National Human Rights Institutions. Criteria and Factors for Assessing Their Effectiveness
| Author | Rachel Murray |
| Published date | 01 June 2007 |
| Date | 01 June 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410702500203 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 25/2, 189–220, 2007.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 189
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS.
CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR
ASSESSING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
R M*
Abstract
is articl e seeks to examine how us eful the Paris Principl es are in assessing the
e ectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions. It will argu e that while they are
an appropriate starting point, the y focus more on factors relevant to the establi shment
of such bodies, rather than how they per form once created and how they are perceived
by others. Some greater thought now nee ds to be given to a variety of issues that render
these institutions e ective and to question some of the underlying presumptions on
which the Paris Principles are bas ed.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is recognised that there is no one single model or de nition of a National Human
Rights Instit ution (NHRI), althoug h the United Nations (UN) has attempted to provide
one: ‘the term “national inst itution” is taken to refer to a body which is established by
a government under the constitution, or by law or decree, the f unctions of which are
speci cally de ned in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights’.1 In
fact, some countries have bodies that encompass a variety of functions; others a re
‘hybrid human rights ombudsmen’.2 ere exist many such i nstitutions across the
world. eir functions include bot h awareness raising, tra ining, litigation and ma king
recommendations to governments and others on polic y and legislation. Some have
the power to undertake invest igations, call w itnesses and demand documentation,
* Professor of Internat ional Human Right s Law, University of Bristol, UK.
1 United Nations, National Human R ights Institut ions. A Handbook o n the Establis hment and
Strengtheni ng of National Inst itutions for t he Promotion and P rotection of Hum an Rights, Profes sional
Training Ser ies No. 4, 1995, at para. 39.
2 Reif, L.C., ‘Buildi ng Democratic Institutions: e Role of National Human Rights In stitutions in
Good Governa nce and Human Rights Protec tion’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 13, 200 0,
pp. 1–59, at p. 7. Hybrid human r ights ombudsman inst itutions include the Port uguese Provedor de
Justiça and t he Spanish Defensor del Pueblo.
Rachel Murray
190 Intersentia
some have the ability to receive cases. It has in fact been recognised by the UN and
other bodies that there should be some degree of discretion to States to decide which
model is best suited to its own circu mstances.3
e UN, throug h its High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) a nd,
in collaboration wit h other agencies such as the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), has paid considerable attention to these bodies,4 most not ably
from 1991 when a Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Right s held in Paris from 7–9 October proposed the guidelines
that are now seen as central to measuring the e ectiveness of national human rights
institutions, t he Paris Principles.5 is document has been applied by t he UN organs
in their dealings with States and institutions and upheld by other organ isations and
individuals6 as the criteria against which NHR Is should be measured.
Yet attention has in recent years moved from looking at criter ia for establishing
such bodies, on which t he Paris Principles focus, to how these bod ies can contribute
to the development of thematic issues of substantive rig hts.7 But something has be en
omitted in between. It would appea r that while attention has been placed on the need
to establish such bodie s, the same degree of thought has not been paid to factors t hat
render them e ective and the need to ensure t hat those are established or in exi stence
satisfy such criteria:8 ‘Most research has focused on the elaborat ion of normative
standards rather t han on how human rights institutions have evolved in pract ice’.9
is article seek s to examine how useful the Paris Principles are in assessing the
e ect iveness of a NHRI. It will a rgue that while they a re an appropriate starting point,
they focus more on factors relevant to the establishment of such bod ies, rather tha n
how they perform once created and how they a re perceived by others. Some greater
3 For example, it has been sug gested by the Commonwealth th at ‘in small and developin g states or
states within very limited resources, it may be more practicable to confer the mandates of both an
NHRI and a n Ombudsman upon a single i nstitution’, Commonwea lth Secretar iat, National Human
Rights Institutions. Best Practice, Commonwealth Secret ariat, London, 2001, at p. 4.
4 Further Promotion and En couragement of Human Ri ghts and Fundame ntal Freedoms, i ncluding
the Question of th e Programme and Methods of Work of the Commi ssion, National Instituti ons for
the Promotion and P rotection of Human Rights, U N Doc. E/CN.4/1993/33, 5 January 1993. Se e, for
example, the Vien na Declaration and P rogramme of Act ion, 32 International Lega l Materials, 1993,
1661, at p. 1672, para. 36.
5 Principles Relating to the Status and Functioning of National Institutions for Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights. e Secret ary General the n put these forward to the U N for adoption
in 1993, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/1992/43.
6 See Commonwealth S ecretariat, op.cit. (note 3), at p. 1.
7 Ibidem, at para. 11.
8 Human Rights Watch, Prote ctors or Pretenders? G overnment Human Rights C ommissions in Afr ica,
Human Right s Watch, New York, 2001.
9 International Counc il on Human Ri ghts Policy, Performance and Legitimacy: National Human
Rights Institutions, International C ouncil on Human R ights Policy, Gene va, 2000, p. x ii. See,
more generally, Abel, R ., Politics by Other Means: L aw and Struggle Agains t Apartheid, Routledge,
London, 1995.
National Human R ights Institut ions. Criteria and Factor s for Assessing their E ectiveness
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 25/2 (2007) 191
thought now needs to be given to a variety of issues that render these institutions
e ective and to question some of the underlyi ng presumptions on which the Par is
Principles are based . i s article comes out of the ndings of a Nu eld funded report,
carried out with Professor Stephen Livingstone of Queens University Bel fast and
our research assist ant Anne Smith. e research focused speci cally on evaluating
the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), with comparisons
from South Africa. Reference to interviews held comes out of this project. Stephen
Livingstone died in March 2004. is article would not have been possible had the
author not been fortunate to have his immense ex perience in working on the project.
is ar ticle must therefore be seen as a collaborative e ort w ith him.10
2. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
What would one expect and hope a NH RI to achieve? It is clear that a NHRI can not
be the panacea for all s ociety’s ills. ere must be realistic expec tations placed on what
such a body can achieve and it must be seen i n the context of the political, economic
and social situation in which it is created. It wil l depend very much on the other
mechanisms and str uctures in place in the jurisd iction and the extent to which there
is a human rights protect ion and promotion system in place. Beyond th is, however,
it is possible to identify a number of roles that a NHRI can achieve. Firstly, it would
be hoped that it would occupy a semi- o cial role and operate on a more inside track
with gover nment. is requi res not only that a NHRI maintai n its independence and
not be subject to government pressure, but, conversely, work closely enough with
government that it is able to in uenc e and by whom it will be taken seriously.
Secondly, a NHRI should have some educational role in terms of promoting
human rights in t he jurisdict ion and in this sens e should act as the ‘sta ndard bearer’
for rights. A NHRI should act as the primar y focal point for human rig hts within a
jurisdic tion11 and set a nd apply the necessar y international and domestic standards.
A body can also be e valuated on the extent to which it complies with standa rds that it
may have set for itself, for example, on transparenc y, op enness and fairness.12
10 See Living stone, S. and Murr ay, R., Evaluati ng the E ectiveness of National Hu man Rights
Institutions . e Northern Ireland Human R ights Comm ission with C omparisons f rom South
Africa, Ja nuary 2005, on le with author. See als o Livingstone, S. a nd Murray, R., ‘ e E ectiveness
of National Human R ights Institutions’, in: Hal liday, S. and Schmidt , P., Huma n Rights Brought
Home: Socio Leg al Perspectives on Huma n Rights in the National C ontext, Hart Publ ishing, Oxford ,
2004, pp. 137–164.
11 Commonwealth Secretariat, op.cit. (note 3), at p. 5.
12 Bell, C. and McCor mack, I., e Northern Irelan d Human Rights Commissi on: Written Submissi ons
to the Inquiry by the Jo int Committee on Human Right s, 2003, on le with author, at p. 3.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
