National Human Rights Institutions Research Articles

Human Rights and Equality Institutions in Europe

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are state bodies mandated to protect and promote human rights. Their mission is to identify and tackle systemic problems while raising fundamental rights awareness in countries in which they have been established. Human rights institutions at the national level include Ombudsman (some specialising in particularly vulnerable groups), Equality Bodies, National Preventive Mechanisms, National Monitoring Mechanisms, Data Protection Agencies, and more. In this article, we analyse the strengths and weaknesses of both centralised and fragmented systems of human rights institutions. Using examples from several European countries, we particularly examine how the fragmentation of institutions affects their resilience to pressures which can adversely impact the promotion and protection of human rights and equality at the national level. We argue that opting for a certain NHRIs’ system might exert significant influence on the independence and effectiveness of individual institutions, as well as on the overall comprehensiveness of a nation’s human rights infrastructure.

Human Rights and Transitional Justice in the Maldives: Closing the Door, Once and For All?

AbstractIn 2020, the Maldives instituted a transitional justice process to address decades of systematic human rights abuses including the widespread use of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and the forced depopulation of entire island communities. While the country’s decision to confront its violent past is not unusual, the institution it has established to undertake that task is. Rather than institute a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC), refer cases to its Human Rights Commission, or undertake criminal trials in its domestic judicial system, the Maldives has taken the unprecedented step of establishing a temporary Ombudsperson’s Office for Transitional Justice (OTJ). Comparing the OTJ to national human rights institutions and TRCs, this article examines how and why the Maldives’ transitional justice process has taken this unusual form. It suggests that the OTJ represents a new attempt to address the full range of human rights abuses, including violations of social and economic rights, perpetrated by repressive regimes.

Institutionalizing human rights in the United States: Advocacy for a national human rights institution

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) have been part of the infrastructure of international law since 1946, two years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was completed. Globally, more than 120 nations have established independent NHRIs. Two-thirds of these have been accredited by the Global Association of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) after passing a rigorous review to assess their compliance with the Paris Principles, a set of minimum standards for NHRIs. The United States does not have an NHRI and the federal government has resisted calls from both domestic NGOs and the international community to establish such an institution. Domestic advocates nevertheless continue to pursue creative approaches to promote human rights monitoring and implementation in the United States. U.S. civil society submissions to treaty bodies regularly draw attention to the need for a U.S. NHRI. On the domestic stage, advocates likewise urge the federal government to take a greater role in human rights monitoring, implementation, and coordination. However, as a global power and a key actor in the UN system, the U.S. government experiences few consequences for failing to establish an NHRI. In sum, the absence of a U.S. NHRI is a challenge not only for domestic advocates, but for the international system as well.

Transitional justice at the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal: challenging legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness

ABSTRACT In the past three decades, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have becoming an increasingly common feature of transitional and post-conflict justice processes. As institutions designed to promote and protect human rights, they have been afforded a range of responsibilities, including investigating conflict-related human rights violations, assisting with the establishment and functioning of ad hoc mechanisms like truth and reconciliation commissions, and contributing to accountability. Drawing on evidence from the case of Nepal, however, this article demonstrates that engaging in transitional justice processes places NHRIs at considerable risk. It argues, in particular, that the political nature of transitional justice and compromises it inevitably entails can serve to jeopardise the legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness of NHRIs. The article thus concludes that far greater consideration of the impact that transitional justice has on NHRIs and development of measures to protect their integrity in highly fraught political contexts is required.

Dissecting Stakeholder Participation in UN Human Rights Treaty Body Activities with Normative and Empirical Approaches: A Comparison of NGO and NHRI Participation

Abstract By addressing the question “Are the roles and values of stakeholder participation qualitatively different for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions (NHRIs), and if so, how?” this article dissects stakeholder participation in UN human rights treaty body activities. First, it normatively posits that stakeholder participation in treaty body activities carries three values, which weigh differently based on the actor and the treaty body activity concerned: facilitating “bounded” national deliberations, promoting international deliberations on human rights treaty standards, and supplementing the treaty bodies’ fact-finding capacity. It offers concrete normative guidance for treaty bodies on their engagement with NGO and NHRI participation to maximize the benefits of these values. It then empirically analyzes their current practice in light of the above-mentioned normative guidance. This article contributes, first, to the theorization of stakeholder participation in treaty body activities, which has been discussed but only in generalized or fragmented ways in previous studies. Second, it supports the effectiveness and legitimacy of treaty bodies by endorsing their practice that is consistent with the guidance and finding space for improvement. Finally, it provides a rationale for establishing and strengthening NHRIs by showing that NHRI participation has unique roles distinct from those of NGOs.

Türkiye İnsan Hakları Ve Eşitlik Kurumuna Yapılan Şikayet Başvurularında Kabul Edilebilirlik Koşulları

Ulusal insan hakları kurumları (UİHK), insanların temel haklarının ulusal düzeyde korunması ve geliştirilmesi için önemli mekanizmalar olarak kabul edilmektedir. 2016 yılında 6701 sayılı Kanun ile kurulan Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu (TİHEK) 24.11.2017 tarihinden itibaren bazı konularda şikâyet başvurusu almaya başlamıştır. TİHEK’e ayrımcılığa maruz kalan kişiler ile ulusal önleme mekanizması çerçevesinde özgürlüklerinden yoksun bırakılan kişiler başvuru yapabilmektedir. TİHEK, insan hakları ihlallerine karşı resen araştırma yapmak, suç niteliği taşıyan eylem varsa ilgililer hakkında suç duyurusunda bulunmak, bu ihlallerin sona erdirilmesi için gerekli girişimlerde bulunmak yetkisine de sahiptir. Bu makale, TİHEK’e yapılan bireysel başvurularda kişi yönünden yetki (ratione personae), konu yönünden yetki (ratione materiae), zaman bakımından yetki (ratione temporis) ve yer bakımından yetkiye (ratione loci) ilişkin kabul edilebilirlik koşullarına odaklanmaktadır. Kabul edilirlik koşulları TİHEK kararları ışığı altında incelenmiş ve TİHEK’e başvurunun niteliği ile Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin temel hakların korunması hakkındaki başvuruların niteliği bakımından karşılaştırma yapılmıştır.

Developmental Constitutionalism and the Fourth Branch: Ghana’s Independent Constitutional Bodies and the Redress of Poverty and Inequality

Ghana’s Constitution has long emphasised the importance of equality, democracy, human rights and development. These principles are entrenched in a separation of powers framework that includes independent constitutional bodies that operate semi-autonomously from the tripartite executive, legislative and judicial branches. As part of a symposium on so-called ‘fourth branch’ institutions that provide redress for poverty and inequality, this article explores two institutions: the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the National Development Planning Commission. The first is a 30-year-old national human rights institution, which monitors and investigates alleged violations of human rights, corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys, and provides redress, partly through its increasing focus on economic and social rights and the claims of the most vulnerable, including women, children and persons with disabilities. The second, currently executive body, is the subject of current calls for constitutional reform in Ghana. These reforms would entrench national development planning to enhance features of autonomy, technical capacity and partisan independence. As such, these proposals offer a distinctive and yet also paradigm-defying model of fourth branch arrangements in developmental constitutionalism, raising questions about the usurpation of policymaking and the deficits of democracy that are commonly raised against courts, international financial institutions or other international economic arrangements.

UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies Talking to Domestic Adjudicators Through Their Quasi-judicial Work: An Examination of CERD and CEDAW

ABSTRACT: The article examines the merit of UN treaty bodies' accumulated case law as a resource for domestic adjudicators, i.e., courts and quasi-judicial bodies (such as national human rights institutions) addressing human rights complaints at the national level. It has the objective of assessing the extent to which treaty bodies are "talking to" an audience beyond the parties in the case. Starting from a view that sees impact on national adjudicators as the key issue for treaty bodies' rulings on individual complaints, the article assesses to what extent the way that treaty bodies are exercising this role fits in this view. The study's focus is on two UN treaty bodies with a broadly similar output in quantitative terms, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CmERD) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CmEDAW).

Decriminalising vagrancy offences in Africa beyond the African Court’s Advisory Opinion: quo vadis?

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) advisory opinion in Pan African Lawyers Union on the compatibility of vagrancy laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights instruments in Africa (PALU opinion) 1/2018 recommends that states amend or repeal vagrancy offences that criminalise the life-sustaining activities of many persons targeted by these laws. The Court’s main opinion is that states’ national laws and by-lawscontaining vagrancy offences are vague, overly broad and ambiguous, conferring broad discretion on the police for their enforcement and targets people in terms of their status, not their conduct. These laws violate articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; articles 3 and 17 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of theChild; and article 24 of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa. The main opinion insufficiently addresses the colonial root of vagrancy. A separate concurring opinion elaborates on the margin of appreciation and good faith principle that allow states to formulate contextspecific answers to amend and repeal vagrancy offences. This article identifies the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on petty offences enforcement and draws lessons from litigation such as Gwanda v The State and interventions from national human rights institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission; as well as guidance from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Principles on Decriminalisation of Petty Offences in Africa (2017). It is argued that specific institutional and non-material interventions are needed to bring the systemic change required, in tandem with the banning of vagrancy offences, for cities that promote inclusion and sustainable development for all.

Applying a Human Rights Lens to Poverty and Economic Inequality: The Experience of the South African Human Rights Commission

The Constitution of South Africa, 1996, is committed to redressing poverty and inequality. This is evident in its inclusion of a range of justiciable socio-economic rights along with a strong substantive right to equality and non-discrimination. The South African Human Rights Commission is a state institution established by the Constitution to support constitutional democracy. It has wide-ranging powers to investigate, monitor and protect human rights, including an express constitutional mandate in relation to socio-economic rights. This article examines how it has sought to apply its constitutional and legislative mandates to various manifestations of poverty and economic inequality in South Africa. It focuses on three broad areas of the Commission’s work with a view to identifying its achievements as well as some of the key challenges it has faced. Based on this analysis, the article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of the experience of the Commission for fourth branch institutions, specifically national human rights institutions, that apply a human rights lens to poverty and economic inequality.

Tailoring Peer-to-Peer Learning on “Faith for Rights”

Abstract Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental freedom that provokes tensions but equally provides opportunities for synergy and mutual enhancement with other human rights. This article explores lessons learned from implementing the “Faith for Rights” framework which has been developed by faith-based actors and UN independent experts through a global consultative process since 2017. Related peer-to-peer learning workshops have been tailored to different audiences, including children, youth, students and scholars, parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors, civil servants, diplomats, UN independent experts, national human rights institutions, faith-based actors, human rights defenders and peer-learning facilitators. In conclusion, the article calls for an inclusive human rights “diplocacy” by strategically combining diplomacy and advocacy tools for managing religious diversity in a human rights-based manner that resolve tensions between numerous rights in the context of religions and beliefs.

Interpreting human rights as the social psychological phenomenon of rights claiming.

In the last 5 years, the intersection between psychology and human rights has become more evident, with influential international, national and local human rights institutions, including the American Psychological Association, issuing reports and resolutions on the topic. Within jurisprudence, human rights are less of a legalistic regulatory enactment and more of what social psychologists refer to as injunctive norms. We argue that conceptualising human rights as the social-psychological process of both creating and aligning injunctive and descriptive norms clarifies human rights and makes them more accessible to groups and individuals in society engaged in rights claiming. Rights claiming is a term we use to describe the moral cognitive process of people engaged in individual and/or collective behaviour aimed at securing their social identity within the public sphere where that identity is marginalised or the subject of discrimination. We argue that placing rights claiming at the centre of human rights psychology advances human rights. Focusing psychological research on social identity, the alignment of injunctive norms, deontic moral cognitions, human dignity, social dominance orientations and collective and individual behaviours forms part of securing a clear specialty in psychological science dedicated to human rights and advancing the American Psychological Association (APA)'s human rights mandate.

Assessing the Effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission, India, vis-à-vis the Paris Principles Relating to the Status of National Human Rights Institutions

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) play an important role in monitoring and promoting international human rights norms in a country. However, in order to function as an effective NHRI, they must adhere to the “Paris Principles” of 1993. In 2023 the Indian NHRI prepares to renew its ’A’ grade accreditation. This offers an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the institution in light of the aforementioned Principles. In doing so the authors address both the limitations that hinder the NHRI’s performance and the remedies. Notably, the role of “District Human Rights Courts”, in supporting the NHRI in enhancing its effectiveness.

Navigating Human Rights in Indonesia and Beyond

In Indonesia, promoting human rights is a long battle run. Human rights were just formally recognised when Suharto's authoritarian regime ended in 1998, but these rights have experienced a rise and fall throughout the Reformasi. Indonesia successfully amended the 1945 Constitution with more human rights provisions and enacted Human Rights Law 39/1999. However, this country still faces the challenges of ensuring that human rights are promoted with the state’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfil amidst the debates on institutional reforms, universalism and relativism, as well as the limited powers of the national human rights institutions. Along with efforts to ensure that democracy and human rights can coexist, democratisation in Indonesia is also inextricably linked to advancing human rights. After two decades of Indonesia's reform, human rights and democracy have become vital cornerstones, but they have experienced serious challenges in their promotion. From the Indonesian context, these discourses can relate to those discourses in other Global South countries, like India, that this edition will elaborate on due to their relatively similar and unique pathways with arduous tasks in managing domestic affairs. Indonesia can represent critical, which is more likely underrepresented discourses with robust arguments on various social, economic, political and cultural situations in the Southern Hemisphere, from which these debates endure and are usually more centred on the West and, to some extent, the Global North. These discourses from the Global South countries can provide a frequently unheard perspective to current discussions on human rights. By navigating human rights in Indonesia and beyond, these discourses highlight how the new justification of human rights can contribute to emancipatory initiatives.

National human rights institutions and the appropriation of human rights: the case of the human rights and equality institution of Turkey

ABSTRACT In 2016, Turkey established its National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT), seemingly to promote and protect human rights. However, this development coincided with a simultaneous erosion of human rights and freedom in the country. We employ the framework of human rights appropriation to explain this paradox. Our analysis reveals that the HREIT, a relatively unexamined case in NHRI literature, has adopted a statist and conservative approach toward human rights. Diverging from the conventional understanding that views NHRIs as mostly benevolent actors supporting state compliance with international human rights norms, we demonstrate how they may become tools for the authoritarian appropriation of human rights. This appropriation involves prioritising state security over human rights, embracing cultural relativism, and undermining women's and LGBT+ rights. The potential of NHRIs to advance illiberal interpretations of human rights should be a concern for human rights scholars and practitioners, particularly in the current global context of the increasing political influence of right-wing movements and populist governments.

National human rights institutions: independent actors in global human rights governance?

Abstract In an increasingly complex global human rights regime, international governmental organizations like the United Nations remain concerned with closing the human rights governance gap. In this context, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) are uniquely equipped regulatory intermediaries—they have the mandated powers to support and monitor national governments' human rights compliance, but require government cooperation to operate effectively. We argue that institutional independence is key for regulatory intermediaries like NHRIs to conduct their work effectively. At the same time, independence should not be solely a formal, de jure feature; it is essential for it to also manifest as de facto independence. We thus investigate the extent to which the de jure independence of NHRIs matches their de facto independence, and explain variation. We measure NHRIs' de jure independence by employing quantitative data on 187 NHRIs. To study their de facto independence, we collect survey data on the participation of Asia–Pacific NHRIs in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a peer-review mechanism monitoring states' human rights performance. We show that regulatory intermediaries like NHRIs can be successful even when they lack full de jure independence. De facto independence is key, and is facilitated by both NHRI- and UPR-related factors.

Change at the Top: The Necessity of Transitional Leadership Provisions in the Laws of Independent State-Based Institutions

Abstract The leadership of independent state-based bodies is critical to their independence and proper functioning. Where leadership ends, either within or outside of the term of office, legislation must ensure that the institution can continue to function. Transitional leadership provisions provide for the continuation of the powers of office in the event of the absence of the mandate holder. Through a textual analysis of the legislation of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and ombudspersons from 85 jurisdictions, this article identifies a lack of provision for transitional arrangements in enabling laws. It also discusses the problematic aspects of these legislative arrangements where they are present. It identifies the core requirements to ensure there is no leadership gap for an institution. The findings of the article are relevant for a broad range of state-based institutions including anti-corruption and data protection commissions, equality bodies and police oversight bodies, because all state mandated institutions risk their ability to function being undermined where legislation fails to account for a gap in leadership or does not include sufficient protections, such as immunity, for transitional office holders. This article calls for more robust focus on comprehensive transitional provisions in international standards on NHRIs and ombudspersons, and for the inclusion of such transitional provisions in the enabling laws of all legislatively mandated independent state-based institutions.

Interactions between National Human Rights Institutions and National Mechanisms for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up: Research and Recommendations

Interactions between National Human Rights Institutions and National Mechanisms for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up: Research and Recommendations

Resolution 42/21 (U.N.H.R. Council)

On July 13, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution designed to facilitate the enjoyment of the human rights and other basic freedoms of Africans and people of African descent in every region of the world, specifically against excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. The Resolution deplored all forms of racial discrimination against Africans and people of African descent, condemned “the continuing racially discriminatory and violent practices” perpetrated against this group by many law enforcement officials, and urged states “to seize every opportunity” to implement an “anti-racism agenda” that prioritizes “racial equality and justice” for the group, including better use of independent national human rights institutions and preferential programs, among other far-reaching, substantive techniques. Although not yet constituted, the Resolution established an independent committee, comprising individuals with law enforcement and human rights expertise, charged with the responsibility for “advanc[ing] racial justice and equality [with]in the context of law enforcement in all parts of the world” through various means that include visits to countries where violations are taking place.

Human Rights During the Pandemic and the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh

Abstract The covid-19 outbreak has brought forth the existing cracks and crevices in the governance of Bangladesh. At such a time, the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh (nhrcb), as the only State institution mandated to protect and promote human rights exclusively and impartially, is tasked with a crucial role to ensure respect for human rights. This article assesses the activities undertaken by the nhrcb during the pandemic and finds that the nhrcb evinced only a limited role in monitoring the violation of rights and provided formulaic recommendations to the government. It did not observe the implementation of their recommendations and has performed rather formalistically. While the country has experienced a deteriorating human rights situation, the nhrcb has failed to flex its muscles when compared to other national human rights institutions in South Asia. This article argues that the national human rights institutions (nhri s) in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, embedded in a similar context and armed with almost identical mandates, have demonstrated a novel and strenuous effort intending to adapt to and fulfil their functions during the unprecedented crisis. The nhrcb may benefit by learning from these nhri s as well as taking lessons from its own past activities. Previously, it did not eschew politically sensitive issues and earmarked a strong leadership even with limited institutional capacities. The nhrcb has however responded to the changing dynamics and challenges posed by the covid-19 pandemic with silence. It needs to become more vibrant to enhance, regionally and internationally, the country’s image in upholding human rights norms and standards.