Background document nhrm report

Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report

Background Document for the National Human Rights
Monitoring Report

(Prepared for Discussion and Submission to the Council of Commissioners)

EHRC Reporting Team

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 1 of 36


Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................3
2 Conceptual and Methodological Framework....................................................................4
2.1 Conception of Monitoring..........................................................................................4
2.1.1 Meaning and Purposes........................................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies......................................................................6
2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring..........................................................7
2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators..........................................9
2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information....................................14
2.3 The National Human Rights Framework.................................................................15
2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission............................................................. 18
3 The National Human Rights Monitoring Report............................................................20
3.1 Basis and Nature of the Report................................................................................ 21
3.1.1 Guiding Principles and Values..........................................................................22
3.1.2 Purpose and Objectives.....................................................................................23
3.2 Scope and Coverage.................................................................................................24
3.3 The Research Process.............................................................................................. 25
3.4 Indicators and Benchmarks......................................................................................28
3.5 Sources of Information............................................................................................ 30
3.6 Implementation/Work Plan......................................................................................32
3.7 Inputs/Resource Requirements................................................................................ 35

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 2 of 36


1 Introduction
This background paper is for the most part a compilation of the results of activities
conducted by the HRC Reporting Team of the EHRC. The purpose of the document is to
provide clear, coherent, comprehensive and rights-based conceptual and methodological
guidelines for the development of the EHRC national monitoring report. Towards this
end, the general objective of the background paper is clarifying the profile of the
undertaking and developing uniform understanding among EHRC staff and leadership, as
well as key human rights actors and stakeholders. Within this general objective, the
specific objectives of the paper are:

– Establishing a clear basis in the national and international human rights framework
for the planned national human rights report in terms of the recognition of
specific rights, the role of NHRIs, and the mandates of the EHRC;

– Determine the scope and coverage of the national human rights report
thematically, geographically, and in terms of targets;

– Identify key actors and stakeholders and their involvement in the research process;

– Identify relevant and appropriate methodological approaches to be used for the
development of the report based on existing best practice in human rights
monitoring research;

– Outlining the objectives and results (outputs, outcomes and impacts) expected
upon and subsequent to the completion of the research;

– Developing a detailed work plan and budget framework for the development of
the national human rights report.

The background paper outlining the basis, nature and methodological framework of the
planned national human rights monitoring process is prepared for submission to the
EHRC senior management, i.e. the Council of Commissioners, for approval. Once
approved by the EHRC management, the background paper will be considered in
consultation sessions with EHRC staff so as to build consensus on the research process.

The contents of the background paper are presented in two major parts. The first part,
which may be considered the background, contains a brief overview of the theoretical
and methodological framework for human rights monitoring with a view to establishing
existing best practice. The national human rights framework in Ethiopia and the profile of
the EHRC are also dealt with within this part. The implications of the identified best
practice and the national and institutional contexts to the national human rights report
are dealt with in the second section. In addition, the second section outlines the proposed
substantive, institutional and methodological approaches for the conduct of the research
process. The section concludes with a detailed budget.

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 3 of 36


2 Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual and methodological approach to be adopted for the development of the
EHRC’s National Human Rights Monitoring “Baseline” Repot should be informed by:

– best experience among international, regional and national human rights
organizations with particular attention to National Human Rights Institutions;

– the FDRE Constitution, the UDHR, and other international human rights
instruments duly ratified by Ethiopia; and,

– the mandates of the EHRC as defined under its establishment proclamation and
interpreted by its high level management.

Accordingly, the HRC Reporting Team has conducted a review of relevant literature,
legislation and practice on the basis, nature, structure and scope of monitoring by NHRIs,
and human rights monitoring approaches applied by international, regional and national
human rights institutions, especially NHRIs.

2.1 Conception of Monitoring

2.1.1 Meaning and Purposes
Monitoring means the close observation of a situation or individual case over a long
period of time, with reference to accepted norms, with the purpose of providing an
assessment as basis for further action.1 The following elements constitute monitoring:2

 It is carried out over an extended period of time.

 It involves collecting or receiving a large quantity of data.

 Close observation of the situation is done through constant or periodic
examination or investigation and documentation of developments.

 Standards or norms are used as reference in objectively assessing the situation or
case in question, especially in determining what is wrong with it.

 Tools or instruments are used in identifying how the situation compares with
established standards or norms.

 The product of monitoring is usually a report about the situation.

1
United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based
Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for
Development Policy Democratic Governance Group, March 2006
2
Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and
Documentation Series, Volume 1: WHAT IS MONITORING, HURIDOCS, 2003
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 4 of 36


 The report embodies an assessment of the situation which provides a basis for
further action.

The most common general purpose of monitoring is to be able to pinpoint what is wrong
with a situation or a case and to indicate what steps can be taken to remedy it.
Monitoring is also undertaken to see whether steps that have been taken to improve a
situation are working. Human rights monitoring has the following particular purposes,
among others:3

– To ensure compliance with international and domestic human rights law by
government authorities and citizens;4

– To provide remedies for the victims of human rights violations and address
impunity for human rights abuses by collecting evidentiary material for court
cases, investigations by national human rights institutions, etc …

– To identify patterns of human rights abuses and violations in terms of the types,
frequency, and causes of human rights violation with a view to systemic solutions
for addressing them;

– To inform and educate the public about human rights situations5 and ensure
transparency for government and individual actions by establishing the human
rights situation in a particular context thorough documentation; and,

– To offer validation to victims of human rights violations by amplifying the voices
of victims and providing opportunities for those voices to be heard.

While sharing similar purposes, monitoring is distinct from investigation and
documentation of human rights abuses. Monitoring involves the repeated collection of
information often involving investigating and documenting a large or representative
number of human rights events. Investigation, on the other hand, refers to the process of
fact finding focused on an event which carries or is suspected to carry one or more human
rights violations. The final stage in human rights investigations is documentation or the
systematic recording of the results of the investigation as a basis for advocacy or
comparison.6 Data documented over a period of time and covering a large number of
specific cases can be analyzed so as to get a fuller picture of the human rights situation in
the context of a monitoring process.

3
Mona Nicoara, Human Rights Observation and Monitoring, Independent
Consultant, Columbia University, Monday, June 28, 2004
4
This is often referred to as the preventive aspect of human rights monitoring since
the aim is to ensure that human rights safeguards are implemented.
5
This is the public education aspect of human rights monitoring
6
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 5 of 36


2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies
Monitoring may be conducted by a wide profile of human rights actors among which
three actors, namely inter-governmental bodies, NGOs and government organizations –
especially national human rights institutions, take important roles.

Intergovernmental − Treaty monitoring bodies; − Set standards
Organizations (IGOs) − The Commission on Human − Monitor compliance of
Rights governments with their
− Special Rapporteurs and treaty obligations
Working Groups, − Monitor certain situations
− Specialized agencies (e.g. ILO, involving violations
WHO, UNDP, …),
− Regional IGOs, and
− The Sub-Commission on the
Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights7
Governmental − Government agencies or sector − Encourage own
Organizations (GOs) ministries responsible for treaty- governments to adopt
based reports, international standards
− National human rights − Monitor compliance of
institutions, own governments with
− Policy monitoring executive treaty obligations
bodies, − Monitor violations
− Specialized commissions/
agencies (e.g. anti-corruption
commissions)
Non-Governmental − International advocacy groups − Lobby with IGOs toward
Organizations (NGOs) and organizations, setting standards
− National human rights NGOs − Lobby with governments
toward adopting
international standards
− Monitor compliance of
governments with their
treaty obligations
− Monitor violations

A national human rights institution is usually any of the following:

 Human rights commission – a body composed of several members usually from
diverse backgrounds which discharge various functions (usually different from one
commission to another) that range from human rights education to investigation
of complaints.

7
previously known as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 6 of 36


 Ombudsman – an individual or group of persons generally appointed to protect
the rights of individuals who believe themselves to be the victim of unjust acts on
the part of the government

 Specialized commission – a body composed of several members which function to
protect the rights of a particular vulnerable group such as ethnic and linguistic
minorities, indigenous populations, children, refugees or women.

National human rights commissions are generally mandated to study international
standards, encourage their governments to adopt these, and call the attention of their
governments if the adopted standards are not met. One way through which they monitor
the compliance of their governments with obligations is by making contributions to the
required periodic reports.

Another common duty of national human rights commissions as well as specialized
commissions is to call the attention of the government to areas of violations and instances
of discrimination in the country. Many human rights commissions, either national or
specialized, and certainly the national ombudsmen, are mandated to monitor violations,
especially if a complaints procedure is in place.

2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring
The approaches adopted by various actors in monitoring human rights may differ as a
factor of what is monitored, thematic scope or focus, and the intended purposes.

Situation vs. Performance of Duties: The perspective adopted by a monitoring
initiative may fall into one of three general categories: a situation monitoring; or a duty-
bearer analysis. A situation report seeks to monitor progress in the realization of human
rights, i.e., whether and the extent to which the rights are enjoyed by the rights-holders.
As such, the focus is on the status of human rights and the situation of vulnerable groups.
While such reports abound at the national level, the reports prepared under the Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism8 within the framework of the UN Human Rights
Council are also a good example. On the other hand, a duty-bearer analysis report, such
as most of the treaty-based reports, monitors the fulfillment of obligations to realize
human rights. Such a process thus focuses on mapping human rights actors, and examining
actions taken by the State and other legal and moral duty-bearers to realize human rights.
In some cases, these two perspectives may come together in a multi-perspective
monitoring report dealing with the status of rights, situation of vulnerable groups and
fulfillment of legal/moral duties by the duty-bearers.

Comprehensive vs. Specialized: Human rights monitoring processes and reports are
also different in terms of the range of issues/rights to be covered. Some reports
comprehensively cover the whole range of rights while others opt for a more in-depth
coverage of selected thematic issues/rights. Most national human rights reports, however,
have an overview section dealing with the whole range of rights/issues as well as specific
sections for more in-depth discussion of selected issues/rights.
8
United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution Building, Human Rights Council
resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 7 of 36


Situation vs. Case Monitoring: Human rights monitoring can be of two general
kinds, depending on their focus: situation monitoring and case monitoring. Under each
kind, there can be various forms, as summarized below:

Situation monitoring − monitoring human rights violations
− monitoring the drafting and passing of legislation
− monitoring the implementation of laws and policies
− monitoring the establishment and progress of human rights institutions
Case monitoring − monitoring the legal process undergone by a case
− monitoring relief and rehabilitation services provided to a client
− monitoring other forms of intervention in a case

Situation monitoring focuses on a situation in general in terms of the recurrence of
violations, progress in relevant human rights legislation and the performance of human
rights institutions. This form of monitoring is useful for the purpose of monitoring
government compliance with treaty obligations as well as for domestic monitoring. Case
monitoring, on the other hand, is very focused and victim-oriented and involves work for
or on behalf of an individual victim or a group of victims. Follow up and documentation
of developments in the case is an essential and integral part of case monitoring.

2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies
Two dominant methodologies in monitoring human rights situations are the "events" (or
acts-based) methodology and the indicators-based methodology.9

The “events methodology” for monitoring involves identifying the various acts of
commission and omission that constitute or lead to human rights violations. In other
words, it is a concrete form by which the “violations” approach takes shape. This
methodology involves investigating and documenting an event that is suspected of or
confirmed to be consisting of one or more acts considered as violations.

A limitation of the “events” methodology is that it usually does not aim, or often fails, to
arrive at a complete picture by giving the total number of violations, much less the
proportion of actual victims to the whole population. There are two problem areas
identified in this regard:

– The monitoring body does not hear of all events involving the violations covered
by its mandate; and,

– Even if the monitoring body learns of events that are likely to contain violations,
it is unable to investigate and document these for reasons such as ongoing military
actions, hesitation of witnesses to come forward, and lack of resources.

Indicator based human rights monitoring, on the other hand, involves the use of
performance standards for the core components of specific rights in the form of indicators
and benchmarks to determine patterns and trends. The advantages of this methodological

9
Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and
Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 57
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 8 of 36


approach have been noted in terms of enabling the identification of problems and
potential major violations, expressing the magnitude of the problems, comparisons over
space, determination of the status of groups within a country, and facilitating the
evaluation of trends over time.10 However, indicators and benchmarks may not be
appropriate in addressing grave violations since they tend to aggregate the situation of
individuals. Indicators-based methodology is especially weak in situations were victims
require direct and individualized assistance.

In short, the combination of the “events” methodology and the indicators-based
methodology should result in a comprehensive and detailed picture of a situation.

2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators
An indicator is a tool that shows where something is, what direction it is leading to, and
how far it is from that objective. It serves as a sign or symptom that tells what is wrong in
a situation and helps in pointing out what needs to be done to fix the problem. A human
rights indicator may be defined as “a piece of information used in measuring the extent to
which a legal right is being fulfilled or enjoyed in a given situation.”11 Indicators may be
based on quantitative or qualitative information and may assess inputs or outputs.
Quantitative indicators measure change through numerical or statistical facts of physical
outputs. A more accurate description would thus identify indicators as “quantitative or
qualitative statements that can be used to describe situations that exist and to measure
changes or trends over a period of time”.12 In this definition, indicators are seen as both
qualitative and quantitative descriptions of situations and as elements that are employed
to define a particular process.

International, regional, and national human rights institutions have developed widely
accepted indicators for a range of rights. At the international level, UN agencies such as
UNICEF, UNESCO, and WHO, Special Rapporteurs such as Paul Hunt on the Right to
Health, and inter-agency working groups have developed rights-based measurement
systems in their respective spheres of expertise. Most notable among these are the
detailed CESCR Guidelines,13 the draft harmonized reporting guidelines, the human
development indicators and indices of UNDP, the national context-specific benchmarks
under the Common Country Assessment (CCA) framework of UNDAF, 14 and indicators

10
Audrey R. Chapman, Indicators and Standards for Monitoring Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, Science and Human Rights Program, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 2000, p. 1
11
Maria Green, When We Talk about Indicators: Current Approaches to Human
Rights Measurement, report written for the Human Development Report Office, United
Nations Development Programme, July 1999
12
Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and
Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 55
13
UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be
submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991
14
UN, Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Framework:
Guidelines for UN Country Teams (Geneva: July 2004) 6
(http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20and
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 9 of 36


developed for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).15 Generally, three kinds of
rights-based indicators have been identified for human rights monitoring.16 These are:
structural, process and result indicators measuring commitment, efforts and results,
respectively.17

Structural indicators measure whether or not appropriate legal, regulatory and
institutional structures considered necessary or useful for the realization of a human right18
are in place as an indicator of the extent to which human rights are guaranteed through
ratification and adoption of legal instruments and existence of basic institutional
mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realization of human rights (such as court
systems, human rights commissions and ombudsmen, and formal complaint
mechanisms).19 They capture commitments or the intent of the State in undertaking
measures for the realization of the concerned human right to monitor the state
obligations of conduct, i.e. the effort the government has put forth towards the
realization of a human right. Structural indicators have to focus foremost on the nature of
domestic law as relevant to the concerned right, i.e. whether it incorporates the
international standards, and the institutional mechanisms that promote and protect the
standards. Structural indicators also need to look at policy framework and indicated
strategies of the State as relevant to the right. Most structural indicators are qualitative in
nature, and a number of structural indicators may be evaluated by a simple “yes“ or “no“
answer, e.g. if a particular law or policy is in place or not. However, sometimes these
yes/no answers need follow-up questions and additional clarification, to capture
qualitative dimensions of the law or policy.

A process indicator on the other hand measures the degree to which the state is
complying with its obligations as well as the effectiveness of the structural realities, the
laws and institutions that exist. In most cases, process indicators relate State policy

%20UNDAF.pdf)
15
United Nations Development Group, Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium
Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources (New York: United
Nations, 2003). (http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mispa/Metadatajn30.pdf)
16
Paul Hunt, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Agenda item 117 (c),
10 October 2003
17
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Report on Indicators for
Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights, HRI/MC/2008/3,
Twentieth meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies, Geneva, 26-27 June
2008
18
This refers to national law, constitutions, regulations and legal, policy frameworks
and institutional organization and mandates.
19
The existence of institutions of civil society, including the independent media,
universities, and human rights organizations is also considered a structural indicator.
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 10 of 36


instruments20 with benchmarks that cumulate into outcome indicators, which in turn can
be more directly related to the realization of human rights. Process indicators capture:

– quality of a process in terms of its adherence to the key human rights principles (is
the process non-discriminatory, accountable, participatory and empowering, and
can duty bearers be held accountable?), and

– type of policy instruments, and public resource allocations and expenditures
invested to further the progressive realization of a specific right.

Examples of process indicators include the amount of government spending on female
primary education, and the degree of independence of the judicial system.

A result indicator measures the outcome of efforts, or the lack of them, to meet a
particular obligation and success in bringing about greater equity and wellbeing.21 It is
therefore an indication of the current status of the enjoyment of a certain right and a
more direct measure of the realization of rights. Outcome indicators capture attainments
that reflect the status of realization of human rights in a given context. For instance, a
result indicator may relate to whether and to what extent individuals and groups enjoy
freedom of religion and free speech, or an increase in government spending on female
primary education actually yield improvements in the literacy rates of girls relative to
boys.

Salient features of the OHCHR indicators framework

– A common approach to identifying indicators for monitoring civil and political rights,
and economic, social and cultural rights, thereby strengthening the notion of the
indivisibility and interdependence of human rights;
– The framework translates the narrative on the normative content of human rights
(starting with the related provisions of international human rights instruments and
general comments by treaty bodies) into a few characteristic attributes and a
configuration of structural, process and outcome indicators.
– The identified indicators bring to the fore an assessment of steps taken by the State
party in addressing its obligations – from acceptance of international human rights
standards (structural indicators) to efforts being undertaken by the primary duty-
bearer, the State, to meet the obligations that flow from the standards (process
indicators) and on to the outcomes of those efforts from the perspective of rights-
holders (outcome indicators);
– The framework makes it is easier to identify contextually meaningful indicators for
universally accepted human rights standards. It seeks neither to prepare a common list
of indicators to be applied across all countries irrespective of their social, political and
economic development, nor to make a case for building a global measure for cross-
country comparisons of the realization of human rights;

20
State policy instruments refers to all such measures including public programmes
and specific interventions that a State is willing to take in order to give effect to its
intent/commitments to attain outcomes identified with the realization of a given human
right.
21
A human rights inquiry is ultimately interested in the way people actually
experience their rights, so it is important for us to measure outcomes
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 11 of 36


– The framework focuses on two categories of indicators and data-generating
mechanisms: (a) indicators that are or can be compiled by official statistical systems
using statistical surveys and administrative records; and (b) indicators or standardized
information more generally compiled by non-governmental sources and human rights
organizations focusing on alleged violations reported by victims, witnesses or NGOs;
and
– The framework also focuses on quantitative as well as qualitative indicators to assess
the implementation of human rights effectively. Efforts have been made to keep the
identified indicators simple, based on objective and transparent methodology and, to
the extent feasible, there is an emphasis on the disaggregation of identified indicators
by type of prohibited discrimination (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, etc) and by
vulnerable or marginalized population groups.
UN- OHCHR’s work on indicators for human rights assessments,
Status Note August, 2007
Most existing frameworks, such as treaty body guidelines,22 focus on structural and
process-level indicators rather than outcomes due to ease of measurement, and emphasis
on government obligations. One visible exception is the Committee on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (CESCR) whose Guidelines require states to provide specific outcome
level statistics disaggregated by social group, sex, geographical location and other criteria,
and supplemented with information about the rates of change over the past five and ten
years.23 However, the principle of interdependence among the whole spectrum of human
rights requires that a system of rights-based measurement incorporate indicators for both
enforceability (structure and process) and actual rates of enjoyment (outcome). As Craig
Mokhiber of OHCHR has noted,24

“… simply measuring status, or degree of realization, is not sufficient. There is a
need to ensure the existence of an express right, and to monitor and measure
effectiveness of institutions and mechanisms of redress and enforcement as well”.

Moreover, the use of structural, process, and outcome level information gives us a more
comprehensive picture of the human rights situation as well as a clearer indication of
accountability. These would in turn lay the basis for more relevant recommendations to
realize human rights.

The various frameworks developed through the above indicated efforts provide us with a
choice of indicators. Yet, there are a few more challenges that have to be addressed to
ensure the contextual relevance and effectiveness in addressing the objective(s) for which
the indicators are to be used. A major general concern in this respect is the fact that
almost all available attempts were principally geared towards treaty-based reporting by

22
See for instance: General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic
Reports to be Submitted by States Parties under Article 19, Paragraph 1, of the Convention
, United Nations Committee Against Torture, revised 1998, Document C/14/Rev.1.
23
UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding t he form and contents of reports to be
submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991
24
Craig G. Mokhiber, “Toward a Measure of Dignity: Indicators for Rights-Based
Development,” The Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe 18 (2001) 159
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 12 of 36


States; a point that may give us pause in applying the same indicators for a report
developed by an independent national human rights institution. Moreover, concerns
relating to validity, reliability and transparency in terms of triangulation/cross-
confirmation among data sources, capturing the essential aspects of the normative
framework, and appropriate methodology have to be addressed.25 More specifically, the
selection of human rights indicators is also necessitated by the following methodological
considerations:

− Simplicity, timeliness and number of indicators : Indicators that are too
complex, take too much time to measure or are too numerous would be useless in
practice in light of inherent limitations of expertise, time and other resources; after
all, indicators are expected to indicate;

− Objectivity : indicators should be directly observable and independently
verifiable based on objective information and data-generating mechanisms
following relevant international statistical standards, rather than perceptions,
opinions, assessments or judgments made by experts/individuals

− Comparability : monitoring indicators should be suitable for temporal and
spatial comparison since we are interested in measuring changes and differences;
and

− Disaggregation : monitoring indicators should be amenable to disaggregation in
terms of sex, age, and other vulnerable or marginalized population segments.26

In general, indicators should be produced and disseminated in an independent, impartial
and transparent manner and based on sound methodology, procedures and expertise.

Finally, the indicators we have selected have to be benchmarked to make them open to
regular monitoring of progress over successive time spans that takes into account the
current situation. A benchmark is the level that is aimed to be met when using a certain
indicator. An example of a benchmark, when using adult literacy rate as an indicator, is
75% literacy among adults nation-wide. Unlike human rights indicators which measure
human rights observation or enjoyment in absolute terms, benchmarks generally refer to
targets established by particular governments in relation to specific rights. The primary use
of benchmarks is to offer a tool to assess the performance of states in reaching the goals
they have set for a particular interval of time as part of the process of fulfilling their
obligations.

25
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Workshop on Measurement and Human
Rights, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, July 6-8, 2006
26
General Comment No. 19 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights sets out an exhaustive listing of grounds for non-discrimination, which may require
disaggregation of data, if feasible.
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 13 of 36


2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information
Human rights monitoring reports generally focus on two complementary sources of
quantitative data: socio-economic and other administrative statistics; and, events-based
data on human rights violations.

Socio-economic statistics refers to quantitative information compiled and disseminated by
the State, through its administrative records and statistical surveys, usually in collaboration
with national statistical agencies and under the guidance of international and specialized
organizations. The use of a standardized methodology in the collection of information,
whether it is through census operations, household surveys or through civil registration
systems, and usually with high level of reliability and validity, makes indicators based on
such a methodology vital for the efforts to bring about greater transparency, credibility
and accountability in human rights monitoring.

Events-based data, on the other hand, is information relating to alleged or reported cases
of human rights violations, identified victims and perpetrators. The most important
sources are cases entertained by national human rights institutions and UN special
procedures both of which normally process allegations in a standardized manner. While
such data does not provide comprehensive information on violations and precludes
comparison over time or across regions, such indicative data has significant potential in
terms of elaboration. Other sources of qualitative information used in human rights
reports include household perception and opinion surveys and data based on expert
judgments.27

One should however be cautious and selective in the use of available secondary sources
be aware of the possible limitations. At the outset, comprehensive information
consistently covering all categories and dimensions of human rights is not available due to
reasons attributable to limited objectives, scope and coverage. Moreover, the data
sources often manifest problems relating to source biases, validity, reliability,
transparency, variance truncation, and aggregation.28

Information source bias relates to the availability of information and the possible biases
stemming from the type of organizations that produce the information. Most available
reports by human rights organizations, having access only to those violations that are
reported, are based on reported cases of violation rather than a comprehensive database.
Moreover, the very nature of the organizations may entail inherent bias in the way
information is collected, compiled, analyzed and reported. For instance, foreign
government reports such as those produced by the US State Department and the UK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office will necessarily have certain biases and differ from
information provided by international governmental and non-governmental
organizations. There are also differences in reporting and interpretation among different
27
Rajeev Malhotra and Nicholas Fasel, “Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A
Survey of Major Initiatives,” draft for discussion at Turku, 3 March 2005.
(http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/Background.doc)
28
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 14 of 36


human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom
House as well as between government agencies and CSOs. In relation to narrative and
qualitative reports, there will be varying degrees of bias and uncertainty associated with
differences in source material, ideological influences, and the fact that there are many
incentives not to report human practices and problems accurately or at all.29

Validity concerns the degree to which an indicator actually measures what it purports to
measure. There may be some ‘distance’ between the category and/or dimension of a
particular human right and the indicator that is being used to measure it. Certainly the use
of proxy measures runs up against this problem.

Reliability concerns the degree to which the indicator can be produced consistently across
different contexts by different groups at different times. Can the indicator be produced by
different people using the same coding rules and source material?

Transparency concerns the degree to which the coding rules and procedures for
producing an indicator are publicly available. For example, while some human rights data
websites are explicit about its coding rules and sources for coding its different indicators,
other are less transparent about the sources that are used for each country and how its
checklists are used to produce their different scales.

Variance truncation concerns the degree to which information on human rights at the
national level is forced into limited categories, such as those found in the standardized
scales derived from expert judgments. These standardized scales, which fail to show
changes over shorter periods, are only useful for those countries in which there has been
great variation in human rights protection over time.

Aggregation concerns the ways in which indicators are combined as well as the degree to
which they provide information on different groups of people in a country. For example,
the HDI, which employs different aggregation and weighting rules for the various
components, rarely provides information that helps identify the rights conditions for
significant sub-populations within countries.

2.3 The National Human Rights Framework
Until the mid-1970s, Ethiopia is best described as a feudal state under a centralized
imperial government. The last Imperial government was replaced by a socialist oriented
military dictatorship after a popular uprising in 1974. The military government was itself
abolished by a coalition of rebel forces under the name Ethiopian People's Revolutionary
Democratic Front (EPRDF) in May 1991. In July of the same year, the EPRDF and other

29
Human Rights Watch, for instance, relies heavily on communication with a
network of “local human rights activists and civil society members” throughout all stages
of its research. As such, there is always a risk that HRW reports channel the institutional
and methodological biases inherent in using secondary sources as the principal basis for
monitoring. Moreover, such selective approach is by definition non-responsive to
comparisons across time and space.
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 15 of 36


political organizations established the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) under a
national charter.30

In June 1994 elections were held for the 547-member constituent assembly that adopted
a federal constitution in December 1994. The Constitution provides for a tiered
government system consisting of a federal government, 9 ethnically-based regional states
and two city administrations: Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.31 The Constitution assigns
extensive power to regional states to establish their own government complete with
legislative, executive and judicial branches under the Federal Constitution.32. The federal
government is organized in a parliamentary system with two chambers: the Council of
People's Representatives elected for five-year terms in single-seat constituencies; and the
Council of the Federation designated by the regional councils. The prime minister is
designated by the majority party or coalition in the HPR following legislative elections.
The Constitution also guarantees judicial independence.33

The first democratic elections for the federal parliament and regional legislatures, which
most opposition parties chose to boycott,34 were held in May and June 1995 giving the
EPRDF a landslide victory. The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia was officially established in August 1995 under the new constitution. The EPRDF
dominated government was re-elected 2000 in Ethiopia's first multi-party elections. The
third general election was held in May 2005 with a record 90% voter turnout. The
results of the elections, which received mixed reviews from observers,35 were delayed
amid claims and counter-claims of vote rigging, intimidation, and fraud. The final official
election results were released on 5 September 2005 confirming the EPRDF coalition
sufficient majority to form the federal government and the four major regions while the
opposition increased their share of parliamentary seats, from 12 to 176. The Coalition for
Unity and Democracy, a recently formed coalition of opposition parties, won all the seats
in Addis Ababa, both for the Parliament and the City Council. However, international
observers and human rights institutions have raised serious doubts and concerns on the
commitment and promise of the Government to democracy and the rule of law

30
However, some of the major partners of the EPRDF in the TGE, notably the
Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Southern Ethiopia Peoples' Democratic Coalition,
subsequently left the government.
31
The status of Dire Dawa as a federal city administration is not confirmed in the
Constitution.
32
Article 50 of the FDRE Constitution: Although the Constitution confers upon
regional states extensive legislative, administrative and judicial powers, some scholars and
politicians argue that
33
The president and vice president of the Federal Supreme Court are recommended
by the prime minister and appointed by the House of People's Representatives; for other
federal judges, the prime minister submits candidates selected by the Federal Judicial
Administrative Council to the House of People's Representatives for appointment.
34
International and non-governmental observers concluded that opposition parties
would have been able to participate had they chosen to do so.
35
While the election was deemed by the European Union election observer team to
fall short of international standards for fair and free elections, other teams drew different
conclusions.
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 16 of 36


following the May 2005 elections. The government was severely criticized by
international human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch.36

Currently, the Ethiopian Human Rights regime substantively consists of:

− International and regional human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia;

− Commitments of the Ethiopian Government under charter-based instruments by
virtue of membership in international and regional IGOs;

− Non-binding resolutions, declarations and guidelines issued by international and
regional IGOs and signed by Ethiopia;

− The provisions of the FDRE Constitution on human rights, democracy, governance
and policy principles;

− Subsidiary laws and legal standards duly promulgated by the appropriate national
legislative and executive bodies; and

− Benchmarks set within the national policy framework

Ethiopia has ratified all the major international (and regional) human rights instruments
including the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, the International Convention on the
Rights of the Child (ICRC) and the African Charter on Human and peoples’ Rights. These
instruments set down international standard for the protection and promotion of human
rights.

Table 1: Major Human Rights Instruments Ratified by the Government of Ethiopia 37
The human rights instrument Adopted Ratified by Ethiopia
(UN)
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and 1966 June 11 1993
Cultural Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 June 11 1993
International Convention on the Elimination of All 1965 June 23 1976
Forms of Racial Discrimination
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane 1984 March 14 1994
or Degrading Treatment
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 1979 September 10 1981
Discrimination against Women
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 May 14 1991
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 June 2 1998
In addition to commitments under the international and African human rights systems,
the FDRE Constitution dedicates Chapter III to fundamental rights and freedoms. The

36
Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Overview: Ethiopia Country Page, January
18, 2006 (available at: www.hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=ethiop)
37
Pursuant to (Art. 9(2) of the constitution such instruments are considered as part
of the law of the land
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 17 of 36


rights set forth in the text of the Constitution cover civil, political, economic, cultural,
social, environmental and developmental rights. The document emphasizes that 'Human
rights and freedoms emanating from the nature of mankind, are inviolable and
inalienable' (article 10/1).

Main Features of the Human Rights Chapter of the Ethiopian
Constitution
− Follows the holistic approach: It covers both civil and political and economic,
social and culture rights.
− Provides also for collective rights: These include the right to development of
nations, nationalities and peoples to self determination, full measure of self
government promotion and preservation of language, cultural values and
history
− Recognizes, adopting separate provisions, rights of vulnerable groups. The
rights of workers, women and children.
− The language used and limitations prescribed generally follow standards set by
international human rights instruments.
− Provides for derogatory clause which makes only right to self determination,
equality before the law and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment and from slavery absolute rights while the right to life
is absolute according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
− Provides for a wide range of human rights recognized under international
human rights law. There are by and large equivalent provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
− Contains exceptionally detailed provisions for the protection of the rights of the
arrested, accused and convicted persons.
− Adopts a unique categorization of rights as human and democratic rights (14-28
Human 29-44 Democratic)

The Bill of Rights in the Ethiopian Constitution, which is modeled on international human
rights conventions, is further subjected to a special interpretative regime, which should
comply with principles of the international law adopted by Ethiopia. However,
international law is narrowly construed to cover only the UDHR and those conventions
ratified by Ethiopia. In addition, article 9 (1) affirms the supremacy of the Constitution. It
further noted that all laws, which contravene this Constitution, shall be of no effect. As
no additional detail is provided for, it can be argued that where there is an inconsistency
between the provisions of the Constitution and international human rights standards, the
former prevails.

2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission
The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was established by Proclamation No 210/2000
on 4th July 2000. The establishment of the EHRC was a requirement of Article 55(14) of
the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), which came into
force on 21 August 1995. In compliance with this Constitutional provision, the House of
Peoples’ Representatives approved Proclamation 210/2000, which established the
Commission and defined its mandate and powers on 4th July 2000. The Chief
Commissioner was nominated by the HPR in July 2004 following a procedure that
included public consultations. Similarly, the deputy Chief Commissioner and

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 18 of 36


Commissioner for Children’s and Women’s Rights were nominated in July 2005. With the
appointment of the Commissioners, the Commission was able to constitute a Council of
Commissioners, as required by the establishing law and become functional.

The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission aims to serve the citizens and peoples of the
Nation by promoting, protecting and enforcing the human and democratic rights of
citizens and peoples of Ethiopia as enshrined in the Constitution and other laws of the
land, as well as the international human rights conventions and instruments adopted by
Ethiopia, and by ensuring that citizens and peoples can claim these rights. The major
objectives of the EHRC include:

– educating the public to be aware of human rights;

– seeing to it that the human rights are protected, respected and fully enforced; and,

– taking the necessary measure where they are found to have been violated.

More specifically, the EHRC aspires to develop its institutional capacity to fully promote
and protect human rights throughout the country in accordance with recognized
international and regional best practice and the normative standards devolving from the
Paris Principles, and in full compliance with the Federal Constitution. The budget of the
Commission shall be drawn from the following sources: (a) budgetary subsidy to be
allocated by the Government; and, (b) assistance, grant and any other source.

The EHRC constitutive proclamation establishes the Council of Commissioners as the
highest policy and decision-making body within the Commission. The Council is
composed of: the Chief Commissioner functioning as the Executive Head of the
Commission; the Deputy Chief Commissioner; the Commissioner for Vulnerable Groups;
and, the Regional Commissioners. The Commission has also established departments
responsible for education, training and research, information and documentation,
compliant investigation, and vulnerable groups.

The Core Programs of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission
– Human Rights Education- the core of this activity revolves around creating public
awareness on human rights or on specific rights through face-to face contacts or via the
media, publications; supporting awareness raising education and promotion by being a
depository for human rights materials as well as through training key professionals
– Human Rights Protection (complaint Investigation) – includes activities dealing
with inherited backlogs, filed complaints, sensitive or priority cases, systemic or group
issues; ensuring the application of remedies, attempting amicable resolution of cases as
well as ensuring the implementation of settlements.
– Human Rights Monitoring – under this category the Commission monitors places of
detention; ensures the implementation of recommendations; monitors the general human
rights situation of the country; as well as undertakes event monitoring.
– Advising Government- this program involves the Commission’s provision of advice on
existing legislation, policy and practices; provision of advice on proposed legislation,
policy and practices as well as provision of advice on Treaty Bodies Reportingto the
Government.

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 19 of 36


– Human Rights Research– under this Program, the EHRC seeks to conduct in-house or
contracted research into human rights issues; carry out in-house or contracted research to
support the development of guidelines, policies, procedures, etc; carry out in-house or
contracted research to support program delivery; encourages academic research into
human rights issues and develop a program of action research.
– Democratic Institutions Programme (DIP): under the DIP, major donors and UN
agencies working in Ethiopia have agreed to collectively support the strengthening of the
capacity of the main democratic institutions in the Country including the Ethiopian Human
Rights Commission (EHRC). The current program aims at strengthening the capacity of the
EHRC to be in full compliance with international standards for national human rights
institutions (such as the Paris Principles). The Program is being implemented through a
UNDP National Execution Modality with the EHRC as the national implementing partner
and in close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR).

Since its establishment, the Commission has carried out a diverse set of activities planned
to accomplish the core mission, values and objectives of the Commission in partnership
with a variety of national and international entities working with issues of human rights.
Accordingly, it has managed to produce a number of reports on human rights situation of
the country as well as conducted various human rights trainings and monitoring activities

3 The National Human Rights Monitoring Report
The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission has initiated a process to prepare the first
national human rights report for Ethiopia. To date, the Commission has conducted the
following preparatory activities towards this undertaking:

– Strategic Planning: including the preparation of a national human rights
monitoring report among planned human rights promotion strategies/activities;

– Action Planning: scheduling the preparation of a national human rights report in
the Work Plan for 2009;

– Securing Funding: under the UNDP/DIP initiative;

– Setting up Office: office space has been acquired, furnished and equipment
purchased;

– Support to State Reporting: The Commission has provided technical support to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the preparation of more than 17 overdue reports
to treaty monitoring bodies;

– Prison Monitoring Report: Preparation of a monitoring report on the correctional
system in Ethiopia:

– Engaging Staff: As part of its organizational capacity building initiative, the
Commission has engaged a coordinator, three project officers (for research,
vulnerable groups, and investigation), and 3 research assistants (with experience in

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 20 of 36


supporting State reporting by the MoFA) for the preparation of the national
monitoring report; and,

– Organizing a Stakeholders’ Consultation Forum: forum organized to popularize
the process and seek input on the scope and methodology to be adopted for the
national human rights report.

These and other activities of the EHRC have cumulatively established conducive internal
and external conditions for the design and implementation of the national human rights
monitoring report preparation process. Currently, the requisite organizational and
external conditions have been put in place with a few remaining challenges relating to
internal factors. These challenges mainly relate to staff recruitment and office setup which
are being addressed presently.

3.1 Basis and Nature of the Report
The mandate of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission to prepare periodic national
human rights reports is based on the provisions of the FDRE Constitution, the EHRC
establishment Proclamation,38 and the EHRC Strategic Plan.

The EHRC establishment Proclamation sets the objectives of the Commission in broad
terms making it responsible for ensuring the protection, respect for, and enforcement of
human rights in Ethiopia (Articles 5 and 6/1).39 More specifically, the Commission has the
duty to:

− ensure that the human rights and freedoms provided for under the Constitution of
the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia are respected by all citizens, organs
of state, political organizations and other associations as well as by their respective
officials;

− ensure that laws, regulations and directives as well as government decisions and
orders do not contravene the human rights of citizens guaranteed by the
Constitution;

− make recommendations for the revision of existing laws, enactment of new laws
and formulation of policies.

These mandates inherently require the regular monitoring of the human rights situation in
the country. In addition, the reporting mandates of the Commission are reiterated in the
provisions determining the powers and duties of the Chief Commissioner (Article 19) and
guiding reporting by the Commission (Article 39). The first provision mandates the Chief
Commissioner to: “undertake study of recurrent cases of human right violations and
forward together with remedial proposals to the House” and “submit a report, to the
38
Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Establishment Proclamation No. 210/2000,
Federal Negarit Gazeta - No. 40 4thJuly, 2000
39
As per Article 2/5 of the Proclamation, "Human Right" includes fundamental rights
and freedoms recognized under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia and those enshrined in the international agreement ratified by the country
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 21 of 36


House, on matters of human rights and on the activities of the Commission”.40 The
second provision further gives the Commission specific mandate to issue regular official
reports.41

The role and mandate of NHRIs, including the EHRC, are also recognized under various
international guidelines on the role of NHRIs such as the CESCR General comment 10,42
CRC General Comment No. 2,43 UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134,44 and CRC
Reporting Guidelines.45

3.1.1 Guiding Principles and Values
In line with standards drawn from the Ethiopian and international human rights
framework as well as good practices among NHRIs, the preparation of the report would
be guided by the following values and principles:

– Commitment to human rights: The leadership and staff of the EHRC are
committed to human rights principles and values recognized under the Ethiopian
and international human rights frameworks in substance, methods, and
organization. Such commitment shall in particular be owed to the Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and the FDRE Constitution as an expression
of their will.

– Independence: With due regard for the status of the State as the primary legal
duty bearer and non-state actors as moral duty bearers, the EHRC will maintain its
organizational independence and seek to establish partnerships across sectors and
levels for the design and implementation of the report. The EHRC’s relationships
and dealings with human rights actors, stakeholders and rights-holders will be
guided by equality, fairness mutual respect, non-discrimination and good-faith.
The leadership and staff of the EHRC shall in particular uphold the public trust and
demonstrate integrity in all their dealings with the public.

– Impartiality and neutrality: The leadership and staff of the EHRC shall be, and
shall be perceived to be, neutral and without personal or institutional bias in their

40
Article 19/1 (d) and Article 19/1 (g)
41
Articles 39/1 and 39/2
42
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The role of national human
rights institutions in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/1998/25,
CESCR General comment 10, Nineteenth session, Geneva, 16 November-4 December 1998
43
Committee on the Rights of the Child, The role of independent national human
rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, General
Comment No. 2 (2002), Thirty-second session, 13-31 January 2003
44
Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and
protection of human rights (The “Paris Principles”), General Assembly resolution 48/134 of
20 December 1993, annex
45
General guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be
submitted by States parties under article 44, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention
(CRC/C/58), para. 18
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 22 of 36


duties. However, such neutrality shall not extend to the values of the EHRC and
the public interest.

– Integrity: The leadership and staff of the EHRC will perform their official duties so
as to conserve and enhance the integrity and objectivity of, as well as public
confidence in, the Commission. In implementing this principle, they shall in
particular avoid any form of discrimination or harassment that are contrary to
law, either within or external to the Commission, ensure that their personal biases
do not compromise the Commission's role in promoting human rights, ensure that
there is no misuse of power or knowledge acquired through their position at the
Commission, including no gain, profit, self-dealing, improper use of inside
information, advancement or benefit accruing to them or members of their
immediate family.

– Transparency and public information: The Commission’s services, procedures and
communications with the public will be clear, honest, respectful, transparent, fair,
reasonable and consistent. The public has the right to receive accurate reports on
the Commission’s processes, procedures and policies in a format that is
understandable and accessible. As such, staff of the EHRC shall in particular ensure
that information is accessible, user friendly, complete, understandable and
truthful.

– Information Security: Staff of the Commission shall ensure the security of printed
and electronic information in their possession; disclosure of information through
mass media shall be guided by the Commission’s policy guidelines and guidance
provided by the Commissioners. In particular, Staff shall not knowingly take
advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their
official duties and responsibilities, and which is not generally available to the
public.

With a view to providing staff with clear guidelines on the implementation of these
principles, the Commission will introduce a Code of Ethics that will include standards of
professional conduct as well as procedures, manuals, and performance standards.

3.1.2 Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the National Human Rights Monitoring Report is to design and
implement a comprehensive, periodic and regular national human rights monitoring
system in Ethiopia. Within this general purpose, the specific objectives of the Report are:

– Designing a coherent, comprehensive and rights based conceptual and
methodological framework for national human rights monitoring relevant to the
Ethiopian human rights framework;

– Establishing comprehensive and systematically organized baseline information on
the status of human rights and situation of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia; and,

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 23 of 36


– Enabling a periodic monitoring of changes in the status of human rights and
situation of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia.

To achieve these objectives the report is designed as the first phase of a continuous
process involving the preparation of annual human rights reports.

3.2 Scope and Coverage
The scope and coverage of national human rights monitoring processes can be broad or
narrow, with variations in terms of the rights covered, target groups, and geographical
coverage.46 In terms of thematic scope, monitoring can be comprehensive or specialized.
Comprehensive monitoring reports cover the whole spectrum of human rights or at least
a broad thematic area constituting a wide ranging list of rights or issues. A typical example
is a report on the performance of the government in regard of civil and political rights.
Specialized human rights reports, on the other hand, are more focused reports in one or a
few issues, incidents or rights. For instance, a report may only cover specific human rights
issues such as the disappearances in a country. Human rights monitoring reports are also
diverse in the size and profile of target groups covered. In this respect, a monitoring
process can cover the whole population or be focused on specific sectors like children,
ethnic minorities, workers, prisoners, etc. Finally while the usual coverage of monitoring
conducted by national human rights institutions is country-wide, there are a number of
such reports that focus on smaller areas, e.g., a locality or region in a country.

As an initial baseline assessment the report has to be comprehensive, i.e., thematically
covering all rights, geographically national, covering the activities of all human rights
actors, and involving key actors and stakeholders in the process – State and non-state
actors as well as rights holders. It should provide a general view of the overall human
rights situation in Ethiopia and come up with actionable recommendations as well as
issues for further attention by the major audience, i.e., the State, other human rights
actors and the general public. The National Human Rights Report is thus expected to
identify critical human rights issues including the status of rights, situation of vulnerable
groups, and roles of key human rights actors.

Proposed Thematic Outline for the National Human Rights Report
Introduction
Background
– Overview of the National Human Rights System
– The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission
– The National Human Rights Report
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
– Personal Freedoms and Individual Liberties
– Equality before the Law, Access to Justice and Fair Trial
– Democratic/Participation Rights
– Economic Rights, Social Rights and Access to Social Services
– Rights of Vulnerable Groups
– Rights of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (Collective Rights)

46
Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and
Documentation Series, Volume 1: What is Monitoring, HURIDOCS, 2003
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 24 of 36


Investigations by the Commission
– Complaints Before the Commission
– Investigations Initiated by the Commission
Summary and Analysis of Findings
– Application of Human Rights Principles
– Achievements, and Opportunities
– Gaps, and Challenges
Conclusions and Recommendations
– Conclusions
– Recommendations
References
Annexes
On the other hand, time and other resources put limits on the scope and coverage of the
report indicating that it could not be both extensive and in-depth. To balance these two
considerations, the development of the report will adopt strategies such as utilizing
available secondary sources including reports issued by the State and non-state human
rights actors, promote the involvement of human rights organizations as well as academic
institutions, and focus on identifying issues for further and in-depth consideration under
the research, monitoring and other programs of the EHRC.

Finally, the design and implementation of the national monitoring system should be
based on a realistic recognition of monitoring as an ongoing process. It should especially
be noted that the current baseline report anticipates the development of more
thematically focused, and geographically limited reports targeting the situation of specific
groups in subsequent months.

3.3 The Research Process
In preparing this proposal the HRC Reporting Team (hereafter the Team) has reviewed
relevant literature and attempted to address challenges identified through ongoing
discussions within and outside the team. The points raised during the initial workshop
with stakeholders have also provided the team with important ideas such as the need to
have a very clear and shared understanding of the task. In as much as possible, the Team
has tried not to make the process comprehensive, relevant and realistic.

The proposed process involves four consecutive stages with each stage producing outputs
for the next or cascades. These are:

– Clarifying the process and building consensus

– Identifying and benchmarking indicators

– Setting the baseline situation (human rights situation analysis)

– Monitoring progress periodically

The fist and second stages are preparatory in the sense that the focus is on the ‘design’ of
the research framework. The actual implementation occurs at the third stage involving

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 25 of 36


data collection, compilation, analysis and report preparation. Only the first three stages
are relevant to the first national report.

Table 2: Summary of the Proposed Research Process
Purpose Specific Objectives Result
Stage One: Clarifying the – Establish a clear basis for A background paper
Clarifying the profile of the the planned research in outlining the basis, nature
Process and undertaking and the national and and methodological
Building developing uniform international human framework of the planned
Consensus understanding rights framework; national human rights
among all involved – Design or review the monitoring process
(staff, key actors, objectives and results
stakeholders) (outputs, outcomes and
impacts) expected upon
and subsequent to the
completion of the
research;
– Determine or review the
scope and coverage of
the national human rights
report thematically,
geographically, and in
terms of stakeholder
involvement in the
process;
– Determine or review the
methodological
approaches to be used for
the development of the
report.
Stage Two: Design measurable – Describe an ideal state A set of measurable
Benchmarking indicators to where all human rights indicators of status and
determine the have been realized for all progress towards the
current status of or where all persons realization of human
human rights in enjoy dignified human rights in Ethiopia
Ethiopia and set existence;
benchmarks to – Identify the core
measure progress in components (structural,
the future process and results)
constituting the vision;
– Identify the most
proximate measurable
indicators of quality and
quantity for each core
component;
– Select or prioritize
indicators most relevant
to the context of the
planned national
monitoring process taking
into account issues such as

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 26 of 36


the availability and
accessibility of
information, capacity,
and time-frame; and,
– Identify sources, types
and quality of
information needed to
measure the selected or
prioritized indicators.
Stage Three: Establishing the – Measuring the Baseline data on the status
Setting the initial or current quantitative and of rights as well as focal
Baseline situation of human qualitative aspects of issues, recommendations
rights and creating a prioritized or selected and intermediate targets
frame of reference indicators of structural for future action by
for future conditions, processes, and human rights actors as
monitoring of outcomes; well as the interventions
progress – Identifying areas of of the EHRC
relative progress and gaps
in the realization of
human rights in terms of
intensity and expanse of
effects on rights holders
and vulnerable groups;
– Tracing the immediate,
intermediate, structural
and root causes for the
non-realization and/or
better progress towards
realization of identified
rights;
– Identify measures needed
to address the structural
and root causes and bring
about positive progress
towards the realization of
all human rights for all
persons;
– Identify actors legally and
morally responsible or
better placed to take
identified measures.
Stage Four: Measuring progress – Measuring the same A national human rights
Monitoring towards realizing indicators covered in the monitoring report
Progress human rights since baseline within the same indicating:
the baseline or the or comparable context; – The current status and
last monitoring – Calculating the quantity quantified changes in
report and direction of change the state of human
for each indicator vis-à-vis rights in Ethiopia;
the baseline and ideal – Second baseline
state of realization or reference points for
dignified human further monitoring and
existence; periodic progress (rate)
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 27 of 36


– Identifying areas and monitoring;
levels of achievement – Information to enhance
above and below progress in subsequent
planned/anticipated levels periods; and,
of performance vis-à-vis – Actionable
the recommendations of recommendations.
the last human rights
report and time bound
plans;
– Tracing the immediate,
intermediate, structural
and root causes for the
non-realization and/or
better progress towards
realization of identified
rights;
– Identify measures needed
to address the structural
and root causes and bring
about positive progress
towards the realization of
all human rights for all
persons;
– Identify actors legally and
morally responsible or
better placed to take
identified measures.

3.4 Indicators and Benchmarks
As the first national human rights report, the current need is for a baseline human rights
situation report that would establish the current situation and provide a reference point
to monitor changes. Thus, indicators and benchmarks have to be established for each of
the rights recognized in the national (and international) human rights framework. The
first task to this end should be a review of existing indicator frameworks to assess
propriety for the purpose at hand, i.e., we do not have to invent the wheel in human
rights monitoring. Obviously, the frameworks found to be generally or partly relevant
have to be adapted to the specific national context as well as the profile of the EHRC and
the planned report.

The existing best practice in relation to regular human rights monitoring suggests a system
of structural, process and output/result indicators measuring quantitative and qualitative
aspects of a basic feature/core element of each right. Within such a framework, the
general principles of human rights are integrated both as core elements of normative
rights and as cross-cutting issues. To be practically relevant, the selected indicators should
be informed by the availability and accessibility of relevant, disaggregated, and periodic
information at the appropriate level as well as the link to the normative contents of the
rights.

EHRC Reporting Team
Page 28 of 36


Table 3: Status of Indicator Identification (along Articles of the FDRE Constitution)
Rights for which Indicators Rights for which appropriate
have been identified indicators are yet to be
identified
Personal Freedoms and − Right to Life (Articles 14 and − Right to Honor and Reputation
Individual Liberties 15) (Article 24)
− Security of the − Non-Retroactivity of Criminal
Person/Protection from Law (Article 22)
Bodily Harm (Articles 14 and − Prohibition of Double
16) Jeopardy (Article 23)
− Freedom of Movement
(Articles 14 and 32)
− Protection from Inhumane
Treatment (Article 18)
− Right to Privacy (Article 26)
− Freedom of Religion, Belief
and Opinion (Article 27)
Access to Justice and − Protection from Arbitrary −
Procedural Due Process Deprivation of Liberty (Article
17)
− Rights of Persons Arrested
(Article 19)
− Rights of Persons Accused
(Article 20)
− Rights of Persons in Custodial
Institutions (Article 21)
− Equality Before the Law
(Article 25)
− Access to Justice (Article 37)
− Juvenile Justice
Democratic/ Participation − Rights of Nationality (Article −
Rights 33)
− Freedom of Thought,
Opinion and Expression
(Article 29)
− Access to Information (Article
29)
− Freedom of Assembly,
Demonstration and Petition
(Article 30)
− Freedom of Association
(Article 31)
− Right to Participate in
Government and take Part in
Public Affairs (Article 38)
Economic Rights, Social − Right to Work and Gainful − Right to Private Property
Rights and Access to Employment (Articles 41/6 (Articles 40/1-3, 40/6-8 and
Social Services and 41/7) 44/2)
− Right to Improving Living − Economic Freedom (Articles
Standards, and Consultation 41/1 and 41/2)
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 29 of 36


(Article 89) − Marital, Personal and Family
− Right to Health, Education, Rights (Article 34)
and Other Social Services
(Articles 41/4 and 90)47
Rights of Vulnerable − Women’s Rights (Article 35) − Rights of Farmers and
Groups − People Living with HIV/AIDS Pastoralists
− Children’s Rights (Articles 36
and 41/5)
− Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Article 41/5)
− Rights of Elderly Persons
(Article 41/5)
− Rights of Farmers and
Pastoralists48
− Children’s Rights (Articles 36
and 41/5)
− Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Article 41/5)
− Rights of Elderly Persons
(Article 41/5)
Rights of Nations, − − Right to Cultural, Linguistic and
Nationalities, and Ethnic Identity (Article 39/2
Peoples (Collective and 39/5)
Rights) − Right to Self-Determination
(Articles 39/1, 39/3-5, and 88)
− State Responsibility to Protect
and Promote Cultural Legacies
(Article 41/9 and 91)
− Right to Development (Article
43)
− Environmental Rights (Articles
44 and 92)

The HRC Team has so far identified relevant structural, process and result indicators for
the bulk of rights recognized under the national and international human rights systems.
The identification of indicators for the remaining set of rights is expected to be completed
by the end of the current week.

3.5 Sources of Information
Existing frameworks of quantitative human rights indicators may be grouped into four
broad categories based on the sources of information used. These are:

47
Right to social security (UDHR, Art. 22); Right to enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health (UDHR, Art. 25); Right to Education
(UDHR article 26); Right to adequate housing (UDHR, Art. 25); and, Right to Food
(UDHR article 25)
48
Access to Land (Articles 40/4, 40/5 and 44/2); and, Right to Receive Fair Price for
Their Products
EHRC Reporting Team
Page 30 of 36

Background document nhrm report

Background document nhrm report

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Background document nhrm report

Similaire à Background document nhrm report (20)

Plus de Ghetnet Metiku

Plus de Ghetnet Metiku (20)

Background document nhrm report