Inaugural Address By Justice Shri S. Rajendra Babu, Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, India at APF Workshop on Strengthening the Advisory Council of Jurists on 27 February 2008
APF Chair, Mr. John Von Doussa, ACJ Chair, Ms. Andrea Durbach, Director, APF, Mr. Kieren Fitzpatrick, eminent jurists from ACJ and former ACJ Members, representatives of NHRIs, Members of NHRC, India and Ladies and Gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to extend a warm welcome to all delegates to the Workshop on “Strengthening the Advisory Council of Jurists being hosted by our Commission on behalf of the Asia Pacific Forum. The Commission has had the privilege of hosting two annual meetings of APF, besides a number of regional workshops and training programmes in the past 12 years.
In fact, it was at the Second Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on National Institutions organised in New Delhi by the Commission in September 1997 that the idea of ACJ was born. That Workshop stressed the importance of collating, disseminating and developing human rights jurisprudence and requested the APF Secretariat to establish and initiate a mechanism to this end. The Workshop noted the proposal submitted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of Australia for an International Human Rights Law Advisory Panel to the Forum and agreed in principle to set up such a panel. The Workshop established a sub-committee comprising representatives of the National Institutions of India and Australia to consider all relevant aspects of the matter. Thus, the Advisory Council of Jurists was born in this historic city. It is indeed a welcome coincidence that an exercise to review working of ACJ to further strengthen it should take place in the same city.
The Asia Pacific Region has witnessed a significant increase in the establishment of independent National Human Rights Institutions which are in conformity with the Paris Principles. The role and stature of these institutions has grown over the years with NHRIs emerging as `effective local remedy’ for violation of human rights and as `national preventive mechanisms’. NHRIs are the main agency for translating provisions of international Human Rights law into reality at the national level.
The Asia Pacific region has been facing certain common problems including terrorism, trafficking in women and children etc. which underscore the need for greater regional cooperation for protection and promotion of human rights.
Ever since its establishment, the Asia Pacific Forum [APF] has been playing a catalytic role in forging regional cooperation and collaboration for the protection and promotion of human rights. Its Annual meetings bring together a range of stakeholders including representatives from national human rights institutions, governments, non-government organisations and the United Nations to discuss some of the critical human rights questions facing the region and to identify practical responses.
The present review of the working of ACJ is a timely exercise. Introspection is as important to an individual as it to an institution. There is a need to take stock of the situation with a view to identify critical gaps between achievements and failures or in action and thereby come up with strategies to further improve our institutions. That is perhaps the best way to Institution-building, consolidation and deepening of efforts to protect and promote human rights.
The eminent jurists from the Advisory Council of Jurists have been advising the Asia Pacific Forum on the interpretation and application of international human rights law. The establishment of the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) reflects the APF’s recognition of the need for access to independent, authoritative advice on international human rights questions and to develop regional jurisprudence relating to the interpretation and application of international human rights standards. Since its establishment in 1998, the ACJ has developed a substantial body of regional jurisprudence on a wide range of human rights issues, including the death penalty, torture, trafficking, terrorism and the right to education. ACJ reports present a thorough examination of each issue, as well as practical recommendations to assist APF members protect and promote human rights in their own countries and in partnership across the region.
At the 12th Annual APF Meeting held in Sydney on 24-27 September, 2007, the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) presented its interim report on Human Rights and the Environment, which underlined the dramatic human rights challenges facing governments and communities in the region resulting from pollution and climate change. The ACJ found that while many countries have environmental laws and constitutional protections in place, they were not robust enough to address the widespread human rights issues that will result from climate change and widespread environmental degradation. A key recommendation of the report is that NHRIs advocate for the adoption of a specific right to the environment. The 12th Annual Meeting of APF also requested the ACJ to undertake a reference examining the operations of transnational corporations in the Asia Pacific region and the impact on human rights.
The Background Paper for each annual reference sets out the international law, standards and principles that relate to the specific issues raised in the Terms of Reference. The paper also includes information about APF member-state laws. These background papers have been of a very high quality and are an important resource not only to NHRIs and ACJ members but also to NGOs, academics and others. The entire ACJ process evolved over the years, namely, developing an annual reference, background paper, questionnaire, interim observations and recommendations and final report have had some very useful impact. But there is scope for further improvement in the process. There is a need to develop annual references with great care in order that they are useful to all Member institutions of APF. Or else, there is a danger of shelving reports at the end-user level soon after they have been received.
In September 2007, the Forum Council agreed to conduct a review of the role and functions of the ACJ so that it could be structured and supported to best meet the challenging needs of the APF into the next decade. The review will be carried out in two stages. The first stage is gathering responses and feedback from APF Forum Council members through a questionnaire, distributed in November 2007. From the responses received, it is clear that members continue to support a clearly defined and strategic role for the ACJ. The second stage of the review involves workshop, which is being held now, to consider a broad range of issues, including:
• How to strengthen the relationship between the Forum Council and the ACJ
• What are the most effective ways to utilise the expertise of the ACJ, and
• How to improve the development of references and the implementation of recommendations.
The responses sent by NHRIs to ACJ review questionnaire are significant. 71% of members indicated that they “sometimes” utilized ACJ reports in determining strategic priorities and in implementing existing programs. What about the rest 29% who opted for `no’ or `never’ for the above questions? The crux of the issue is national level implementation of recommendations made in the ACJ reports. How do we go about this task is the billion dollar question. A few NGOs who attended 12th Annual meeting of APF expressed concern over the lack of implementation of ACJ recommendations. This brings one to the issue as to how to improve domestic implementation in a way which will not be perceived as intrusive and yet, furthers the protection and promotion of human rights. 100% of members supported a more structured process for the selection of references. It is important to acknowledge concerns of 57% of members who indicated that the provision of country reports did place a burden on NHRI resources. 43% of members indicated that the scope and size of reports had affected their ability to access and utilize reports, thus underlining the need for remedial measures. I am sure the experts gathered here will pick their brains on these and other related issues in the course of deliberations for today and tomorrow.
Again I extend a warm welcome to all delegates and wish them a pleasant stay in Delhi. I hope the deliberations of this Workshop would be able to identify right strategies for strengthening the Advisory Council of Jurists and thereby the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions itself.
Thank you.
****
It gives me great pleasure to extend a warm welcome to all delegates to the Workshop on “Strengthening the Advisory Council of Jurists being hosted by our Commission on behalf of the Asia Pacific Forum. The Commission has had the privilege of hosting two annual meetings of APF, besides a number of regional workshops and training programmes in the past 12 years.
In fact, it was at the Second Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on National Institutions organised in New Delhi by the Commission in September 1997 that the idea of ACJ was born. That Workshop stressed the importance of collating, disseminating and developing human rights jurisprudence and requested the APF Secretariat to establish and initiate a mechanism to this end. The Workshop noted the proposal submitted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of Australia for an International Human Rights Law Advisory Panel to the Forum and agreed in principle to set up such a panel. The Workshop established a sub-committee comprising representatives of the National Institutions of India and Australia to consider all relevant aspects of the matter. Thus, the Advisory Council of Jurists was born in this historic city. It is indeed a welcome coincidence that an exercise to review working of ACJ to further strengthen it should take place in the same city.
The Asia Pacific Region has witnessed a significant increase in the establishment of independent National Human Rights Institutions which are in conformity with the Paris Principles. The role and stature of these institutions has grown over the years with NHRIs emerging as `effective local remedy’ for violation of human rights and as `national preventive mechanisms’. NHRIs are the main agency for translating provisions of international Human Rights law into reality at the national level.
The Asia Pacific region has been facing certain common problems including terrorism, trafficking in women and children etc. which underscore the need for greater regional cooperation for protection and promotion of human rights.
Ever since its establishment, the Asia Pacific Forum [APF] has been playing a catalytic role in forging regional cooperation and collaboration for the protection and promotion of human rights. Its Annual meetings bring together a range of stakeholders including representatives from national human rights institutions, governments, non-government organisations and the United Nations to discuss some of the critical human rights questions facing the region and to identify practical responses.
The present review of the working of ACJ is a timely exercise. Introspection is as important to an individual as it to an institution. There is a need to take stock of the situation with a view to identify critical gaps between achievements and failures or in action and thereby come up with strategies to further improve our institutions. That is perhaps the best way to Institution-building, consolidation and deepening of efforts to protect and promote human rights.
The eminent jurists from the Advisory Council of Jurists have been advising the Asia Pacific Forum on the interpretation and application of international human rights law. The establishment of the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) reflects the APF’s recognition of the need for access to independent, authoritative advice on international human rights questions and to develop regional jurisprudence relating to the interpretation and application of international human rights standards. Since its establishment in 1998, the ACJ has developed a substantial body of regional jurisprudence on a wide range of human rights issues, including the death penalty, torture, trafficking, terrorism and the right to education. ACJ reports present a thorough examination of each issue, as well as practical recommendations to assist APF members protect and promote human rights in their own countries and in partnership across the region.
At the 12th Annual APF Meeting held in Sydney on 24-27 September, 2007, the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) presented its interim report on Human Rights and the Environment, which underlined the dramatic human rights challenges facing governments and communities in the region resulting from pollution and climate change. The ACJ found that while many countries have environmental laws and constitutional protections in place, they were not robust enough to address the widespread human rights issues that will result from climate change and widespread environmental degradation. A key recommendation of the report is that NHRIs advocate for the adoption of a specific right to the environment. The 12th Annual Meeting of APF also requested the ACJ to undertake a reference examining the operations of transnational corporations in the Asia Pacific region and the impact on human rights.
The Background Paper for each annual reference sets out the international law, standards and principles that relate to the specific issues raised in the Terms of Reference. The paper also includes information about APF member-state laws. These background papers have been of a very high quality and are an important resource not only to NHRIs and ACJ members but also to NGOs, academics and others. The entire ACJ process evolved over the years, namely, developing an annual reference, background paper, questionnaire, interim observations and recommendations and final report have had some very useful impact. But there is scope for further improvement in the process. There is a need to develop annual references with great care in order that they are useful to all Member institutions of APF. Or else, there is a danger of shelving reports at the end-user level soon after they have been received.
In September 2007, the Forum Council agreed to conduct a review of the role and functions of the ACJ so that it could be structured and supported to best meet the challenging needs of the APF into the next decade. The review will be carried out in two stages. The first stage is gathering responses and feedback from APF Forum Council members through a questionnaire, distributed in November 2007. From the responses received, it is clear that members continue to support a clearly defined and strategic role for the ACJ. The second stage of the review involves workshop, which is being held now, to consider a broad range of issues, including:
• How to strengthen the relationship between the Forum Council and the ACJ
• What are the most effective ways to utilise the expertise of the ACJ, and
• How to improve the development of references and the implementation of recommendations.
The responses sent by NHRIs to ACJ review questionnaire are significant. 71% of members indicated that they “sometimes” utilized ACJ reports in determining strategic priorities and in implementing existing programs. What about the rest 29% who opted for `no’ or `never’ for the above questions? The crux of the issue is national level implementation of recommendations made in the ACJ reports. How do we go about this task is the billion dollar question. A few NGOs who attended 12th Annual meeting of APF expressed concern over the lack of implementation of ACJ recommendations. This brings one to the issue as to how to improve domestic implementation in a way which will not be perceived as intrusive and yet, furthers the protection and promotion of human rights. 100% of members supported a more structured process for the selection of references. It is important to acknowledge concerns of 57% of members who indicated that the provision of country reports did place a burden on NHRI resources. 43% of members indicated that the scope and size of reports had affected their ability to access and utilize reports, thus underlining the need for remedial measures. I am sure the experts gathered here will pick their brains on these and other related issues in the course of deliberations for today and tomorrow.
Again I extend a warm welcome to all delegates and wish them a pleasant stay in Delhi. I hope the deliberations of this Workshop would be able to identify right strategies for strengthening the Advisory Council of Jurists and thereby the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions itself.
Thank you.
****