institutions and mechanisms

INDONESIAN REPRESENTATIVES TO AICHR AND ACWC NON PAPER
OUTCOME DOCUMENT OF THE EXPERT MEETING ON
EFFECTIVE ALIGNMENT AMONG HUMAN RIGHTS
INSTITUTIONS AND MECHANISMS
Convened by the Indonesian Representatives to the ASEAN InterGovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and
the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) with
Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence Against Women
(Komnas Perempuan)
Jakarta, 6 - 7 December 2010
1
2
L i s t of Ac ronyms
ACWC ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of the Rights of Women and Children
ACMW ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of
the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers
AICHR ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on
Human Rights
ASEAN
Association of South East Asian Nations
CEDAW
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
Komnas HAM Indonesia’s National Commission on Human
Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia)
Komnas Perempuan Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence
Against Women (Komisi Nasional Anti Kekerasan
Terhadap Perempuan)
NHRIs
National Human Rights Institutions
OAS
Organization of American States
IACHR
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
UNOHCHR
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner
on Human Rights
UPR
Universal Periodic Review
3
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Anticipating Indonesia’s chairmanship of ASEAN in 2011, the
Indonesian Representatives to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental
Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), Rafendi Djamin, and to
the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the
Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), Rita Serena Kolibonso
and Taufan Damanik, in colllaboration with Indonesia’s National
Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan),
convened an expert meeting to build a strategic understanding of the
challenges, best practices and lessons learned from around the globe
on alignment among multiple human rights bodies and systems,
and to provide appropriate tools for the development of constructive
discussion and debate within ASEAN which would be conducive to
achieving the highest standard of human rights. The meeting was held
in Jakarta on 6 - 7 December 2010 involving experts and advocates
from national, regional and international levels with extensive
experience on human rights institutions. The outcome document
is circulated as a non paper from the Indonesian Representatives to
AICHR and ACWC.
Experts participating in this meeting agreed that alignment among
effective human rights mechanisms at the national, regional and
international levels contributes to the strengthening and achievement
of the goal of human rights for all. The coordinated and coherent
functioning of multiple human rights institutions and mechanisms
could potentially afford greater human rights protection to a broader
range of marginalized groups and generate a wider array of solutions
to new challenges and newly-emerging human rights issues. This
requires adoption of the principle of participation, particularly with
5
regard to vulnerable and marginalized groups, as a key ingredient for
effective alignment in any human rights system.
All modes of alignment among human rights institutions and
mechanisms should expressly uphold the principle that all human
rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated in
which there is no hierarchy among the rights. Alignment should be
premised on the principle of equality among human rights bodies
regardless of the nature of their mandates being general or specific to
particular rights or groups. Complementarity among human rights
bodies depends on a substantive understanding of the respective
mandates of the bodies, including the common areas of concern and
the unique roles and authorities of the respective bodies. Effective
alignment stands on the recognition that the achievement of one
human rights body depends on the effectiveness of the other.
Effective alignment of human rights systems at the national, regional
and international levels is achieveable in Southeast Asia and, from
the perspective of the experts, could be attained from clear starting
points provided by the ASEAN Charter, the TORs of AICHR and
ACWC, and AICHR’s agreed upon workplan. An ASEAN-wide
approach to alignment reflects consistency with the universality,
indivisibility, interrelatedness and non-discrimination principles of
human rights.
The expert meeting brought forth a broad range of recommendations
for developing effective alignment for human rights promotion and
protection. They demonstrate the importance of concerted efforts
conducted simultaneously at the national, regional and international
levels among a diverse spectrum of stakeholders to make alignment
effective for human rights.
1. At the regional level in ASEAN, AICHR could consider initiating
meetings with key ASEAN bodies, including ACWC, ACMW
and the ASEAN’s Community Councils and Sectoral Ministerial
6
Bodies, to establish modalities for regular dialogue; securing the
grounding for effective institutional alignment for a coherent
human rights system in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration;
requesting input from the widest spectrum of stakeholders for
its thematic studies, including affected individuals and their
advocates;
2. ACWC could consider providing input to AICHR and
ASEAN’s sectoral bodies on suggested modalities for the active
participation of ASEAN women and children in the dialogue and
consultation processes within ASEAN; developing a year-long
program to facilitate sharing of experiences and good practices
between and among ASEAN Member States on the rights of
women and children; and, submitting to AICHR independent
reports on common thematic concerns, such as on migration
and human rights and on business and human rights.
3. The ASEAN Community Councils and the Sectoral Ministerial
Bodies could follow the precedent set by the ASEAN Ministers of
Health when they asked AICHR for input on mandatory testing
of HIV/AIDS by developing the convention of requesting input
from AICHR and ACWC on human rights matters pertinent to
their respective mandates.
4. The ASEAN Secretary General could initiate the providing
of administrative alignment between AICHR and ACWC by
making available adjacent office space for their respective staff
and meetings, and establishing efficient communication means
through the use of information and communication technology.
5. The ASEAN Coordinating Council could provide timely support
for ASEAN’s human rights bodies to ensure ASEAN-wide policy
coherence on human rights.
7
6. At the international level, the UNOHCHR could consider
exploring possible modalities for regional human rights bodies
to increase their effectiveness in providing regional input
into the international human rights system, including for the
development of the Universal Periodic Review system. It could
also take an active role in facilitating effective exchanges on best
practices and lessons learned on alignment among human rights
institutions at national, regional and international levels.
7. At the national level, governments in Southeast Asia could
support the effective synergy for human rights promotion and
protection among the national Representatives to AICHR,
ACWC and ACMW and with the respective national human
rights institutions wherever such institutions exist as well as
with the respective national civil society organizations. National
human rights institutions could seek ways to engage with the
ASEAN’s regional human rights bodies for the advancement
of human rights promotion and protection in their respective
jurisdictions. Komnas Perempuan should follow up on its plans
to build effective alignment with AICHR, ACWC and ACMW
for the advancement of the human rights of women and girls
through the Indonesian Representatives to these regional bodies.
8. At all levels, stakeholders within civil society concerned with
the promotion and protection of human rights for all should
contribute to the shaping and effective implementation of a
globally-coherent system of human rights through their active
engagement with all human rights mechanisms at the national,
regional and international levels, particularly in the development
and application of effective systems for monitoring and
documentation, legal and policy reform, and victims recovery
and rehabilitation.
8
Ta b le o f Content s
Executive Summary Introduction 5
11
Lessons Learned and Insights 13
Purpose of Alignment 14
Standards and Principles 15
Forms of Alignment 21
Levels of Alignment 24
Scope of Alignment 26
Opportunities in Southeast Asia Understanding AICHR’s Overarching Role 28
30
Starting Points for Effective Alignment 32
Complementarity and Mutuality between AICHR and ACWC 32
Coherence and Synergy among Human Rights Mechanisms
at National, Regional and International Levels 34
Alignment to Effectively Address Cross-cutting Issues 36
Recommendations 38
Annexes
1. List of Participants and Organizers
2. Expert Meeting Program
3. A Comparative Perspective on the Terms of Reference of
AICHR and ACWC
41
50
51
9
10
I N T R O DUC T I ON
1. Anticipating Indonesia’s chairmanship of ASEAN in 2011, the
Indonesian Representatives to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental
Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), Rafendi Djamin, and to
the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the
Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), Rita Serena Kolibonso
and Taufan Damanik, in colllaboration with Indonesia’s National
Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan),
convened an expert meeting to build a strategic understanding
of the challenges, best practices and lessons learned from around
the globe on alignment among multiple human rights bodies and
systems, and to provide appropriate tools for the development of
constructive discussion and debate within ASEAN which would
be conducive to achieving the highest standard of human rights.
2. The meeting was held in Jakarta on 6-7 December 2010 involving
experts and advocates from national, regional and international
levels with extensive experience on human rights institutions
(see Annex 1 for Expert Meeting Participants). The meeting was
conducted in four sessions, namely a first session on lessons from
regional human rights systems; a second session on lessons from
international and national human rights mechanisms; a thrid
session on standards and principles of alignment; and, a final
session on recommendations (see Annex 2 for Expert Meeting
Program).
3. This outcome document of the expert meeting focuses on
highlights of the discussion, particularly on the general insights
and lessons learned obtained from different parts of the world
11
and on the opportunities for human rights alignment in
Southeast Asia. The report was prepared by a drafting team,
consisting of Kamala Chandrakirana and Eleanor Conda,
with the active input throught the drafting process from the
Indonesian Representatives to AICHR and ACWC and Komnas
Perempuan as well as from the participating experts. The report
is written for a diverse spectrum of stakeholders concerned with
developing an effective human rights system at the regional level
in Southeast Asia, including those working at the national and
international levels.
4. This outcome document is circulated as a non paper from the
Indonesian Representatives to AICHR and ACWC. In light of
the positive response from the representative of the Indonesian
Government to the expert meeting, the convenors of this expert
meeting also hope that the report contributes to a concrete
articulation of Indonesia’s motto for its chairmanship in 2011:
‘ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations’.
12
L E SS O N S L E A R N ED A ND INSIGHTS
5. Experts participating in this meeting agreed that alignment
among effective human rights mechanisms at the national,
regional and international levels contributes to the strengthening
and achievement of the goal of human rights for all. The
coordinated and coherent functioning of multiple human rights
institutions and mechanisms could potentially afford greater
human rights protection to a broader range of marginalized
groups and generate a wider array of solutions to new challenges
and newly-emerging human rights issues.
6. Looking to the experiences in other regions revealed that
there are no particular and best modes of alignment. Human
rights systems in different parts of the world are shaped by the
specific historical circumstances of their particular time and
place, and have evolved and grown in pace with the distinct
economic and political realities and interests affecting them.
While acknowledging the value of lessons learned and good
practices from existing regional and international human rights
systems, the participants were confident that the Southeast Asian
countries and ASEAN will develop their own distinctive paths
to effective alignment towards a commonly envisioned ideal. An
open and rigorous process towards the establishment of effective
alignment among the human rights bodies within ASEAN and in
their relationships with national and international human rights
systems will contribute its own innovations and lesson learned to
share with others.
13
Purpose of Alignment
7. The experts agreed that the pursuit of effective alignment should
begin with a clear defining of purpose, as alignment is not an
end in itself. Alignment is a broad framework of synergetic
relationships among autonomous bodies which is supported by
a set of institutional arrangements designed to reach a common
goal. Within the framework of human rights, alignment should
ensure that the multiple bodies and instruments created to
promote and protect human rights can function as a coherent
whole and develop for the purpose of achieving tangible results
for the human rights of all individuals and communities. At times,
for the best interest of human rights protection, no alignment
can be considered a legitimate strategy.
8. The best combination of consultation, coordination and
collaboration arrangements should enable the participating
human rights bodies, separately and collectively, to meet the
goals of promoting and protecting the economic, social, cultural,
civil and political rights of peoples and individuals in ways that
highlight the indivisibility and interrelatedness of those rights.
Alignment arrangements should make institutions better able
to respond to the particular human rights concerns of the most
marginalized and vulnerable populations and to articulate
comprehensive and integrated recommendations for the effective
protection of their rights. Effective alignment should advance
greater participation of individuals and groups in recognition of
their right to do so and for the purpose of obtaining the critical
grounding that their inputs provide.
9. In a human rights system, the purpose of alignment, the experts
emphasized, would essentially be to enhance fulfillment of state
obligations to promote, protect, fulfill human rights, supporting
states to effectively implement legal frameworks and actively
14
contribute towards the continuing advancement of universal
human rights standards. Alignment arrangements among
multiple human rigths institutions would therefore create the
necessary conducive environment for such fulfillment of state
obligations as a reflection of legitimate community interest1.
10.Supporting the substantial efforts of states in establishing
general as well as specialized mechanisms for the promotion
and protection of human rights, the experts strongly stressed
that alignment among these bodies should concretely contribute
to the effective and efficient functioning, individually and
collectively, of these bodies in fulfilling their respective mandates,
and to achieving common objectives and shared goals through
the most economical or most resource-efficient means.
11. Finally, a clear articulation of the purpose of alignment would
offer its architects and implementers a vision, direction and
guideposts within the framework of human rights, and ground
the intent to pursue alignment within a clearly-articulated
framework of political commitment and will. It also would
promote accountability by allowing the development of a set
of criteria and benchmarks on the basis of which strategies are
formulated, implemented and evaluated.
Standards and Principles
12.The participants of this expert meeting emphasized that all
modes of alignment among human rights institutions and
mechanisms should expressly uphold the principle that all
human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and
‘Legitimate community interest’ is a term used in the Human Rights
Committee General Recommendation No. 31 on the Nature of the General
Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 2004, para. 2.
1
15
interrelated. According to the 1993 Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action, this means that all human rights must be
treated “globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing,
and with the same emphasis.”2 Consequently, alignment should
be premised on the principle of equality among human rights
bodies regardless of the nature of their mandates being general or
specific to particular rights or groups. Equality in status implies,
and affirms, that there is no hierarchy among the rights and
recognizes that the human rights of all individuals and groups
and in all fields are equally important. It also signals that there
is no room for privileging particular human rights bodies over
another.
13.
Recognizing the multiple levels-national, regional and
international-in which distinct human rights mechanisms
function, the experts stressed the importance that all human
rights bodies, individually and collectively, strive to maintain
coherence in all aspects of human rights promotion and protection
based on recognition of the universality, interdependence and
interrelatedness of human rights. Such coherence should be the
measure of success in alignment arragements. It is informative to
note that the United Nation’s commitment to develop “systemwide coherence” is understood in terms of a common strategy at
the international, regional and national levels that would enable
the institution “to achieve more than the sum of its parts”.3
14.Coherence in human rights promotion and protection also
depends on ensuring that all policy-making bodies throughout
the regional architecture are aware of and observe the human
rights obligations of its Member States. The European Union
2
3
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993, para. 5.
UN General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Agenda Item 113, Follow-up to the
Outcome of the Millenium Summit A/61/583, Delivering as one: Report of the
High-level Panel on United Nations System-wide Coherence in the Areas of
Development, Humanitarian Assistance and the Environment, 20 November
2006.
16
inserts human rights clauses in its bilateral treaties, some of which
include the establishment of permanent subcommittees to discuss
the promotion of human rights and/or a mechanism for dispute
resolution.4 The European Parliament reviews effectiveness of
these human rights clauses and makes recommendations for
improvement 5.
15.The experts appreciated the example from the Americas. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) created
a number of Thematic Rapporteurships at its own initiative or
in response to requests from NGOs in the 1990s to give special
attention to certain issues and groups of concern.6 Since their
creation, the IACHR has developed a policy to include the
Thematic Rapporteurships’ perspective in fulfilling its broad
mandate such as country visit reports, its Annual Report
submitted to the OAS General Assembly and in the petitions and
case system. In circumstances when the Commission has yet to
decide on different human rights issues, it looks to the UN and
other regional systems’ jurisprudence for guidance.7
See DGExPo/B/PolDep/Study/2006/6 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu
See European Parliament Resolution on the human rights and democracy
clause in European Union agreements http://europarl.europa.eu/
meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/agnoletto_commission_reply/
agnoletto_commission_reply_en.pdf
6
Such as Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, prison conditions,
children, women, migrant workers, indigenous peoples and afrodescendents.
These rapporteurships permit the Commission to promote reforms in an
area of concern, to raise awareness of certain situations through thematic
studies and to organize seminars and conferences throughout the region.
The Rapporteurships are each headed by a staff member of the Commission,
except for freedom of expression which is headed by a staff member of the
OAS General Secretariat appointed by the Commission.
7
See for example: Case 12.219 Cristian Daniel Sahli Vera et. al (Chile), Report
N 43/05 of March 10, 2005 at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2005eng/
Chile.12219eng.htm or application filed to the Inter-American Court on
Human Rights on September 17, 2010, in the case of Karen Atala and
daughters against the Republic of Chile at http://www.cidh.oas.org/
demandas/12.502ENG.pdf
4
5
17
16.The experts recognized that coherence in substance would
be optimally attained when procedural rules or guidelines of
all human rights bodies within the system promote dynamic
interpretation to benefit the highest standards of human rights
and support consistent application of the non-retrogression8
principle. Based on this principle, States shall actively ensure
the progressive development of human rights and not go back
(“regress”) on legal obligations they had assumed or legal
standards that they had accepted or established.9
17.The principles of complementarity and mutuality were
emphasized by the experts as critical to a successful alignment.
Complementarity depends on a substantive understanding of
the respective mandates of the human rights bodies involved,
including the common areas of concern and the unique roles and
authorities of the respective bodies. Effective alignment stands
on the recognition that the achievement of one human rights
body depends on the effectiveness of the other. Non-duplication
A related principle of international human rights law which ensures
progressive development towards its goals is that states should not regress
from the levels of observance that they have reached (in Hersch Lauterpacht,
International Law and Human Rights, 153 (1968)) nor induce other countries
to reduce their levels of observance (in Rebecca Cook, “U.S. Population Policy,
Sex Discrimination, and Principles of Equality under International Law,” New
York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 93, 130-40 (1987)).
Cited in Rebecca Cook, “International Protection of Women’s Reproductive
Rights,” 24, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 645.
9
This non-retrogression obligation of States is explicitly articulated in the
Convenant on Social Economic and Cultural Rights and also expressed
in other human rights treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women in its Article 23 which states:
Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions that are more
conducive to the achievement of equality between men and women which
may be contained: (a) in the legislation of a State Party; or (b) in any other
international convention, treaty or agreement in force for that State. The
Convention on the Rights of the Child has a similar provision in its Article 41.
8
18
and non-replication should be ensured through constant
communication, both formal and informal, as well as through
regular reviews of success and failures and of opportunities
and challenges. Guidelines and mechanisms should be clear for
resolving differences of opinions and disagreements.
18.The experts noted that to ensure complementarity between
regional and international human rights systems, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights has clearly articulated
its non-duplication principle, elaborated in the Inter-American
Convention on Human Rights10, which precludes it from reviewing
a petition if the subject of the petition or communication is
pending in another international proceeding for settlement.
19.Complementarity requires mutuality, namely mutual respect
and support of each body’s mandates and functions, and mutual
reinforcement of each body’s roles and responsibilities in
achieving the common overall goals of the broader community
and the specific objective of fulfilling state obligations for the
promotion and protection of human rights. In the context of
Indonesia, Komnas Perempuan expressed the importance of
understanding the distinct powers and scope of work between
itself and Komnas HAM to guide the development of their
relations and collaborations. Having no authority for justiciable
human rights investigations, Komnas Perempuan submits its
independent reports which documents human rights violations
against women to Komnas HAM for follow up, particularly
when survivors express the need for legal remedy. Komnas HAM
follows up such reports by inviting Komnas Perempuan to take
part in its justiciable human rights investigation.
20.The experts appreciated the model exercised by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in its
10
See article 46 of the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights.
19
relationship with the Inter-American Human Rights Court
and the Organisation of American States (OAS). Every year,
regular dialogues are carried out between the Commission
and the Court to discuss expectations for the year and develop
informal guidelines for communication and cooperation. The
Commission and the Court work within the OAS (General
Assembly and Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs) to
build a common understanding of each others’ workplans and
obtain inputs. For instance, responding to a specific request on
the part of OAS General Assembly11, the IACHR established the
Special Rapporteurship on Migrant Workers and Their Families
in 1997. The experts highlighted on the importance of human
rights bodies taking active part in the development of particular
alignment arrangements based on an agreed upon set of common
principles.
21. The experts were keenly aware that the implementation of human
rights relies on a conducive and enabling environment, which
includes appropriate legal frameworks and institutions as well
as political, managerial and administrative processes responsible
for responding to the rights and needs of the population.12
The Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/68 of 20
April 2005, recognized in the more recent 2008 Human Rights
Council Resolution 7/11 on The Role of Good Governance in
the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, refers to the
”mutually reinforcing relationship between good governance
and human rights” and states that “transparent, responsible,
accountable and participatory government, responsive to the
needs and aspirations of the people, including members of
vulnerable and marginalized groups, is the foundation on which
good governance rests and that such a foundation is a sine qua
See AG/RES 1404 XXVI-O/96 and AG/RES 1480 XXVII-O/97.
See UNOHCHR, Good Governance Practices for the Protection of Human
Rights, 2007, pages 1-2.
11
12
20
non condition for the full realization of human rights, including
the right to development.”13
22.The experts underlined the importance of the principle of
participation or representation, particularly with regard to
vulnerable and marginalized groups, as a key ingredient for
effective alignment in any human rights system. The African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights grants observer
status to non-governmental organizations working in the field of
human rights and has developed a criteria for the granting and
maintaining of such observer status, which includes invitation to
be present at the opening and closing sessions of all Sessions of
the African Commission.14
Forms of Alignment
23. Guided by the experiences of international and regional human
rights bodies, three forms of alignment were identified, namely
substantive, procedural and administrative alignment. Each form
requires special effort to ensure an integrated, comprehensive
and effective framework to achieve its agreed upon objectives
and goals.
24. Substantive alignment focuses on the substance of the work and
the raison d’etre of human rights bodies and institutions. Within
its scope are laws, jurisprudence, and legal standards or principles
applied, interpreted, or developed in the course of the work of these
bodies and institutions. The scope of substantive alignment can
13
14
E/CN.4/2005/L.10/Add.17
See Resolution on the Criteria for Ganting and Enjoying Observer Status
to Non-governmental Organizations Working in the Field of Human Rights
with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and its Annex,
decided on the 25th Ordindary Session, in Burundi, 26 April-5 May 1999.
21
also include strategies, work plans, and programs and activities
insofar as these relate to the exercise and operationalization of
these bodies’ mandates. Substantive alignment aims to ensure
coherence and consistency to enable these bodies, on their own
and in coordination with each other, to more effectively exercise
their respective mandates and functions and serve the broader
community’s human rights goals.
25. Alignment among human rights institutions should not undermine the independence and integrity of each of its participating
bodies. Decisions on particular modes of alignment should made
based on assessments of what is possible and necessary given the
internal dynamics, decision-making processes, or other forms of
distinctiveness among the institutions, and in light of valuations
on how these can support or hamper the effectiveness of fulfilling
their respective mandates.
26. Good practices on substantive alignment were identified in the
meeting, including the active sharing of information across
human rights institutions and mechanisms; development of
informal guidelines agreed upon between the Inter-American
Commission and the Inter-American Court; the issuance of
joint press releases by the special rapporteurships of regional
human rights bodies and the UN Human Rights Council;
engagement with human rights treaty bodies or under the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of the Human Rights
Council by providing relevant reports; coordinated human rights
recommendations to Member States on fulfillment of their legal
obligations; formulation of common frameworks of action on
State obligations or on the application of laws; or, establishment
of complementary priority areas for joint programs.
27.Substantive alignment need not be attained only through
the conduct of joint or collaborative activities, the experts
22
acknowledged. Submission by a specialized body of an
independent report based on its mandate to the generallymandated institution and the integration of this report into
the latter’s comprehensive report might be preferred over the
two institutions preparing a joint report. In Indonesia, Komnas
HAM incorporates Komnas Perempuan’s written input on the
special human rights challenges faced by women into its general
report for the Human Rights Council’s UPR process, as Komnas
Perempuan currently has no formal access to the proceedings of
international human rights mechanisms.
28.The experts agreed that a process to reach a common
understanding among the human rights bodies on rules of
procedures, guidelines for functioning, or modalities of work
in each of the respective human rights bodies paves the way for
procedural alignment and better ensure effective compliance to
such rules.
29.An alignment of rules and guidelines among human rights
bodies would afford individuals and groups, without distinction
and regardless of the issues or concerns involved, a conducive
environment for their equal access, equal treatment, and
equal opportunity to benefit from the mechanisms established
for human rights protection. Public understanding of such
procedural alignment would well serve the principles of
participation and non-discrimination, in accordance to the
universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of human rights,
and would be critical for the effectiveness of human rights
systems consisting of multiple bodies with distinct mandates and
divergent powers and functions.
30. States would also benefit from procedural alignment, particularly
in the form of standardized benchmarks of State compliance
and integrated reporting of progress. As already seen, common
23
core documents and standard guidelines for simplified treaty
reporting adopted within the UN human rights system are freeing
Member States from burdensome reporting requirements.
31. Procedural alignment assumes that the human rights bodies have
collectively formulated and whole-heartedly adopted the rules of
procedures or operating guidelines which are to be synchronized
and aligned. Where this is not the case, the experts stressed that
these bodies can continue with their consultation which may help
them to reach preliminary agreements on where their respective
rules and guidelines can converge, and to further develop greater
trust in each other. Procedural alignment in practice is a good
start when formal substantive alignment is yet not possible.
32.Noting the multitude of experiences in alignment efforts at
the national, regional and international levels, the experts
recognize the important role that administrative alignment can
play in the progress of substantive and procedural alignment.
Administrative alignment can be achieved by providing common
working space among staff, sharing technical support, making
optimal use of information technology, allocating adequate
budget and other resources for coordinated activities, and
adopting streamlined financial procedures. In the UNOHCHR,
substantive and procedural alignment benefit from a dynamic
flow of communication and exchanges among the staff of the
treaty bodies and the special procedures which is made possible
because they share the same office building. Administrative
alignment can bring about additional benefits of financial savings
and increased efficiency.
Levels of Alignment
33.A good arrangement for alignment allows for flexibility and
provides for a wide range of options, thus was the consensus
24
among the experts. Having the option to develop low, medium, or
high levels of alignment – depending on the degree and intensity
necessary for the coordination and joint efforts – creates room
to manoeuver based on the degree of comfort and trust that
the concerned bodies have reached. In alignment arrangements
where there are multiple fields of engagement, different levels
of alignment could be operating simultaneously for different
purposes and needs.
34.A low level of alignment could involve consultations and/or
sharing of information while decision making is carried out
separately and independently; regular meetings for coordination
and development of informal guidelines for cooperation; and/or,
formal requests for inputs or submissions of independent reports.
A medium level of alignment could involve the development
of common procedures, and/or the designation of a person or
commissioner in charge of maintaining relationships with other
relevant bodies. A high level of alignment could involve the
establishment of joint visits, joint thematic task forces, special
joint projects and/or joint monitoring efforts. In Indonesia, after
several years of cooperation, the three national institutions for
human rights, women’s rights and child’s rights have established
a three-way working group to develop a joint monitoring of
prisons and detention centers across the country and to design
the modalities for a yearly national human rights summit.
35.The experts recognized that effective alignment benefits
from both informal and formal modes of cooperation and
coordination. Meetings held at least three times a year between
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
and the Inter-American Human Rights Court, for example,
is an informal mechanism to discuss mutual expectations
and develop informal guidelines for synchronizing of their
respective work. Through this process, the IACHR enacted
25
new rules of procedures in 2010.15 Formal modes of alignment
have the advantages of greater consistency, predictability and
accountability to the stakeholders and constituencies within a
human rights system. However, in certain contexts or at certain
times, the informality of practice is more appropriate and more
effective. The stage of development of the established institutions
and mechanisms, the credibility that they have attained, and the
degree of trust developed among them, along with the maturity
of the human rights system, are factors that heavily weigh into
decisions on whether or not, and when, to formalize practices for
effective and efficient alignment.
36. Finally, the experts concurred that having a leading agency which
functions as a leader among equals would facilitate and provide
the synergy and coordination necessary in good alignment
practices.
Scope of Alignment
37. The experts were particularly concerned about the narrow focus
of alignment discussions which tend to isolate bodies with
human rights mandates from policy making entities in the larger
organization or community responsible for economic, political
and security, and social and cultural issues. Meanwhile, a systemwide approach to alignment would be more consistent with and
conducive for the universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and
non-discrimination principles of human rights.
During 2009 both human rights institutions held informal talks about
the changes to be made in each bodies’ rules of procedure. Two of its
Commissioners were assigned this task. Later, the Inter-American Court
formally requested the IACHR and civil society to give their opinion on
some proposed changes of its rules of procedure. IACHR also used the same
procedure to receive input from the Court and civil society on its rules of
procedure.
15
26
38. A system-wide approach would involve carrying out assessment
of decisions, policies, agreements and programmes for their
impact on human rights protection and promotion at the regional
and domestic contexts; recommending human rights integration
strategies; and, developing appropriate tools to assist the relevant
bodies in integrating human rights standards in their work.
39. Based on the understanding that good governance is a sine qua
non condition for the full realization of human rights (see point
19 above), the experts stressed that the scope of alignment for
human rights should ensure the active participation groups or
organizations which competently respresent the aspirations of
affected people and communities, particularly the marginalized
and vulnerable. In Indonesia, Komnas Perempuan conducts
regular consultations with stakeholders within civil society,
including from survivor/victim communities, and enters into
collaborative work for documentation of abuses, formulation
of policy recommendations, and necessary case referrals for
recovery and rehabilitation.
27
O P P O R T UN I T I ES I N S O UTHE AST ASIA
40. The experts in this meeting appreciated the existence of a range
of human rights mechanisms within the Southeast Asia region,
each originating from significant and distinct historical processes
at the national and the regional levels. National human rights
institutions (NHRIs) currently exist in four countries, namely
the Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia, and several
others are preparing the ground for their establishment. These
national commissions have established a Southeast Asia Forum
of NHRIs (SEAF NHRIs) and are members of the Asia Pacific
Forum on NHRIs. Indonesia has three national commissions,
namely the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas
HAM), the National Commission on Violence Against Women
(Komnas Perempuan) and the Indonesian Commission on the
Protection of Children, each with their own distinct mandates
and histories.
41. The experts noted that ratification of the international Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) by all ten Southeast Asian countries providing the legal
framework for the establishment of the ASEAN Commission
for the Promotion and Protection the Rights of Women and
Children (ACWC), as prescribed in the 2004 Vientiane Plan of
Action. By 2007, the strengthening of democracy, enhancement
of good governance and the rule of law, and the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms became
one among the 14 purposes of ASEAN16, as stated in the 2007
16
To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law,
28
ASEAN Charter, which became the basis for establishment of
the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights
(AICHR)17.
42. Other international conventions have also been ratified by many
of ASEAN’s Member States. As it currently stands, the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Covenant on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention
on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) have been
ratified by six Member States, whereas the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of Peoples with
Disabilities (CRPD) have each been ratified by four Member
States. Only the Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearances (CED) has not been ratified by
any of the ASEAN Member States, while the Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their
Families (CRMW) has been ratified by one among ASEAN’s
Member States.
43.The experts recognized that effective alignment among the
human rights institutions within Southeast Asia could bring
about significant new opportunities for the advancement of
human rights promotion and protection in the region and
beyond.
17
and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, with
due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member States of ASEAN.
(Article 1, point 7, ASEAN Charter)
In conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter
relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body. (Article 14,
point 1, ASEAN Charter)
29
Understanding AICHR’s O verarching Role
44. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of AICHR identifies this body
as “the overarching human rights institution in ASEAN with
the overall responsibility for the promotion and protection of
human rights in ASEAN”.18 It further provides direction on the
distinct roles this body is to play as the overarching human rights
institution. AICHR has the singular responsibility for obtaining
information from the Member States on human rights promotion
and protection and for developing common approaches and
positions on human rights matters, both critical functions for
advancing the fulfillment of Member States’ obligations on
human rights. AICHR also must lead the way for human rights
standard setting in the region by developing ASEAN’s human
rights declaration as the foundational framework for future
human rights conventions, instruments and cooperation.
The experts found that these three mandates define AICHR’s
overarching role to be exercised in accordance to human rights
standards and principles and following the practices of good
governance.
45.AICHR’s TOR stipulates that it “shall work with all ASEAN
sectoral bodies dealing with human rights to expeditiously
determine the modalities for their ultimate alignment with the
AICHR”19. Substantively, this gives AICHR a key responsibility
in the region for the rigorous maintenance of coherence in
human rights promotion and protection, allowing for systemwide coherence and consistent with universal standards and
established international treaty obligations. An ASEAN-wide
approach to alignment reflects consistency with the universality,
indivisibility, interrelatedness and non-discrimination principles
18
19
Para. 6.8 of the TOR of AICHR.
Para. 6.9 TOR of AICHR.
30
of human rights. The experts concurred that AICHR should
solicit the widest possible input from the relevant bodies within
ASEAN and from stakeholders within civil society on the actual
scope of ASEAN’s “sectoral bodies dealing with human rights”
so as to ensure broadest possible participation in the effort to
maintain coherence in human rights promotion and protection
throughout ASEAN.
46.The experts underlined the importance of the principles of
universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness
of all human rights and fundamental freedoms20 in guiding
implementation of AICHR’s responsibility to consult, coordinate
and collaborate21 with the whole range of ASEAN’s sectoral bodies
dealing with human rights. Premised on the principle of equality
among the human rights bodies, the most conducive modalities
and common guidelines towards effective fulfillment of AICHR’s
overarching role as a leader among equals depends on open and
continuous dialogue with and among the participating bodies.
Such space is also necessary to accurately determine and review
the levels of alignment – low, medium or high – most appropriate
for particular purposes and circumstances along the long-term
process of relationship building.
Respect for international human rights principles, including universality,
indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms, as well as impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity,
non-discrimination, and avoidance of double standards and politicization
(AICHR Terms of Reference, 2.2)
21
The AICHR shall work with all ASEAN sectoral bodies dealing with human
rights to expeditiously determine the modalities for their ultimate alignment
with the AICHR. To this end, the AICHR shall closely consult, coordinate and
collaborate with such bodies in order to promote synergy and coherence
in ASEAN’s promotion and protection of human rights. (AICHR Terms of
Reference, 6.9)
20
31
Star ting Points for Effec tive Alignment
47.Effective alignment of human rights systems at the national,
regional and international levels is achieveable in Southeast Asia
and, from the perspective of the experts, could be attained from
clear starting points provided by the ASEAN Charter, the TORs
of AICHR and ACWC, and AICHR’s agreed upon workplan.
Complementarity and Mutuality between AICHR and ACWC
48.The experts found that the TORs of AICHR and ACWC
definitively establish the legitimacy and distinct histories of these
two bodies and clearly outline the foundations for an effective
alignment between the two. A close reading of both TORs
discloses the potential areas of convergence as well as the areas of
complementarity based on distinct mandates of each of the two
bodies (see Annex 3 on A Comparative Perspective on the TORs
of AICHR and ACWC). Achievement of AICHR’s goals depends
on the effective implementation of ACWC’s mandates, and vice
versa.
49.AICHR’s implementation of its unique mandate to obtain
information from Member States, to develop positions on human
rights matters and to come up with ASEAN’s Human Rights
Declaration requires input from a wide range of stakeholders,
including from ACWC on the rights of women and children,
in order for it to optimally meet the principle of universality,
indivisibility, interdependency and interrelatedness of human
rights. At the same time, ACWC would not fulfill its mandated
role unless it is able to feed its work into the studies, consultations,
dialogues and policies which AICHR conducts as part of its
overall responsibility for the promotion and protection of human
rights in ASEAN. ACWC’s specific responsibility to advocate
on behalf of the most vulnerable and marginalized women and
32
children and to support the participation of ASEAN women
and children in various processes within ASEAN particularly
requires a productive and sustained relationship with AICHR.
50.For this to succeed, the experts concurred that AICHR and
ACWC would need to create regular spaces for open dialogue in
order to reach a common understanding on their respective rules
of procedure, to come to agreement on some formal and informal
guidelines for coordinated and/or collaborative functionings,
to conclude on the most effective and efficient modalities of
working together as well as to ensure non-duplication and
to address differences of opinion. Regular meetings at timely
moments, such as at the beginning, middle and/or end of the
year, would contribute to the continual development of such
procedural alignment. It would allow for dynamic flexibility in
determining when and how to carry out low, medium or high
levels of alignment, and can function as a preventive measure
against overlap and duplication of work. Constant reviews and
independent evaluations of these processes can bring about
best practices which could be replicated and institutionalized,
including with other relevant bodies with a human rights
mandate. Requests for input should be a minimal modality
exercised by both bodies.
51.Some administrative alignment between AICHR and ACWC
would serve ASEAN well in terms of the efficient use of resources.
Both bodies share the responsibility to enhance public awareness
and education on human rights; to promote implementation of
international and ASEAN human rights obligations; to encourage
ratification of international human rights instruments; and,
to provide advisory services to ASEAN’s sectoral bodies upon
request. Activities to fulfill these responsibilities could be carried
out collaboratively between the two bodies which, in turn, could
contribute to a better understanding by the institutions and peoples
33
of ASEAN on the distinctiveness and interrelations between the
two. Initial administrative arrangements for alignment could
take the form of shared financial resources for joint activities as
well as adjacent office space for staffs and meetings to optimalize
exchanges of information and to facilitate effective coordination
and collaborations. Learning the lessons from other parts of the
world, the experts noted that such administrative alignment
could directly contribute to advancements in the substantive
alignment between the two bodies.
Coherence and Synergy among Human Rights Mechanisms at
National, Regional and International Levels
52. For Southeast Asia, the international human rights conventions
ratified by the ASEAN Member States and the Member States’
active participation in the Human Rights Council and its process
of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) are key starting points to
secure coherence in the human rights systems across the national,
regional and international levels. The experts identified several
practical steps for consideration by ASEAN’s human rights
bodies to ensure coherence and synergy with the international
human rights system22, including submitting a request for
developing modalities for alignment with the international
treaty bodies; developing modalities for substantive alignment
with relevant Special Procedures; engaging with the Human
Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process by providing
regional input or by taking part in one of the ASEAN Member
22
Other related references: Report of the UNOHCHR on the international
workshop on enhancing cooperation between international and regional
mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights, A/HRC/15/56,
9 August 2010; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, “Special procedures and
regional human rights systems: Areas for strengthening cooperation, 4 June
2007.
34
States’s presentation to the Human Rights Council to report on
the overall work of ASEAN’s human rights bodies and/or by
engaging in the implementation of and follow up to the UPR
recommendations. The UPR system also provides a mechanism
to deal with different legally binding obligations among ASEAN’s
Member States.
53.ASEAN’s regional human rights mechanism has a valueable
opportunity to establish strong grounding at the national level
through effective alignment with the region’s array of national
human rights institutions. The SEAF NHRIs, established by
the national human rights commissions of the Philippines,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, has initiated communication
with AICHR with the purpose of seeking ways to synergize.
During this meeting, the National Commission on Violence
Against Women (Komnas Perempuan), Indonesia’s specialized
mechanism for women’s human rights, also expressed its
readiness to provide input on its mandated area of work to
AICHR and ACWC upon request; to carry out joint consultations
among Komnas Perempuan and the Indonesian Representatives
to AICHR and ACWC with relevant stakeholders in Indonesia;
and, to explore the possibility of regular consultations between
Komnas Perempuan and the ACWC on the overall rights of
women and girls.
54. Across ASEAN, policy coherence for human rights promotion
and protection would require the active role of its human rights
bodies to ensure that all of this regional organization’s policy
making bodies are aware of and observe the human rights
obligations of ASEAN and its Member States. The TORs of both
AICHR and ACWC equally provide mandates for this active role
and are conducive to an ASEAN-wide coherence. The experts
emphasized that ASEAN’s Community Councils, comprising
of the ASEAN Political-Security Community Council, ASEAN
35
Economic Community Council and ASEAN Socio-Cultural
Community Council, and the ASEAN Sectoral Ministerial
Bodies are critical for the development of such policy coherence.
Ultimately, the success of AICHR and ACWC in fulfilling their
mandates depend on leadership on this matter from the ASEAN
Coordinating Council, on the one hand, and on appropriate
support from the ASEAN Secretariat, on the other.
55. The demand for knowledge and assistance on general and specific
human rights matters from ASEAN’s sectoral bodies need to be
developed in order for AICHR and ACWC to be able to provide
advisory services and technical assistance upon request. The
request of the ASEAN Ministers of Health for AICHR’s opinion
on mandatory testing of HIV/AIDS for migrant workers was
acknowledged as potentially precedent-setting as a modality for
constructive engagements between and among ASEAN’s human
rights and sectoral bodies.
Alignment to Effectively Address Cross-cutting Issues
56.According to AICHR’s agreed upon workplan, there are two
upcoming thematic studies which will be conducted in 2011,
namely on migration and human rights and on business and
human rights. The experts stressed that these studies could lay
the foundations for effective alignment among ASEAN bodies
and the various stakeholders around critical cross-cutting issues.
57.Addressing cross-cutting human rights issues can be pathbreaking for building effective alignment across a wide range
of stakeholders. Issue-based approaches allow for dynamic
exploration of human rights obligations as they create
opportunities for input from a diversity of experts, constituency
groups within civil society, and related mandate holders at the
national, regional and international levels. They could also lead
36
to sound empirically-based policy making that is responsive to
up-to-date realities on the ground on the human rights situations
of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups.
58.In Southeast Asia, explorations on state obligations on the
human rights of migrants could benefit from input from the
diversity of stakeholders with broad knowledge of the treaties
and commitments undertaken by ASEAN’s Member States and
those who can help ground established state obligations on
current realities of the region. Input from migrant workers and
their advocates would be critical to ensure responsiveness to
the report to current realities. Particularly relevant treaties and
commitments which are binding to all or some of the Member
States include: the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers; CEDAW and
its Committee’s General Recommendation No. 26 on Women
Migrant Workers; CRC and its Committee’s General Comment
No. 6 on Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children
Outside of Their Country of Origin; and, the Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their
Families and its General Comment No. 1 on Migrant Domestic
Workers.
59.On the issue of business and human rights, the human rights
goals of ASEAN would benefit from input various stakeholders
in the region and from the global community, including from
the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on the
issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other
business enterprises who is in the process of drafting the Guiding
Principles for the Implementation of United Nations ‘Protect,
Respect and Remedy’ Framework.
37
R E CO M M E N D AT I O N S
60.The expert meeting brought forth a broad range of
recommendations for developing effective alignment for
human rights promotion and protection. They demonstrate the
importance of concerted efforts conducted simultaneously at
the national, regional and international levels among a diverse
spectrum of stakeholders to make alignment effective for human
rights. Below is a summary of practical recommendations made
throughout the expert meeting.
Regional
61.In order to be the leader among equals for human rights
promotion and protection in ASEAN, AICHR could consider
the following immediate steps:
a. initiate meetings with key ASEAN bodies, including
ACWC, ACMW and the ASEAN’s Community Councils
and Sectoral Ministerial Bodies, to establish modalities for
regular dialogue;
b. secure the grounding for effective institutional alignment
for a coherent human rights system in the ASEAN Human
Rights Declaration;
c. request input from the widest spectrum of stakeholders for
its thematic studies, including from affected individuals and
their advocates.
62. In order to play a proactive leadership role on the rights of women and children, ACWC could consider:
38
a. providing input to AICHR and ASEAN’s sectoral bodies on
suggested modalities for the active participation of ASEAN
women and children in the dialogue and consultation
processes within ASEAN;
b. developing a year-long program to facilitate sharing of
experiences and good practices between and among ASEAN
Member States on the rights of women and children;
c. submitting to AICHR independent reports on common
thematic concerns, such as on migration and human rights
and on business and human rights.
63. The ASEAN Community Councils and the Sectoral Ministerial
Bodies could follow the precedent set by the ASEAN Ministers of
Health when they asked AICHR for input on mandatory testing
of HIV/AIDS by requesting input from AICHR and ACWC on
human rights matters pertinent to their respective mandates.
64.The ASEAN Secretary General could initiate the providing
of administrative alignment between AICHR and ACWC by
making available adjacent office space for their respective staff
and meetings, and establishing efficient communication means
through the use of information and communication technology.
65. The ASEAN Coordinating Council could provide timely support
for ASEAN’s human rights bodies to ensure ASEAN-wide policy
coherence on human rights.
International Level
66.The UNOHCHR could consider exploring possible modalities
for regional human rights bodies to increase their effectiveness
in providing regional input into the international human rights
system, including for the development of the Universal Periodic
Review system.
39
67. The UNOHCHR could take an active role in facilitating effective
exchanges on best practices and lessons learned on alignment
among human rights institutions at national, regional and
international levels.
National Level
68.National governments in Southeast Asia should support the
effective synergy for human rights promotion and protection
among the national Representatives to AICHR, ACWC
and ACMW and with the respective national human rights
institutions wherever such institutions exist as well as with the
respective national civil society organizations.
69. National human rights institutions should seek ways to engage
with the ASEAN’s regional human rights bodies for the
advancement of human rights promotion and protection in their
respective jurisdictions. Komnas Perempuan should follow up on
its plans to build effective alignment with AICHR, ACWC and
ACMW for the advancement of the human rights of women and
girls through the Indonesian Representatives to these regional
bodies.
Civil Society
70.At all levels, stakeholders within civil society concerned with
the promotion and protection of human rights for all should
contribute to the shaping of a globally-coherent system of human
rights through their active engagement with all human rights
mechanisms at the national, regional and international levels,
particularly in the development and application of effective
systems for monitoring and documentation, legal and policy
reform, and victims recovery and rehabilitation.
40
Annex 1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND ORGANIZERS
A. E X P E R T S A N D B I O
RITA SERENA KOLIBONSO is the representative
of Republic of Indonesia of the ASEAN Commission
on the Promotion and the Protection of the Rights of
Women and Children (ACWC), particularly on women
rights. She is a human rights lawyer by professional. She
graduated from Faculty of Law of University of Indonesia,
Jakarta (1988) and gained her master in laws (LL.M.)
in International Law from Faculty of Law of Sheffield
University, the United of Kingdom (1997). Over the past
25 years she has earned a reputation as a leading human
rights lawyer through her leadership of working and dedicating her commitments
as a human rights defender and legal drafter in Indonesia since the year 1986. She
has been active in various national and regional-level civil society organisations
and human rights as well women’s rights organisations such as Jakarta Legal Aid
Institute (1986-1996), Indonesia Women Association fo Justice (founder, 1995),
the Foundation for Elimination of Violence Against Women “Mitra Perempuan
Women’s Crisis Centre” (founder and chair, 1995), the Indonesia Women’s Health
Foundation (founder, 2001), the National Commissions on Anti Violence Againts
Women (as former vice-chairperson, 1998-2003), the Asia Cause Lawyer Network
based in New Delhi (as a member of steering committee since 2006).
AHMAD TAUFAN DAMANIK, born in Pematang
Siantar, 29 June 1965. Completed his education at the
Communications Department of the Faculty of Social
and Political Sciences of North Sumatera University
in 1987. Attended courses and education on human
rights and children’s rights in a number of countries,
including the International Institute of Human Rights,
Strassbourg, France in 1999. Completed his Masters of
Arts in Political Theory from University of Essex, UK,
in 2004. Since 1986 have been working for children’s
rights by establishing Yayasan KKSP addressing issues of children’s rights, especially
alternative education for children, child labor advocacy, children suffering sexual
41
exploitation, trafficking and others. Additionally, he is a member of IFM-SEI, an
international organization for child education based in Brussels. Together with
national children’s rights activists, established and became the Coordinator of
Presidium of the National Coalition for Non-Governmental Organizations for
Monitoring Children’s Rights that works to conduct monitoring of children’s rights
and to prepare Alternative Reports regarding Children’s Rights Implementation in
Indonesia to balance the state report to the UN Children’s Rights Committee. At
the regional level, active at Child Workers in Asia, ASIA ACT, and the International
Coalition for the Elimination of Child Soldiers. The activist has been writing about
various child issues, attending international seminars and conferences on children’s
rights. Mr. Damanik also lectures at the Department of Political Sciences, the
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, North Sumatera University, Medan, and as
a freelance consultant for children’s rights and politics. Since April 2010, selected
as the Indonesian representative for children’s rights at the ACWC for a three-year
term.
RAFENDI DJAMIN. Currently Executive Director of
HRWG (human Rights Working Group)–a Coalition
of Indonesian NGO for International Human Rights
Advocacy, a Jakarta based network organization at
national level, with members more than 40 organizations
(national and provincial level) from all sectors (women’s
rights group, children rights groups, environmental
groups, urban poor, peasant and fisherman organization,
trade advocacy groups, development NGO’s, migrant
workers), Former Convener of SAPA (Solidarity for
Asian People’s Advocacy), Task-Force on ASEAN and
Human Rights, a platform of more than 60 NGO’s from ASEAN member countries.
Since 23rd October 2009, elected and appointed as Indonesian Representative of
ASEAN Inter Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). Specialist
and trainers in human rights and democracy in Indonesia. Master’s degree in
Development Studies from Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, (1989) The
Netherlands. Faculty of Social Sciences University of Indonesia, Sociology. 1981.
Since 1992, has been focusing on lobby and advocacy work on human rights,
democracy and humanitarian problems in Indonesia to both Inter-governmental
bodies and UN Human Rights mechanisms. Since 2003, is based in Jakarta,
Indonesia. In the course of the year his work is expanded to sub-regional and
regional level in ASEAN and Asia-Pacific.
42
MARIA NEREA APARICIO. Mrs. Nerea Aparicio is a
human rights attorney and since 2006 has served as a
Human Rights Specialist in the Executive Secretariat of
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. She
is currently responsible within the OAS’s Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for matters
involving Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador including
petitions, cases and reporting. Before joining the OAS,
Mrs. Aparicio worked for the Colombian Office of the
UNHCHR as an International Consultant (2002-2003)
and earlier as a Human Rights Verification Officer (19952000) for the UN Mission for the Verification of the Peace
Accords in Guatemala (MINUGUA). Previously, Mrs. Aparicio worked for the
Center of Justice and International Law (CEJIL) an NGO specialized in litigating
cases before the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court on
Human Rights. Mrs. Aparicio earned her law degree from the University of Deusto
(Spain) and her LL.M degree in International Legal Studies from the American
University in Washington D.C.
SABINA LAUBER, works with the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva,
specialising in issues relating to South East Asia. Sabina
is a lawyer with particular expertise in the international
human rights mechanisms, women’s human rights and
National Human Rights Institutions. Prior to joining
OHCHR, she worked with UNIFEM Bangkok on issues
relating to CEDAW in the South East Asian region. Before
joining the United Nations, Sabina worked in Australia
with the Australian Human Rights Commission on the
issue of discrimination against women.
SJAMSIAH ACHMAD. Experience: 1956-1960: Education Researcher, 1963-1964: Science Administration
Staff, National Research Department, 1964-1967: Private
Secretary to the Indonesian Ambassador to USSR,
Moscow, 1967-1978: International Relations Bureau
Chief for LIPI (The Indonesia Institute of Science),
1978 – 1988: Senior program Officer, United Nations
Headquarters, New York dan Vienna, 1988–1995:
Assistant to the State Minister for Women’s Role Affairs,
1995 – 1998: Advisor on R&D Goverment LIPI, 2001
– 2004: Member of CEDAW Committee, 2003 – 2009: Commissioner of Komnas
Perempuan.
43
ENNY SOEPRAPTO, a PhD in International Law, is a
former international civil servant (Protection Officer,
UNHCR, Geneva; Senior Officer, UNIDO, Vienna) and
a former Commissioner, Indonesian Human Rights
National Commission (Komnas HAM) in charge of civil
and political rights. A specialist of international refugee
and human rights law, he participated in a significant
number of conferences and meetings on international
refugee, human rights and humanitarian law. He has
written a significant number of articles, working papers
and lectures on the above mentioned subjects. He is
currently an independent consultant for the promotion of human rights and refugee
law and a Member (Jurist) of the Advisory Council of Jurist (ACJ) of the Asia Pacific
Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF).
SRI DANTY ANWAR, MA. Her current position is
the Ministerial Secretary of the Ministry for Women
Empowerment and Child Protection of Republic of
Indonesia (MOWE CP). Previously, she was the Deputy
Minister for Gender Mainstreaming (MOWE CP).
She holds a Master’s Degree on Gender Studies from
Australia.
IFDHAL KASIM is the Chairperson of the National
Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and a
lecturer at Department of Criminology of University
of Indonesia. Previously, he served as the Director
of Law and Legislation Program at Reform Institute
(2006-2007), and the Executive Director of ELSAM, the
Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (1999-2006),
all based in Jakarta. He was graduated from Faculty of
Law, Indonesian Islamic University, Yogyakarta, in 1990.
He attended various international trainings and courses
on Human Rights Law (in Montreal, Canada, organized
by Canadian Human Rights Foundation, 1996; in Columbia University, New York,
New York, USA; 1997); on Natural Resources Law (organized by Natural Resources
Law Centre, Manila, Philippine, 1998); on Economic and Social Rights (organized
44
by Forum Asia and Canadian Human Rights Foundation, Bangkok, 1999); on
Mining and Human Rights Advocacy (organized by Harvard Human Rights Study,
Nigeria, 1999); and on Transitional Justice (Law School New York University,
New York, USA, 2008). He was also a member of Asian Human Rights NGO
Delegation to participate in the UN Preparatory Commission on the International
Criminal Court on April 2002, New York. Mr. Kasim has wide range of professional
experiences as attorney, campaign coordinator and legal drafter on human right
issues.
YUNIYANTI CHUZAIFAH is one of the commissioners
of Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence Against
Women (Komnas Perempuan) and since January 2010,
has been its Chairperson for period 2010-2014. She
also has been involved in various Indonesian NGOs
focused on women issues since 1990, such as Women
Solidarity for Human’s Right (Solidaritas Perempuan);
one of the founders of Indonesia’s Women Coalition
(Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia), Suara Ibu Peduli (Voice
of Concerned Mother) , Konsorsium Pembela Buruh
Migran Indonesia (consortium of Women Migran Workers defender), Kelompok
Perempuan untuk Kebebasan Pers (women coalition for press freedom), etc. In 2001,
she joined Common Ground Indonesia as a consultant and Program Manager for
women in several conflict areas (Papua, Kalimantan, Madura and Jakarta). She was
also a Gender Advisor/Consultant in Mc Gill University Canada and several Islamic
Universities; and member of national board in International Center for Islam and
Pluralism (ICIP). Yuniyanti took her master program in Leiden University; and at
present is finishing her doctoral program in Gender and Migration, (Anthropology)
of Amsterdam University.
ANDY YENTRIYANI currently serves as one of the 15
commissioners at Indonesia’s National Commission on
Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan), 20102014. She joined the Commission in early 2000 as part of
its Executive Body and led some of Komnas Perempuan’s
major monitoring work in conflict situations, post
disaster, and in relation to the rise of identity politics. This
includes reports on Aceh during the aftermath of armed
conflict, the tsunami and implementation of Sharia
Law (2006-2007); on the situation of women human
rights defenders (2007); on victims of sexual attacks
during May 1998 riots ten years after the incident (2008); and, on the impacts of
45
discriminatory local by-laws regulating public morality and religiosity (2009). Born
in 1977 in Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Andy completed her undergraduate study
in International Relations at the University of Indonesia and her masters’ degree
on Media and Communications at Goldsmiths College, University of London,
UK. She directed her childhood concern on the practice of under age marriage
of the Chinese-Indonesian women with Taiwanese men into field research for her
undergraduate degree. The research was a milestone for integrating the gender
perspective into the study of international relations in Indonesia and was published
by the Post-Graduate Program on Women’s Study at the University of Indonesia
in collaboration with the EWHA Womans University of South Korea. It has since
been used as one of the main references at national level to scrutinize transnational
marriage as a modus of trafficking. A trainer on women human rights and on
documenting gender based violations against women, Andy is also a lecturer at the
University of Indonesia on gender and international relations.
WAHYUNINGRUM (Yuyun) holds Master of Arts (MA)
on Human Rights from Mahidol University Graduate
Studies in Thailand. She graduated from the school
in 2007 with the thesis on “The Politics of Trafficking
in Indonesia: Gender, National Rhetoric and Power”.
Yuyun is a scholarship recipient from Raoul Wallenberg
Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law/
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA).
Currently, she is working as Senior Advisor on ASEAN
and Human Rights at the Indonesia’s NGO Coalition
for International Human Rights Advocacy or Human
Rights Working Group (HRWG) which is based in Jakarta, Indonesia. Before
joining HRWG, she worked as Policy Advisor on ASEAN at the Oxfam International
(2009-2010), as East Asia Program Manager the Asian Forum of Human Rights
and Development (Forum-Asia) and Campaign Coordinator at the Solidarity for
Asian Peoples’ Advocacy Task Force on ASEAN and Human Rights from 2008 to
2009 and as the Southeast Asia Coordinator at the Child Workers in Asia (CWA)
based in Bangkok, Thailand from 2004-2006. From 1998 to 2004, she worked on the
issue of child rights, trade union, and trafficking of women and children in different
national and international organizations based in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was also
one of the driving forces for the Government of Indonesia to come up with the
National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Women and Children 2002-2007.
46
B. D R A F T E R S A N D B I O
KAMALA CHANDRAKIRANA just completed 11 years
in Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence against
Women, a unique national mechanism for women’s
human rights that was established as one of the markers
of political reform after 32 years of authoritarianism.
The commission’s work has focused on addressing
the diverse experiences of women in four decades of
armed conflicts throughout Indonesia, covering distinct
conflicts from Aceh to Papua, from the 1960s to 2009.
Kamala’s service at the national commission included
six years was as Chairperson of the Commission (20032009) and five years as Secretary General (1998-2003). She is also active in various
national-level civil society organizations covering a wide range of civil political and
social cultural rights, such as the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), a leading
anti-corruption NGO; ELSAM, a human rights think-tank; Syarikat Indonesia, a
network of progressive Muslim activists pursuing grassroots cultural reconciliation
to address past human rights violations; the Indonesian Institute for Social History
(ISSI), situating past gross human rights violations as part of historical inquiry;
Rahima, an education center on women’s rights within Islam; Fahmina Institute, a
Cirebon-based institute on critical knowledge and discourse on Islam; the Center
for History and Political Ethics (PUSDEP); and, YSIK, a national grant-making
institution for social movements. Beyond Indonesia, Kamala is an active member
of the Asia Pacific Women Law and Development (APWLD) and its Southeast
Asia Women’s Caucus on ASEAN; one of the founders of Musawah, a global
movement for justice and equality in the Muslim family; and a board member of
the International Center for Local Democracy (ICLD) based in Visby, Sweden.
She was just recently appointed as a member of the Asia Pacific Advisory Group
on Women, Peace and Security, an advisory group set up by the United Nations
Regional Coordination Mechanism Thematic Working Group on Gender Equality
and the Empowerment of Women whose purpose is to advise governments, civil
society and other relevant players in the region on the effective implementation of
UNSCR 1325 and to contribute to regional and global analysis and discourse on
women, peace and security in the region.
ELEANOR CONDA’s human rights advocacy spans
over two decades. She has founded, led, or coordinated
national, regional and international organizations or
initiatives concerned with diverse human rights issues
and engaged in human rights standard setting, securing
justice, building human rights-related capacities, and
strengthening state accountability. She has supported
and continuous to support in various capacities national,
regional and international organizations or networks
47
focused on reproductive and sexual rights, prostitution, trafficking, development
and communication, violence against women, women’s human rights, issues of
marginalized groups, local economy development, the International Criminal
Court, etc.
She engaged in key international standard setting venues which sharpened further
the theoretical aspect of her human rights praxis. She was member of Philippine
official delegations to the UN Open-ended Working Group that negotiated on
the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW from 1996 t0 1999; 1995 Fourth World
Conference on Women; 2000 Beijing +5 Review, several sessions of the UN
Commission on Women, and the 1995 session of the UN Committee on NGOs.
She also promoted women’s human rights agenda at sessions of the UN CEDAW
Committee, UN Commission on Human Rights etc. and in UN and NGOsponsored expert group meetings where human rights standards, concepts and
issues were elaborated. Through her initial brief stints in an executive agency and in
the Congress in her country, Eleanor got her introduction to lawmaking on women’s
rights and was involved in cooperatives development with rural women. Eleanor
finished law and economics and advanced studies in management. She took special
courses on international trade law and policy and organizational development. She
does volunteer and consulting work related to human rights and organizational
development.
C. O B S E R V E R S
48
ORGANIZERS
49
Expert Meeting on
Effective Alignment among Human Rights Mechanisms to
Secure Human Rights of All
Annex 2
Jakarta, 6-7 December 2010
Indonesian Representatives to AICHR and ACWC
in collaboration with Komnas Perempuan With support from UNIFEM
AGENDA
50
Annex 3
A Comparative Perspec tive
on the Terms of Reference of AICHR and ACWC
Common Mandates
Strategy
Development
4.1. To develop strategies
for the promotion and
protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms
to complement the building
of the ASEAN Community.
5.2. To develop policies,
programs and innovative
strategies to promote and
protect the rights of women
and children to complement
the building of the ASEAN
Community.
Public
Awareness
4.3. To enhance public
awareness of human rights
among the peoples of
ASEAN through education,
research and dissemination
of information.
5.3. To promote public
awareness and education
of the rights of women and
children in ASEAN.
Capacity
Building
4.4. To promote capacity
building for the effective
implementation of international human rights treaty
obligations undertaken by
ASEAN Member States.
5.5. To build capacities of
relevant stakeholders at all
levels, e.g. administrative,
legislative, judicial, civil society, community leaders,
women and children machineries, through the provision
of technical assistance, training and workshops, towards
the realization of the rights of
women and children.
Ratification of
International
Instruments
4.5. To encourage ASEAN
Member States to consider
acceding to and ratifying
international human rights
instruments.
5.13. To encourage ASEAN
Member States to consider
acceding to, and ratifying,
international human rights
instruments related to women
and children.
51
Implementation
of Human
Rights
Instruments
4.6. To promote the full
implementation of ASEAN
instruments related to
human rights.
5.1.
To
promote
the
implementation of international instruments, ASEAN
instruments
and
other
instruments related to the
rights of women and children.
Advisory
Services
4.7. To provide advisory
services and technical
assistance on human rights
matters to ASEAN sectoral
bodies upon request.
5.15. To provide advisory
services on matters pertaining to the promotion
and protection of the rights
of women and children to
ASEAN sectoral bodies upon
request.
Studies
4.12. To prepare studies on
thematic issues of human
rights in ASEAN.
5.9. To promote studies
and research related to the
situation and well-being of
women and children with
the view to fostering effective
implementation of the rights
of women and children in the
region.
Other Tasks
4.14. To perform any other
tasks as may be assigned to
it by the ASEAN Foreign
Ministers Meeting.
5.16. To perform any other
tasks related to the rights
of women and children as
may be delegated by the
ASEAN Leaders and Foreign
Ministers.
52
Mandates Unique to AICHR
4.2. To develop an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration with a view
to establishing a framework for human rights cooperation
through various ASEAN conventions and other instruments
dealing with human rights.
4.8. To engage in dialogue and consultation with other ASEAN
bodies and entities associated with ASEAN, including civil
society organisations and other stakeholders, as provided for in
Chapter V of the ASEAN Charter.
4.9. To consult, as may be appropriate, with other national, regional
and international institutions and entities concerned with the
promotion and protection of human rights.
4.10. To obtain information from ASEAN Member States on the
promotion and protection of human rights.
4.11. To develop common approaches and positions on human rights
matters of interest to ASEAN.
4.13. To submit an annual report on its activities, or other reports if
deemed necessary, to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting.
6.9. The AICHR shall work with all ASEAN sectoral bodies dealing
with human rights to expeditiously determine the modalities
for their ultimate alignment with the AICHR.
To this end, the AICHR shall closely consult, coordinate and
collaborate with such bodies in order to promote synergy and
coherence in ASEAN’s promotion and protection of human
rights.
Mandates Specific to ACWC
5.4. To advocate on behalf of women and children, especially the
most vulnerable and marginalized, and encourage ASEAN
Member States to improve their situation.
5.6. To assist, upon request by ASEAN Member States, in preparing
53
for CEDAW and CRC Periodic Reports, the Human Rights
Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and reports for
other Treaty Bodies, with specific reference to the rights of
women and children in ASEAN.
5.7. To assist, upon request by ASEAN Member States, in
implementing the Concluding Observations of CEDAW and
CRC and other Treaty Bodies related to the rights of women
and children.
5.8. To encourage ASEAN Member States on the collection and
analysis of disaggregated data by sex, age, etc., related to the
promotion and protection of the rights of women and children.
5.10. To encourage ASEAN Member States to undertake periodic
reviews of national legislations, regulations, policies, and
practices related to the rights of women and children.
5.11. To facilitate sharing of experiences and good practices, including
thematic issues, between and among ASEAN Member States
related to the situation and well-being of women and children
and to enhance the effective implementation of CEDAW and
CRC through, among others, exchange of visits, seminars and
conferences.
5.12. To propose and promote appropriate measures, mechanisms
and strategies for the prevention and elimination of all forms
of violation of the rights of women and children, including the
protection of victims.
5.14. To support the participation of ASEAN women and children in
dialogue and consultation processes in ASEAN related to the
promotion and protection of their rights.
54
Prepared by:
The Indonesian Representative to AICHR
The Indonesian Representative to ACWC
Komnas Perempuan
55