34/33 Summary of the workshop on ensuring effective and inclusive mechanisms and methodologies to mainstream human rights in the formulation and implementation of public policies - Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

GE.16-22133(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-fourth session

27 February-24 March 2017

Agenda items 2 and 10

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of

the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Technical assistance and capacity-building

Summary of the workshop on ensuring effective and inclusive mechanisms and methodologies to mainstream human rights in the formulation and implementation of public policies

Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/24,

in which the Council decided to organize an expert workshop to discuss effective, inclusive

and participatory mechanisms and methodologies to mainstream human rights in the

formulation and implementation of public policies, and to invite the participation of States,

relevant United Nations bodies, funds and programmes, intergovernmental organizations,

treaty bodies, special procedures, regional human rights mechanisms, civil society

organizations, academia, national human rights institutions and other stakeholders.

I. Introduction

1. In its resolution 30/24, the Human Rights Council affirmed that the inclusive

participation of all sectors of society in debating and developing policies and programmes

affecting all the population was critical for the success of such processes. It also recognized

that public policies planned and formulated through participatory and accessible approaches

were key factors in promoting respect for and safeguarding the realization of human rights.

In its resolution, the Council requested the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to organize an expert workshop to discuss

effective, inclusive and participatory mechanisms and methodologies to mainstream human

rights in the formulation and implementation of public policies, with the participation

States, relevant United Nations bodies, funds and programmes, intergovernmental

organizations, academia, national human rights institutions and other stakeholders. The

Council also requested OHCHR to prepare a summary report on the discussions at the

workshop and to present it to the Council at its thirty-third session. The present report was

prepared pursuant to that request.

2. OHCHR, in consultation with all relevant partners, designed the methodology for

the workshop, ensuring coverage of practical ways of mainstreaming human rights in all

phases of the design, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national

policies. Participation in the workshop was open to all Member States. Panellists and

discussants were chosen on the basis of their expertise and practical experience in the

development of national policies, with due regard for gender and geographic distribution.

The workshop, held on 5 September 2016, had the aim of exploring further opportunities

and of sharing good practices when setting up effective mechanisms for inclusive and

participatory public policymaking, with a view to integrating a human rights perspective.

The discussions also explored the central role of civil society and rights-holders in such

processes.

3. The following panellists and discussants contributed to the workshop: Management

Board member of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Filippo di Robilant;

member of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of

Human Rights, Lin Lim; Professor at the University of Oran, Algeria, Mohamed Boulaa;

Partnerships Adviser at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Office in

Geneva, Sara Sekkenes; Manager of Policy Studies at the Geneva Academy of International

Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Felix Kirchmeier; Associate Professor at the Faculty

of Law at “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Romania, Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu;

Councillor at the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva,

Luis Espinosa-Salas; Professor at the Catholic University of Peru, José Antonio Burneo

Labrin; and the Chairperson of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Judith Robertson.

The workshop was moderated by the Chief of the Africa Branch of the Field Operations

and Technical Cooperation Division, OHCHR, Mahamane Cissé-Gouro; the Chief of the

Development and Economic Issues Branch, OHCHR, Craig Mokhiber; the Legal Attaché of

the Permanent Mission of Namibia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Gladice

Pickering; and the Chief of the Universal Periodic Review Branch, OHCHR, Shahrzad

Tadjbakhsh.

4. During the dialogue, representatives of Algeria, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Italy and

Portugal took the floor. A representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

also participated in the discussion. Representatives of the non-governmental organizations

Autistic Minority International, the International Disability Alliance and the International

Movement ATD Fourth World also took the floor.

II. Opening session

5. The Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Ecuador, Maria Fernanda

Espinosa, introduced the panellists, and pointed out that the objective of the workshop was

to explore the ways in which public policies could be made more inclusive and thereby

more effective in making human rights a reality for people. This was also a matter of

making the work of the Human Rights Council useful at the country level, with tangible

impact for rights-holders. She noted that this was not the responsibility solely of

Governments but of societies as a whole. She added that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development offered important opportunities in this regard. Ambassador Espinosa

welcomed the workshop as an important forum for dialogue and exchange on good

experiences and practises.

6. In her introductory remarks, the Deputy United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights, Kate Gilmore, stressed that the task of mainstreaming human rights in

public policymaking carried a considerable weight of responsibility. To this end, there was

a need to find the surest route or pathway to alleviate preventable human suffering. She

referred to the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its opening

promise that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The challenge

was to make this a reality for everyone, everywhere. Major impediments confronting rights-

holders every day were no accidents of fate, nor were they always the results of the absence

of public resources. Some key barriers were the products of discrimination in public

policies and social policies that left some behind. These obstacles to development were of

our own making; it was therefore also within our power to dismantle them. Different

choices could be made. Some policies governing, for instance, land management, work

conditions and industrial relations actively drove inequality. Policy choices were

compounded in racial discrimination; for example, persons of African descent had a

persistent disadvantage in finding work and in their access to public services. Minorities

were overrepresented in prisons, but often underrepresented in decision-making. She added

that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was clear and explicit on this point. The

promise to “leave no one behind” was a commitment that no bigotry would set the tone for

public policies. Governance must be rooted in dignity and justice, so that no one is left out

or left behind. The Deputy High Commissioner recalled that it was the Member States

themselves that had established international laws prohibiting discrimination. The surest

and speediest pathway to empower people was by ensuring that they themselves were

agents of change who could participate in planning and decision-making.

7. The Deputy High Commissioner made reference to a recent report of the Special

Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, in which he had described how

economic, social and cultural rights still, in many instances, remained invisible in the law

and institutions of many Member States (A/HRC/32/31, para. 2). Recognizing these rights

in law and in practice was essential to guard against entrenched elites who protect

themselves by marginalizing economic and social rights. The good news was that equitable

public policies were not only possible, but also fiscally wise, technically intelligent and

security friendly. By way of illustration, the Deputy High Commissioner recalled the case

of many States in Latin America, where social and economic inequalities were gradually

being overcome through strategic social spending. For such policies to be effective,

disaggregated data had to be collected and analysed. The workshop was therefore a

valuable opportunity to benefit from the ideas of participants.

8. Introducing the agenda of the day, the Officer-in-Charge of the Field Operations and

Technical Cooperation Division of OHCHR, Gianni Magazzeni, explained that the

workshop had been organized around four consecutive dialogues on specific aspects and

phases of the policymaking process. The first dialogue focused on the preparatory phase

and diagnosis of the development of national policies, while the second would explore the

design of policies, with special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups. The third

dialogue would look into the implementation of mechanisms for mainstreaming human

rights through the national police. The fourth dialogue would focus on mechanisms and

tools for monitoring the implementation of national policies and follow-up. The workshop

would be concluded with an analysis of results and reflections on the ways forward by the

panellists and discussants.

III. Dialogue I: preparatory phase and diagnosis for the

development of national policies

9. The Chief of the Africa Branch of the Field Operations and Technical Cooperation

Division of OHCHR, Mahamane Cissé-Gouro, opened the dialogue by emphasizing the

importance of the initial preparatory stage for effective and sustainable policymaking, given

that only sound analysis based on accurate data would allow serious social and economic

challenges to be tackled. In a wider sense, this also involved understanding the actors and

their motivations and interests.

10. The Management Board member of the European Union Agency for Fundamental

Rights, Filippo di Robilant, underlined the importance of promoting an understanding of

human rights as a horizontal and cross-cutting issue, recalling that the realization of

economic, social and cultural rights generated inclusion and social justice. Human rights

should not be regarded as a minority issue or an optional extra, but something to be enjoyed

by everybody. In order to act proactively rather than reactively, human rights should be

mainstreamed throughout national policy discussions and be reflected across all levels of

governance, while involving non-governmental stakeholders in a systemic approach.

11. Mr. di Robilant called for multi-level cooperation between the United Nations and

regional and national bodies in the implementation of rights. Given the complexity of the

challenges that the world faced and the diversity of States, both State and non-State human

rights actors had to work together and develop joint efforts within their respective

capacities. The exchange of best practices could help to pool knowledge and expertise from

different States. More opportunities for good practice sharing and peer-to-peer support

between States should be developed. Common indicators could be used to assess national

human rights strategies; for example, they could reveal whether existing funds were being

used to improve the level of protection of human rights or were being left idle or, worse,

disappearing into pockets. Although simple yet essential accountability tools were urgently

needed, they were resisted in many States.

12. Promising initiatives in this regard included the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental

Rights organized by the European Commission, and the Fundamental Rights Forum which

the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights had convened in Vienna for the first

time, in June 2016. These had been opportunities to foster multi-level cooperation and data-

sharing, to advance the debate and to create strong and focused human rights policies that

would help to safeguard shared values. Fostering inclusive societies through human rights

and citizen education was essential to achieve positive change. This had to start at primary

school and continue to the highest levels of education. International organizations had a

central role to play in disseminating human rights principles, enhancing critical thinking

and media literacy, and increasing intercultural understanding through education. Mr. di

Robilant referred to the European Erasmus programme as a good example of such work.

13. Recalling the principle of “nothing about us, without us”, and in particular its

practical application in the development of key international human rights instruments,

such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Mr. di Robilant

underlined the importance of engaging and consulting with rights-holders, especially

vulnerable groups. Furthermore, recalling that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure”,

he underlined the importance of pursuing the development of indicators at the national

level. Solid and credible statistics were fundamental for taking any sound political decision:

they allowed questions to be raised and answers to be found. Mr. di Robilant made a call

for more concrete proposals of a technical nature, suggesting, for instance, the creation of

an international human rights information system, a kind of hub bringing together high-

quality data and indicators from the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other relevant European Union

institutions, including Eurostat, the Schengen evaluation system, the European Ombudsman

and other regional bodies. Such a system would strengthen civil society engagement, help

to raise public awareness of international standards and monitoring mechanisms, and also

help practitioners to make informed decisions and assessments.

14. Mr. di Robilant further underlined the need to pay attention to the practical

implementation of legal and political human rights commitments. He explained that putting

human rights at the centre of the stage was also an operational question, and that many

lawmakers, judges, lawyers and officials nonetheless remained unaware of the obligations

arising from international treaties and conventions and the momentum they created in order

to expand human rights for all. This was problematic, especially when justice is delivered

by actors at different levels of governance. For that, simple and practical tools were needed

to ensure that fundamental rights standards are upheld, aiming them at legal practitioners in

particular. Universities and professional accreditation bodies, for example, could offer

human rights training as a compulsory module for obtaining a professional qualification.

15. At the executive and legislative levels, Mr. di Robilant proposed the introduction in

all States that were parties to international conventions an ex ante compliance check vis-à-

vis their international human rights obligations, to be carried out by a specifically appointed

administrative branch, which would review all draft laws or decrees before their adoption

by the relevant authority and their subsequent implementation. This would resemble the

environmental impact assessments many States already carry out before adopting and

implementing key policies and laws.

16. Mr. di Robilant underlined the need to create a “smart mix” by increasing systemic

cooperation among key actors, including national human rights institutions, equality bodies,

national courts, ombuds institutions and civil society organizations. Non-governmental

organizations should be heard in the context of assessment and evaluation of impact, or

when the implementation of existing legislation is reviewed. To that end, it would be

beneficial to set up at the national level a body with convening powers allowing key civil

society actors to meet, exchange experiences and best practices, as well as to formulate

proposals for the improvement and implementation of policies. As an example, Mr. di

Robilant referred to the experience of the Agency for Fundamental Rights with its

Fundamental Rights Platform. The establishment of similar platforms at national level

should be considered where comparable tools did not yet exist, thus fostering national

human rights communities. Mr. di Robilant recalled that the shaping of policies on

fundamental rights through the participation of various segments of society was a key

concern of the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and

protection of human rights (the Paris Principles).

17. As a final point, Mr. di Robilant emphasized that global challenges such as

migration, poverty, cultural diversity, climate change and governance could not be tackled

without the direct involvement of cities. Urbanization had always been a fundamental

vector of change in shaping social development, including social equality. The voice of

cities was, however, rarely heard in debates on global issues. A way to allow local

administrations to play a more active role in the decision-making process therefore had to

be found.

18. The discussant Lin Lim, member of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for

Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, fully agreed with the assertion made

by Mr. di Robilant that human rights cut across all policy agendas of development, peace,

security and social justice. These linkages were more important than ever in the light of the

commitment that States had made to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, which was grounded in international human rights law and standards. Ms.

Lim pointed out that human rights instruments provided useful guidance for strengthening

the focus and quality of the Sustainable Development Goals, and for the measurements

used to assess progress in achieving those goals. She emphasized that mainstreaming

human rights had to be based, first and foremost, on a participatory and inclusive diagnosis

of the situation of human rights and the challenges faced in a particular State.

19. Ms. Lim stated that, in the various States visited by the Board of Trustees of the

United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights,

the members had confirmed that a human rights-based approach in national policies worked

best when it was evidence-based and built on a thorough human rights analysis. For

instance, in Ukraine, government agencies, the United Nations country team and

development partners had all emphasized how much they rely on the objective and up-to-

date monitoring and thematic reports of OHCHR as the basis for designing their own

programmes. In Mexico, the Voluntary Fund had been supporting the OHCHR country

office and national partners in gathering information and data on the situation of human

rights. In Viet Nam, at the request of the Government, a review of the State’s draft five-year

development plan had identified several areas where the promotion of labour rights and

decent work could be strengthened by adopting a more rights-based approach.

20. Participatory and inclusive processes helped to ensure that policy responses were

demand-driven and reflected national priorities and commitments. This was especially

important to avoid concerns that rights-based policies were being externally imposed upon

a State. This approach also promoted national ownership and leadership, which were

critical in moving a complex and sensitive rights-based agenda forward. It also opened up

scope for communication and cooperation between different stakeholders. Several States

had reported that, under the convening role of the United Nations country team and in

particular with the guidance of an OHCHR-supported human rights adviser, diverse

national actors had been able to work together with the common goal of pushing for rights-

based policies and programmes. In the United Republic Tanzania, for instance, the

universal periodic review had provided an inclusive forum for the discussion of human

rights issues; the multi-stakeholder engagement had resulted in a national report that

genuinely reflected country-wide perspectives on human rights priorities. The main

recommendations were translated into a national plan of action on human rights that

explicitly promoted a human-rights based approach to development and poverty reduction.

21. A participatory and inclusive process of mainstreaming human rights upheld the

right of all stakeholders to participate in decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods. It

also gave people the voice and a platform to express their needs and the capacity to engage

effectively, and to claim their right to share fairly and equitably in the fruits of

development. Broad-based, representative participation required, as a first step, the

identification of all relevant rights-holders and duty-bearers. Discrimination was a major

cause of non-participation, exclusion and marginalization. It was therefore essential to

identify all forms of discrimination and to pay special attention to the most marginalized

and vulnerable groups.

22. The importance of legal literacy could be overemphasized. People were not able to

push for rights-based policies and laws if they did not know what their human rights and

obligations were. Laws were not of much use if rights-holders did not know how to gain

access to them or to use them, or did not know how to seek redress in cases of violation.

Echoing the proposal made by Mr. di Robilant, that there should be rights-based citizenship

education from primary school onwards, Ms. Lim noted that technical cooperation

programmes aimed at economic objectives, such as income generation for the poor,

especially marginalized women, had a wider and more sustained impact when they included

a component of awareness-raising on legal rights and obligations.

23. Ms. Lim observed that it is not just rights-holders who could benefit from education

and training in a rights-based approach to policy formulation and the monitoring of their

implementation. The duty-bearers – lawmakers, judges, police and officials at different

levels of government – were often not fully familiar with their obligations under

international human rights treaties. They were also often unaware that human rights

instruments could provide a coherent and effective framework for national planning and

action. It was also very important for duty-bearers to understand how to apply a human

rights approach to not only policies but also budget determination.

24. After the initial presentations, the floor was opened for Member States and other

participants to intervene.

25. Ecuador considered public policymaking a means to achieve social solidarity and a

core element of a constitutional State. Proper diagnostics ensured that policies were based

on reliable data and targeted to address important human rights concerns. At the same time,

this approach also helped to ensure the sustainability of any action taken. Central to this

was the generation of statistics and the establishment of baselines, and also of quantitative

and qualitative human rights indicators.

26. Italy had established an interministerial committee to oversee the implementation of

the State’s human rights obligations and to ensure that public decision-making was done in

a participatory and inclusive manner. The speaker also emphasized the important role of

parliaments in the design of laws and policies. Italy agreed that training was a key

prerequisite for progress in the realization of human rights, and asked the panellists to

expand on the particular demands and challenges in this area in the digital age.

27. Algeria ensured an inclusive and participatory approach to policymaking at all

levels; State institutions were applying international and regional human rights standards in

a systematic manner. The national human rights commission was closely engaged in

national decision-making. Human rights education was being given at all school levels in

Algeria, while security services received special training thereon. Algeria asked the

panellists to share their views on how States could best meet their international human

rights obligations while also satisfying popular demand.

28. The non-governmental organization International Movement ATD Fourth World

underscored the importance of the principle of “nothing about us, without us”, and referred

to a recently published manual on human rights and extreme poverty. The manual had

already been used in training in Senegal and Haiti.

29. The representative of UNFPA stated that, as part of the United Nations family,

UNFPA was applying a human rights-based approach to all its programming. It was

important to recognize that human rights were not just a set of principles and that their

realization was a goal in and of itself.

30. In response to the questions and comments raised, Mr. di Robilant noted that the key

issue was how to increase institutional accountability for failure to honour human and

fundamental rights obligations by which States and regional entities were bound. He

referred to examples from the European context under the auspices of the Amsterdam and

Nice treaties. The framework emphasized the importance of regular monitoring and the role

of the European Commission to act preventively.

31. Ms. Lim noted that, in the Human Rights Council, human rights concerns were often

discussed, but less attention was drawn to good practices in different countries that could

help to address the challenges identified. In her view, the workshop provided a good

platform for such an exchange.

IV. Second dialogue: designing policies with special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups

32. The Chief of the Development and Economic Issues Branch of OHCHR opened the

second dialogue, noting that the focus would be on identifying groups that needed

particular attention, and on their rights be advanced and their voice brought into

policymaking. He stated that a normative framework was the basis for this endeavour, and

invited the panel to explore how meaning could be given to these legal obligations, so that

no one would be left behind.

33. Mohamed Boulaa, Professor at the University of Oran, Algeria, underlined the role

of the State in protecting vulnerable groups in accordance with their international human

rights obligations. The role required Governments to adjust their policies to guarantee rights

and freedoms and to improve the status of the groups. Algeria had followed this path by

ratifying all major international human rights instruments, including the conventions on the

rights of children, women, migrants and persons with disabilities. While Algeria had

adopted these obligations with some reservations, it had always presented alternatives to

ensure full coverage and application. It had also met its obligations to report to and

implement the recommendations of international human rights mechanisms, including the

treaty bodies, the special procedures and the universal periodic review. Algeria had

integrated its international human rights commitments into national law on the

understanding that international obligations supersede national laws. New laws were

drafted in accordance with international human rights standards, while existing legislation

was amended to meet those requirements. Importantly, international human rights law had

to be applied by judges in a consistent and uniform manner. International human rights law

and international humanitarian law were also taught at Algerian universities. The

constitutional amendment made in 2016 was the latest demonstration of the State’s

commitment to human rights, as it included articles ensuring gender equality in elected

assemblies and the labour market. The Constitution forbade children under the age of 16

years from working. Algeria also had legal guarantees for the rights of persons with

disabilities in their access to the job market.

34. The Chief of the Development and Economic Issues Branch, Craig Mokhiber,

thanked Mr. Boulaa for highlighting the value of basing policies on international

conventions and using international mechanisms for advice and guidance.

35. The discussant Sara Sekkenes, a partnerships adviser with UNDP Geneva, agreed

with Mr. Boulaa’s assessment of the recommendations made by international human rights

mechanisms as valuable guidance for policymaking. She noted that a human rights-based

approach was not only about integrating the contents of human rights standards and

recommendations into programmes and policies; it was a reminder that, in order to

mainstream human rights effectively, a principled approach was required; specifically,

ensuring that efforts adhered to the principles of non-discrimination, participation and

accountability. UNDP had integrated a human rights-based approach into its programmes,

as had been demonstrated by the social and environmental standards approved in 2015.

36. In South Africa, UNDP was leading coordinated United Nations support to establish

a legal and policy framework compliant with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities. The aim was to implement the provisions of the Convention with a view to

reducing the vulnerability of persons with disabilities. Indigenous peoples were another

often disenfranchised and excluded group, given that their livelihoods could depend heavily

on their rights and access to land. UNDP had been working in innovative ways to

strengthen the capacities of indigenous and Afro-descendent peoples in order to develop

effective dialogues where their priorities and proposals for actions could be streamlined

into national policy processes; for example, in Nicaragua, a mechanism formed at the

subnational level – the Consultative Committee of Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples

(CCPIAN) – systematically provided the United Nations country team with advice.

37. Ms. Sekkenes noted that the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda was firmly

grounded on the norms and standards of international human rights law, and geared towards

addressing inequities and inequality. Although many States had taken significant strides to

lift their populations out of poverty, inequality had continued to grow. Evidence suggested

that, despite economic growth, the most marginalized did not have access to the same

opportunities as other social groups. For UNDP, the notion of inclusion in development

was inseparable from the broader concept of human rights. The inclusive participation of all

sectors of society in discussing and developing policies and programmes affecting the

population was critical for the sustainability and success of such processes.

38. UNDP was also working with many national human rights institutions around the

world to ensure they had the capacity to play their important role in national systems for the

promotion and protection of human rights. Ms. Sekkenes observed that national human

rights institutions constituted a unique bridge between the Government, civil society and

marginalized populations, and could bring the issues and rights of excluded groups to the

forefront. In this context, she acknowledged the important work of the Global Alliance of

National Human Rights Institutions in bringing social exclusion and human rights

mainstreaming into the discussion on the implementation of the Sustainable Development

Goals.

39. The discussant Felix Kirchmeier, Manager of Policy Studies at the Geneva Academy

of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, pointed out that vulnerability should

not be understood as a permanent state, but something that could be changed through

positive action. Likewise, disability was largely a social construct. In order to address such

vulnerability, it was essential to look at the origins of these issues rather than just their

symptoms. In this regard, he asked Mr. Boulaa to elaborate on how vulnerable groups were

able to engage in policymaking and how Algeria had addressed the intersectionality of

human rights in these processes. He noted that the Special Rapporteur on the rights of

persons with disabilities had issued a set of recommendations on the right to participation

of disadvantaged groups. Mr. Kirchmeier also noted of the recent establishment by the

Human Rights Council of the mandate of Independent Expert on protection against

violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The inclusion

of religious minorities was also important to keep in mind in inclusive policy making. Mr.

Kirchmeier recalled that the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to

development and the Working Group on the Right to Development had specifically

underscored the importance of the social inclusion of vulnerable groups.

40. Mr. Mokhiber agreed that the legitimacy of policies depended on inclusive and

participatory processes that allowed all relevant rights-holders to be engaged and have a

say. An important question was what was being done to facilitate the authoritative

participation of vulnerable groups. Disability was a social construct, and it was the role of

policymakers to dismantle barriers and obstacles to the full realization of human rights.

41. The representative of Chile stated that, since the State’s transition to democracy,

international human rights treaties enjoyed constitutional status. Integrating international

obligations into national law was an arduous but important challenge that Chile was facing

with determination. The Government had also made progress in improving policymaking

with a view to reaching those whose rights had to be defended. Participation in all stages of

policy development was being improved in collaboration with civil society, including

within the context of the universal periodic review process. Human rights should not be

forgotten in the implementation of the 2013 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The

State invited the panel to elaborate on ways to mainstream human rights and how best to

address the challenges in collecting data and reporting to the international human rights

mechanisms.

42. The non-governmental organization Autistic Minority International deplored the fact

that there was no person with a disability or representing a vulnerable group on the

workshop panel. Inclusive education remained a challenge, and people with disabilities

were still unable to benefit from quality education. This was particularly true for persons

with mental impairments, who were sometimes placed in guardianship and were thus

unable to participate fully in public life and decision-making. Persons with autism faced

specific prejudice and discrimination.

43. The representative of Ecuador stressed that the social inclusion of vulnerable groups

required changes in the economic and social model, based on policies that promoted

equality and took into account gender, age, disability and migration.

44. The representative of the non-governmental organization International Service for

Human Rights underlined the crucial role of human rights defenders in the protection of the

human rights of vulnerable populations.

45. Mr. di Robilant agreed that there was a need to make education more inclusive, also

by looking at alternative forms of education and going beyond set age brackets. For

example, lifelong education was important, as was ensuring that study materials were

accessible for all.

46. Mr. Boulaa stressed that Algeria was making great progress in updating legislation

and applying socially inclusive policies at the national level. He also stressed the important

role of the judiciary in establishing and developing jurisprudence as an added safeguard for

the rights of vulnerable groups. In his view, vulnerable groups should also include persons

receiving harsh sentences, including the death penalty. He pointed out the Algeria had

instituted a moratorium on executions with a view to eventually abolishing capital

punishment altogether.

47. Ms. Sekkenes stressed that participatory processes were a key requirement for the

successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. To that end,

there was a need for political decisions aimed at the redistribution of resources.

48. Mr. Kirchmeier stated that individual groups at times had opposing interests and

agendas, which contributed to the richness of a country. He also noted that the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development included reporting that would require considerable

work in Geneva to bring processes together to ensure coherent data collection and analysis.

V. Third dialogue: implementation of mechanisms for

mainstreaming human rights through national policies

49. The moderator, Gladice Pickering, pointed out that very few States – if any – were

immune to the challenges of implementing laws and policies. The purpose of the current

discussion was to share these experiences and explore how to make existing mechanisms

more effective.

50. Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu, a panellist, stressed that, in implementing policies

and rights, both civil and political rights had to be taken into account, as well as economic,

social and cultural rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reaffirmed the

universality, indivisibility and interdependency of these two categories of rights.

51. One of the challenges that Romania had to face in its transition to democracy was

the protection of minorities. Romania has 20 recognized minorities, including the Roma.

Besides general rights, specific rights were recognized and guaranteed by international

treaties, bilateral agreements and the Constitution.

52. The State’s current Roma strategy for 2015-2020 made reference to important

human rights principles, including the active participation of the Roma population in the

design and implementation of policies concerning them, and the principles of transparency,

non-discrimination human dignity. It was mainly focused on the delivery of education,

health care, housing and social services. In 2001, the National Council for Combating

Discrimination was established as an autonomous and independent body with quasi-judicial

competence. Most of the decisions made by the National Council referred to acts of

discrimination against Roma, including hate speech.

53. Ms. Crăciunean-Tatu stated that, in the case of Romania, the presence of a strong

national human rights institution was crucial for the effective implementation of anti-

discrimination measures. The National Council for Combating Discrimination had

improved the general understanding and awareness of the specific challenges faced by the

Roma minority, and its work had helped to ensure the mainstreaming of human rights in

public policies.

54. The discussant Luis Espinosa-Salas, Councillor at the Permanent Mission of

Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva, posed the question of whether anyone

present had ever been asked about the initiatives of and the discussions held by the Human

Rights Council, and whether these deliberations had any purpose. The question to be

answered was what impact the decisions of the Council had on the daily lives of ordinary

people. At each session, the Council adopted an average of 30 resolutions; around 900

resolutions had therefore been adopted since the Council replaced the Commission on

Human Rights 10 years earlier. This observation had motivated Romania, Algeria, Ecuador

and Italy to question the added value that discussions on human rights by the Council had

for the international community.

55. According to Mr. Espinosa-Salas, many States suffered from a compliance gap: they

commit to a number of human rights undertakings but are overwhelmed when it came to

putting them into practice. All States that fell into the compliance gap; if it were not the

case, the sessions of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review would be totally

different. No State had been exempt from recommendations on the implementation of

human rights. Mr. Espinosa-Salas observed that the situation of the Roma was not unique to

Romania, but was a matter of concern throughout Europe.

56. Mr. Espinosa-Salas agreed with Ms. Crăciunean-Tatu that economic, social and

cultural rights and civil and political rights had to be viewed on an equal footing. They

should not be separated when human rights were being mainstreamed. To that end, a good

diagnosis and accurate indicators were necessary. The voices of affected groups also had to

be heard; for example, when Ecuador was exploring ways to address economic and social

inequalities, it produced, as a first step a human rights atlas, which clearly identified the

areas where improvements were needed in providing goods and services, such as housing,

health, food and education. It also showed the areas where human rights were at risk. Mr.

Espinosa-Salas observed that, while human rights are universal, the distinctive features of

each country receiving technical cooperation ought to be borne in mind. He pointed out that

both political will and technical cooperation were vital elements of successful human rights

implementation, and that civil society had a crucial role to play in putting pressure on

Governments. The need for adequate resources, however, had to be recognized as a key

prerequisite for effective human rights policy implementation.

57. The representative of Algeria explained that the State had been able to verify, by

means of a number of studies and reports issued by United Nations bodies, that there was a

close link between acute poverty and human rights. The representative asked the panellists

to elaborate on experiences on how developed countries had translated their human rights

obligations into a commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of their GDP on development aid.

58. The representative of Italy explained that, in Italy, two parliamentary committees

worked closely with the Government with a specific mandate to monitor human rights, to

collect information, to raise awareness and to enhance dialogue among stakeholders. Italy

was striving to integrate asylum seekers by means of a protection system for asylum

seekers and refugees (referred to as SPRAR), by which the central Government would

transfer more powers to the local authorities to address the needs of asylum seekers and

facilitate their integration. Civil society was deeply involved in the management of the

system.

59. Lin Lim, a member of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical

Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, observed that, while the role of civil society was

much discussed, who was actually being discussed was less clear. She noted that vulnerable

groups were often represented by non-governmental organizations that did not always

actually include representatives of the groups. It was important to be clear on how these

groups were able to participate in decision-making in a genuine and meaningful way.

60. Mr. Boulaa asked whether Ms. Crăciunean-Tatu could provide some illustrations of

policies implemented in Romania for Roma people in the country and at the European

Union level, noting that Romania had obligations at both the national and European levels.

61. Ms. Crăciunean-Tatu recalled that, according to the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, lack of resources could not be used as an excuse for

not implementing those rights, given that resources could come not only from the State

itself but also through international cooperation. With regard to national and European

Union policies, in Romania, the strategy for Roma inclusion took relevant European Union

laws and policies into full account.

VI. Fourth dialogue: mechanisms and tools for monitoring the

implementation of national policies and follow-up

62. Shahrzad Tadjbakhsh, the Chief of the Universal Periodic Review Branch of

OHCHR, stated that the human rights monitoring bodies, including the treaty bodies, the

special procedures and the universal periodic review, were key resources in the design of

and follow-up on national policies. Participatory and accountable policies helped to ensure

better ownership and more sustained impact. Successful human rights mainstreaming

required effective interministerial coordination, good planning, accurate data and precise

indicators.

63. José Antonio Burneo Labrin, Professor at the Catholic University of Peru, gave an

overview of his experiences in national policymaking in Peru and his personal engagement

in the development of the State’s two national plans of action on human rights. The

monitoring of and follow-up on the implementation of human rights obligations should not

be the sole duty of one central institution, but involve a plurality of State actors. Ministries

and other agencies had their specific competencies and responsibilities with regard to

policy, such as health, education, labour, women’s rights, children’s rights, migrants and

vulnerable groups. These bodies developed their own sector-specific work plans to

discharge their mandates. To be effective, policy implementation had to be intersectoral,

taking into account local, regional and national specificities. This work also had to be

informed by the recommendations made by the international human rights mechanisms. Mr.

Burneo pointed out the importance of involving not only the executive branch of the

Government in the implementation of human rights, given the growing interest in human

rights among, for example, the judiciary. This could be an important focus area for

technical assistance.

64. Mr. Burneo stressed that inclusive policymaking depended on human rights being

reaffirmed through national legal and constitutional guarantees that were compliant with the

State’s international obligations. Of equal importance was that the State had a clear political

will and commitment to translate legal obligations into positive change. For this to happen,

effective institutions responsible for coordinating government action were necessary.

Effective policymaking and implementation also depended on full respect for the principle

of non-discrimination and meaningful participation of civil society and representatives of

vulnerable groups in all stages of the process. State institutions responsible for monitoring

and follow-up needed to have at their disposal reliable information and human rights

indicators that show the extent of State compliance with its international obligations. Mr.

Burneo underlined the importance of the OHCHR technical cooperation programme as a

source of guidance and advice in the development of national policies in the field of human

rights. In this regard, OHCHR had an important role to play in systematizing the

recommendations of the treaty bodies, the special procedures and the universal periodic

review so that information was more readily accessible to Governments and other actors.

65. In her intervention, Judith Robertson, Chairperson of the Scottish Human Rights

Commission, emphasized the role of national plans of action on human rights as a means

for embedding rights in the implementation of national policy agendas, as recognized and

set out in Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by consensus at the World

Conference on Human Rights in 1993.

66. Ms. Robertson explained that Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights

(SNAP), launched in 2013, was a road map for collective action across Scotland to make

human rights a reality for everyone. Based on evidence and broad participation, the plan

had been developed by a drafting group whose members came from the public and

voluntary sectors. An advisory council, whose members reflected the diversity of Scottish

civic life, oversaw the process.

67. SNAP was not a traditional plan of action, but rather a transformative programme of

action that included agreed outcomes, priorities and an implementation process for 2013-

2017. It had fostered coordinated action by a wide range of public bodies and voluntary

organizations aimed at achieving the vision of a Scotland where everyone could live with

human dignity, and where social justice, equality and empowerment were the hallmarks of

society.

68. The overall vision of SNAP could not be achieved quickly, although it was what

drove everything that takes place through its implementation. The first iteration of SNAP

was a four-year plan, but the first stage of a longer process. The change that SNAP sought

was a sustainable human rights culture in all areas of life. This cultural change was being

facilitated by public bodies and organizations that took a human rights-based approach to

their work. SNAP drew on international human rights standards and the principles of a

human rights-based approach.

69. The National Performance Framework was a mechanism used by the Government of

Scotland that allowed everyone to judge for themselves how Scotland was performing on

the basis of a wide range of indicators. The indicators provided a broad measure of national

and social well-being, incorporating a range of economic, social and environmental

indicators and targets that were updated as soon as data became available. Ms. Robertson

observed that, to be effective, a monitoring mechanism had to be tailored to the national

experience and reflect how a given nation measured its own progress. Early in the

development of the evidence base for SNAP, the decision was taken to explore the

fulfilment of rights in Scotland thematically; for example, one theme explored the impact of

“where we live”. In practical terms, this section focused on issues relating to the right to

adequate housing, evictions and the discrimination that people faced in their access to a

range of services (such as health care and education). The integration of human rights into

local and national monitoring mechanisms would support the monitoring of future iterations

of SNAP, and thereby help Scotland to fulfil its reporting obligations under all the

international human rights treaties of which it was party and the Sustainable Development

Goals.

70. The Chief of the Universal Periodic Review Branch highlighted the importance of a

lead agency to ensure coherence in policy implementation. A national coordination body

was also essential for effective follow-up to recommendations made by the international

human rights mechanism.

71. Mr. di Robilant shared his experience from the work of the Agency for Fundamental

Rights, where data on specific issues was collected from individual States. The

implementation of human rights remained fragmented within and between countries, and

there was a need for coordinated data collection. He emphasized the importance of

independent institutions as redress mechanisms.

72. The representative of Portugal stated that, in 2010, the State had established the

national human rights committee, a coordinating mechanism chaired by the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, with focal points in all ministries. The mandate of the committee was to

promote an integrated approach to the implementation of the State’s international human

rights obligations. It also coordinated the State’s reports to the Working Group on the

Universal Periodic Review and the implementation of recommendations made by

international human rights mechanisms.

73. The representative of the International Disability Alliance stated that, while policies

were in some places developed in an inclusive manner, this was not always the case when it

came to monitoring their implementation. The speaker asked the panel to share views on

how the inclusion of vulnerable groups in monitoring and follow-up could be strengthened.

74. Ms. Lim stressed that monitoring had to include the monitoring of budgets and of

how resources were allocated. Many developing countries drew up five-year development

plans and national plans of action on human rights. The challenge was to integrate these

two streams so that human rights were mainstreamed into the national development

process.

75. Mr. Boulaa stated that Algeria had good experiences to share from its ratification of

the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which had been successfully reflected in

national policies, including in the context of the Syrian refugee crisis.

76. Ms. Robinson asked for views on how the role of civil society in monitoring could

be strengthened. Effective implementation depended on political will, in addition to

initiatives from civil society. Even though the capacity of civil society to take an active role

in monitoring had increased, there was still a need to raise awareness of international

processes among non-governmental organizations. National human rights institutions

played an important role in building such capacities. She added that, while Scotland had a

strong civil society, there were still gaps and weaknesses in their ability to use indicators

and other performance frameworks. She noted that the practice of monitoring budgets was

still weak in Scotland, although work was under way in that area. There was also some

resistance to bringing human rights into budget assessment, so that also remained a work in

progress.

77. Mr. Burneo observed that, in Peru, every sector of Government had its own plan of

action, but very few of them were human rights-based at this stage. The best idea was not to

replace sector-specific plans of action with a “super plan”, but rather to ensure that human

rights are mainstreamed. He suggested that the treaty bodies could consider developing

joint general comments to overcome what he saw as a fragmented system of reporting and

follow-up.

VII. Closing session: analysis of results, and final reflections on

the way forward

78. During the closing session, panellists and discussants made a number of final

remarks and observations that could serve as useful guidance to States as they strive to

mainstream human rights into national policies process.

79. There was growing awareness and recognition of human rights as the basis for a

peaceful international order. The international community was facing new situations

relating to the protection of vulnerable groups, including migrants, which in themselves

presented both challenges and opportunities. These were urgent issues for which both

immediate and long-term strategies and engagement were needed. The 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development offered entry points for inclusive and participatory

implementation of human rights-based plans and policies. The development and

consolidation of effective accountability mechanisms at the national and international levels

were essential for such progress. Governments, civil society organizations and the United

Nations had to find a common approach to achieve these shared objectives.

80. The implementation of human rights ought to be understood as the beginning and

the end of good governance, and a yardstick against which Governments should measure

their own performance. Leaving no one behind should be a key principle in the design and

implementation of national policies. This required full and meaningful participation by

vulnerable and marginalized groups in the design of policies for equity and social inclusion.

81. The rights of vulnerable groups also had to be integrated into the implementation of

national development plans. The requirement of free and prior informed consent in public

decision-making was particularly important in matters concerning indigenous peoples.

Central to these communities was also the right to self-determination. The rights of

migrants also required urgent attention, especially in the light of developments in Europe in

recent years.

82. The implementation of human rights went beyond legislation. It encompassed the

generation of political will and the systematic mainstreaming of human rights into national

policies through practical and meaningful participation. Therefore, it was also important to

recognize the equal importance of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and

cultural rights, throughout the entire policymaking process. The judiciary also had a crucial

role to play in ensuring respect for human rights and in developing robust jurisprudence.

There was a need for awareness-raising in schools, universities and the media as part of

efforts to strengthen national implementation of human rights.

83. Even though political will was important, implementation was only possible if the

resources required were available. For this reason, a human rights-based approach to

budgets was of critical importance and could not be disassociated from policy formulation

and implementation.

_________________