and all that is required is to supply the evidence of human rights violations for it to go to work?
These are just some initial and not particularly well-thought through ideas – I'm very interested to hear what others think on this question as I find it quite a striking phenomenon.
Heather Collister, International Service for Human Rights
Maybe, we should think about not leaving this next step (that someone in a position to create change will pick up the report and make things happen) up to chance or faith. It reminds me of a successful collaboration between a local human rights lawyer, Joey Mogul, based in Chicago and an international human rights lawyer / scholar, Barb Frey. Joey had been working for years to bring attention to carefully documented cases of torture that happened in Chicago prisons in the 70s -- with no luck. She finally talked to her friend Barb about the situation, and Barb suggested that she take this information to the UN Committee Against Torture by way of a Shadow Report. The report was written and sent, and Joey was invited to speak to the Committee. After the UN CAT made their recommendations about this specific case to the United States - things started to change. The perpetrator was finally put on trial (though he was convicted of perjury, not torture, because of our laws that Joey is currently trying to change on the federal level). He was found guilty. You can read more about this example in our online dialogue on Domesticating International Law (a closely connected topic to this dialogue topic and our dialogue on using Shadow Reports).
Can we be more strategic about developing partnerships, collaborations and coordinated efforts so that these reports don't just sit on a shelf somewhere?
Hello to everyone. My name is Anna and I am working as project manager at the Global Human Rights Defence, the Netherlands. GHRD monitors human rights violations perpetrated against minority groups, in the countries of India, Bangladesh, Nepal and recently also Pakistan. We are a small scale organisation and our works relies on the efforts and commitment of local observers and partner organisations based in the region. We monitor human rights violations in areas where there is a lack of attention form international media and the International community . Our monitoring activities are based on fact findings investigations/ missions conducted by our observers on a regular base. The data are verified by the head office in the Netherlands, processed and compiled in reports and then submitted to relevant authorities such as the UN, EU, INGo's etc.
I am happy to join this dialogue in order to share experiences and points of view with other experts in the field.
he Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) is a NON BIASED Human Rights Monitoring Group which was founded in December 1996 in response to the deteriorating state of democracy and human rights under the newly established Palestinian Authority. The group was founded by a diverse group of well-established Palestinians, including Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) members, newspaper editors, journalists, a union leader, veteran human rights actisvists and religious leaders. The political composition of its founders is diverse - including members of many Palestinian organizations and institutions - thereby ensuring the non-partisan character of the organization.
The PHRMG documents human rights violations committed against Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, regardless of who is responsible. In effect, the PHRMG has dedicated much of its work to the monitoring of human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority.
The PHRMG believes that in spite of the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the need to denounce Israeli human rights abuses, such scrutiny is essential in the current process of state building, to ensure that the future Palestinian State will be a truly democratic one. In the long run, the protection of human rights can only strengthen the Palestinian Authority.
Thanks, Charlene! I wanted to highlight these excerpts from your comment:
The "non-biased" nature of the monitoring efforts of PHRMG remind me of the following monitoring principles written by the UN:
Do you believe that it is necessary for human rights monitors to be "non-biased"? I would love hear (read) your (and other's) thoughts on this. Thanks!
Thanks Kristin for bringing this up.
Just to mention a few aspects which seem important:
Human rights organisations are to defend the principles of human rights, speak out for and with the victims and take actions to bring perpetrators to justice.
This can at times create tensions with the need to be impartial and objective. Human rights groups are not the judges who can punish perpetrators, so the standards that they apply do not have to be at the same level as those of Courts. But the evidence that they present should be reliable. They should indicate how they gathered their information and reached their conclusions, and indicate the degree of likelihood of their findings. This also because the authorities that human rights organisations criticize will often try to discredit their findings if some details can be seen to be incorrect.
CPT Palestine monitors violence and human rights violations in two areas of the West Bank, At-Tuwani and Hebron. Our major aim is supporting non-violent resistance to the current Israeli military occupation of Palestine. This support often includes a direct presence in the areas were violence is most prominent. Tools we use include press releases, Facebook, Twitter, personal and statistical documentation of human rights abuses, videos and pictures. We take direction for our efforts from the population that is experiencing the oppression. We also focus on building authentic relationships, which can include living in the communities facing human rights violations or simpler gestures such as joining a Palestinian family for dinner. Because of these relationships, the communities trust us enough to tell us their stories, which helps us to deliver quality reports and updates.
WATCH is a monitoring group focused on violence against women and we use monitoring the courts as our strategy to create a more responsive justice system. The court monitoring approach is similar to other forms of human rights monitoring. Our monitors' presence in the courts sends a message of accountability much in the same way human rights monitors' presence can impact local communities. The fact that "outsiders" are paying attention is a critical part of monitoring. Then, we also gather large quantities of data gathered by our monitors and use that data to identify systemic problems that are barriers to those seeking justice. At WATCH, we always try to link our daily monitoring to the system changes it brings about.
WATCH is a monitoring group focused on violence against women and we use monitoring the courts as our strategy to create a more responsive justice system. The court monitoring approach is similar to other forms of human rights monitoring. Our monitors' presence in the courts sends a message of accountability much in the same way human rights monitors' presence can impact local communities. The fact that "outsiders" are paying attention is a critical part of monitoring. Then, we also gather large quantities of data gathered by our monitors and use that data to identify systemic problems that are barriers to those seeking justice. At WATCH, we always try to link our daily monitoring to the system changes it brings about.
The International Bar Association (IBA) Programme on the International Criminal Court (ICC) monitors fair trial and defence related issues at the ICC and encourages the legal community to engage with the work of the Court. The IBA’s monitoring work includes thematic legal analysis of the ICC’s pre-trial and trial proceedings, and ad hoc evaluations of legal, administrative and institutional issues which could potentially affect the rights of defendants, the impartiality of proceedings and the development of international justice.
Monitoring the fairness of the proceedings at the world's only permanent international criminal court is key to the credibility and legitimacy of the institution. The ICC was established to prosecute those bearing the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community and to prevent impunity for such crimes. However, in order to be credible these prosecutions must be conducted fairly and impartially.
The IBA recognises that the fairness of the trial is multi-dimensional. To be fair, a trial must be efficient, effective and expeditious, without losing sight of the need to respect the rights of the accused, comply with legal principles, and be appropriately sensitive to all affected parties.
The IBA recognises that the fairness of the trial is multi-dimensional. To be fair, a trial must be efficient, effective and expeditious, without losing sight of the need to respect the rights of the accused, comply with legal principles, and be appropriately sensitive to all affected parties.
Lorraine, Great to hear about the monitoring you are doing at the ICC. How do you train your monitors and what involvement do local communities have it any? Your comment really speaks to the credibility monitoring groups can have when they understand the balance of respecting the rights of the accused and the importance of justice for the victim(s).
Thanks for your important questions and comments Marnalyn.
Our programme is based in the Hague so we have no direct involvement with local communities. We do liaise and consult with NGO colleagues that have a field presence and we are also members of the Global Coalition for the ICC. Since the IBA is a global network of lawyers, our target group is primarily the legal community- as lawyers are key actors in the international criminal justice process.
Although we strive to ensure that there is a balance in respecting the rights of victims and defendants, our particular mandate is to focus on the implementation and respect for the rights of defendants. This is no easy task as very often in international criminal trials, alleged perpetrators of heinous crimes are often 'presumed guilty' by the public due to the sheer gravity and scale of the crimes and the number of victims.
We are actually a very small team (2 persons) supported by interns and we conduct research and consultations into legal and policy developments at the Court. Our training is focused primarily on research and writing for the purpose of producing our monitoring reports.
Lorraine