Background document nhrm report

Background Document for the National Human Rights Monitoring Report


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

EHRC Reporting Team

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

EHRC Reporting Team Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Page 1 of 39


Contents1 Introduction..............................................................................................................3

2 Conceptual and Methodological Framework...............................................4

2.1 Conception of Monitoring............................................................................4

2.1.1Meaning and Purposes..............................................................................4

2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies......................................................6

2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring......................................7

2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies.............................................8

2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators.................9

2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information...........13

2.3 The National Human Rights Framework..............................................15

2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission..........................................18

3 The National Human Rights Monitoring Report.......................................20

3.1 Basis and Nature of the Report...............................................................21

3.1.1Guiding Principles and Values..............................................................22

3.1.2 Purpose and Objectives......................................................................23

3.2 Scope and Coverage...................................................................................23

3.3 The Research Process.................................................................................25

3.4 Indicators and Benchmarks......................................................................28

3.5 Sources of Information...............................................................................30

3.6 Implementation/Work Plan.......................................................................31

3.7 Inputs/Resource Requirements...............................................................34


Page 2 of 39


1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contents of the background paper are presented in two major parts. The first part, which may be considered the background, contains a brief overview of the theoretical and methodological framework for human rights monitoring with a view to establishing existing best practice. The national human rights framework in Ethiopia and the profile of the EHRC are also dealt with within this part. The implications of the identified best practice and the national and institutional contexts to the national human rights report are dealt with in the


Page 3 of 39


second section. In addition, the second section outlines the proposed substantive, institutional and methodological approaches for the conduct of the research process. The section concludes with a detailed budget.

2 Conceptual and Methodological Framework

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Conception of Monitoring

2.1.1 Meaning and Purposes

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

It is carried out over an extended period of time.

It involves collecting or receiving a large quantity of data.

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

1 United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic Governance Group, March 2006

2 Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and Documentation Series, Volume 1: WHAT IS MONITORING, HURIDOCS, 2003


Page 4 of 39

Ghetnet Metiku, 08/18/09,

Indicate specific sections upon completion


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While sharing similar purposes, monitoring is distinct from investigation and documentation of human rights abuses. Monitoring involves the repeated collection of information often involving investigating and documenting a large or representative number of human rights events. Investigation, on the

3 Mona Nicoara, Human Rights Observation and Monitoring, Independent Consultant, Columbia University, Monday, June 28, 2004

4 This is often referred to as the preventive aspect of human rights monitoring since the aim is to ensure that human rights safeguards are implemented.

5 This is the public education aspect of human rights monitoring


Page 5 of 39


other hand, refers to the process of fact finding focused on an event which carries or is suspected to carry one or more human rights violations. The final stage in human rights investigations is documentation or the systematic recording of the results of the investigation as a basis for advocacy or comparison.6 Data documented over a period of time and covering a large number of specific cases can be analyzed so as to get a fuller picture of the human rights situation in the context of a monitoring process.

2.1.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies

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

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)

Treaty monitoring bodies; The Commission on Human

Rights Special Rapporteurs and

Working Groups, Specialized agencies (e.g.

ILO, WHO, UNDP, …), Regional IGOs, and The Sub-Commission on the

Protection and Promotion of Human Rights7

Set standards Monitor compliance of

governments with their treaty obligations

Monitor certain situations involving violations

Governmental Organizations (GOs)

Government agencies or sector ministries responsible for treaty-based reports,

National human rights institutions,

Policy monitoring executive bodies,

Specialized commissions/ agencies (e.g. anti-corruption commissions)

Encourage own governments to adopt international standards

Monitor compliance of own governments with treaty obligations

Monitor violations

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

International advocacy groups and organizations,

National human rights NGOs

Lobby with IGOs toward setting standards

Lobby with governments toward adopting international standards

Monitor compliance of governments with their treaty obligations

Monitor violations

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


7 previously known as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities


Page 6 of 39


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

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

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

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

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

2.1.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring

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

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

8 United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution Building, Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007


Page 7 of 39


monitoring report dealing with the status of rights, situation of vulnerable groups and fulfillment of legal/moral duties by the duty-bearers.

Comprehensive vs. Specialized: Human rights monitoring processes and reports are also different in terms of the range of issues/rights to be covered. Some reports comprehensively cover the whole range of rights while others opt for a more in-depth coverage of selected thematic issues/rights. Most national human rights reports, however, have an overview section dealing with the whole range of rights/issues as well as specific sections for more in-depth discussion of selected issues/rights.

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

Situation monitoring

monitoring human rights violations monitoring the drafting and passing of legislation monitoring the implementation of laws and policies monitoring the establishment and progress of human rights

institutionsCase monitoring monitoring the legal process undergone by a case

monitoring relief and rehabilitation services provided to a client

monitoring other forms of intervention in a case

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

2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies

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

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

9 Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 57


Page 8 of 39


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

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

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

Indicator based human rights monitoring, on the other hand, involves the use of performance standards for the core components of specific rights in the form of indicators and benchmarks to determine patterns and trends. The advantages of this methodological approach have been noted in terms of enabling the identification of problems and potential major violations, expressing the magnitude of the problems, comparisons over space, determination of the status of groups within a country, and facilitating the evaluation of trends over time.10 However, indicators and benchmarks may not be appropriate in addressing grave violations since they tend to aggregate the situation of individuals. Indicators-based methodology is especially weak in situations were victims require direct and individualized assistance.

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

2.2.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators

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

10 Audrey R. Chapman, Indicators and Standards for Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Science and Human Rights Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000, p. 1

11 Maria Green, When We Talk about Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement, report written for the Human Development Report Office, United Nations Development Programme, July 1999


Page 9 of 39


of time”.12 In this definition, indicators are seen as both qualitative and quantitative descriptions of situations and as elements that are employed to define a particular process.

International, regional, and national human rights institutions have developed widely accepted indicators for a range of rights. At the international level, UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNESCO, and WHO, Special Rapporteurs such as Paul Hunt on the Right to Health, and inter-agency working groups have developed rights-based measurement systems in their respective spheres of expertise. Most notable among these are the detailed CESCR Guidelines,13 the draft harmonized reporting guidelines, the human development indicators and indices of UNDP, the national context-specific benchmarks under the Common Country Assessment (CCA) framework of UNDAF, 14 and indicators developed for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).15 Generally, three kinds of rights-based indicators have been identified for human rights monitoring.16 These are: structural, process and result indicators measuring commitment, efforts and results, respectively.17

Structural indicators measure whether or not appropriate legal, regulatory and institutional structures considered necessary or useful for the realization of a human right18 are in place as an indicator of the extent to which human rights are guaranteed through ratification and adoption of legal instruments and existence of basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realization of human rights (such as court systems, human rights commissions and ombudsmen, and formal complaint mechanisms).19 They capture commitments or the intent of the State in undertaking measures for

12 Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 55

13 UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991

14 UN, Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Framework: Guidelines for UN Country Teams (Geneva: July 2004) 6 (http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20and%20UNDAF.pdf)

15 United Nations Development Group, Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources (New York: United Nations, 2003). (http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mispa/Metadatajn30.pdf)

16 Paul Hunt, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Agenda item 117 (c), 10 October 2003

17 Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights, HRI/MC/2008/3, Twentieth meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies, Geneva, 26-27 June 2008

18 This refers to national law, constitutions, regulations and legal, policy frameworks and institutional organization and mandates.


Page 10 of 39

http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mispa/Metadatajn30.pdf

http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20and%20UNDAF.pdf

http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20and%20UNDAF.pdf


the realization of the concerned human right to monitor the state obligations of conduct, i.e. the effort the government has put forth towards the realization of a human right. Structural indicators have to focus foremost on the nature of domestic law as relevant to the concerned right, i.e. whether it incorporates the international standards, and the institutional mechanisms that promote and protect the standards. Structural indicators also need to look at policy framework and indicated strategies of the State as relevant to the right. Most structural indicators are qualitative in nature, and a number of structural indicators may be evaluated by a simple “yes“ or “no“ answer, e.g. if a particular law or policy is in place or not. However, sometimes these yes/no answers need follow-up questions and additional clarification, to capture qualitative dimensions of the law or policy.

A process indicator on the other hand measures the degree to which the state is complying with its obligations as well as the effectiveness of the structural realities, the laws and institutions that exist. In most cases, process indicators relate State policy instruments20 with benchmarks that cumulate into outcome indicators, which in turn can be more directly related to the realization of human rights. Process indicators capture:

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

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

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

A result indicator measures the outcome of efforts, or the lack of them, to meet a particular obligation and success in bringing about greater equity and wellbeing.21 It is therefore an indication of the current status of the enjoyment of a certain right and a more direct measure of the realization of rights. Outcome indicators capture attainments that reflect the status of realization of human rights in a given context. For instance, a result indicator may relate to whether and to what extent individuals and groups enjoy freedom of

19 The existence of institutions of civil society, including the independent media, universities, and human rights organizations is also considered a structural indicator.

20 State policy instruments refers to all such measures including public programmes and specific interventions that a State is willing to take in order to give effect to its intent/commitments to attain outcomes identified with the realization of a given human right.

21 A human rights inquiry is ultimately interested in the way people actually experience their rights, so it is important for us to measure outcomes


Page 11 of 39


religion and free speech, or an increase in government spending on female primary education actually yield improvements in the literacy rates of girls relative to boys.

Salient features of the OHCHR indicators framework

– A common approach to identifying indicators for monitoring civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, thereby strengthening the notion of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights;

– The framework translates the narrative on the normative content of human rights (starting with the related provisions of international human rights instruments and general comments by treaty bodies) into a few characteristic attributes and a configuration of structural, process and outcome indicators.

– The identified indicators bring to the fore an assessment of steps taken by the State party in addressing its obligations – from acceptance of international human rights standards (structural indicators) to efforts being undertaken by the primary duty-bearer, the State, to meet the obligations that flow from the standards (process indicators) and on to the outcomes of those efforts from the perspective of rights-holders (outcome indicators);

– The framework makes it is easier to identify contextually meaningful indicators for universally accepted human rights standards. It seeks neither to prepare a common list of indicators to be applied across all countries irrespective of their social, political and economic development, nor to make a case for building a global measure for cross-country comparisons of the realization of human rights;

– The framework focuses on two categories of indicators and data-generating mechanisms: (a) indicators that are or can be compiled by official statistical systems using statistical surveys and administrative records; and (b) indicators or standardized information more generally compiled by non-governmental sources and human rights organizations focusing on alleged violations reported by victims, witnesses or NGOs; and

– The framework also focuses on quantitative as well as qualitative indicators to assess the implementation of human rights effectively. Efforts have been made to keep the identified indicators simple, based on objective and transparent methodology and, to the extent feasible, there is an emphasis on the disaggregation of identified indicators by type of prohibited discrimination (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, etc) and by vulnerable or marginalized population groups.

UN- OHCHR’s work on indicators for human rights assessments, Status Note August, 2007

Most existing frameworks, such as treaty body guidelines,22 focus on structural and process-level indicators rather than outcomes due to ease of measurement, and emphasis on government obligations. One visible exception is the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

22 See for instance: General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic Reports to be Submitted by States Parties under Article 19, Paragraph 1, of the Convention , United Nations Committee Against Torture, revised 1998, Document C/14/Rev.1.


Page 12 of 39


whose Guidelines require states to provide specific outcome level statistics disaggregated by social group, sex, geographical location and other criteria, and supplemented with information about the rates of change over the past five and ten years.23 However, the principle of interdependence among the whole spectrum of human rights requires that a system of rights-based measurement incorporate indicators for both enforceability (structure and process) and actual rates of enjoyment (outcome). As Craig Mokhiber of OHCHR has noted,24

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

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

The various frameworks developed through the above indicated efforts provide us with a choice of indicators. Yet, there are a few more challenges that have to be addressed to ensure the contextual relevance and effectiveness in addressing the objective(s) for which the indicators are to be used. A major general concern in this respect is the fact that almost all available attempts were principally geared towards treaty-based reporting by States; a point that may give us pause in applying the same indicators for a report developed by an independent national human rights institution. Moreover, concerns relating to validity, reliability and transparency in terms of triangulation/cross-confirmation among data sources, capturing the essential aspects of the normative framework, and appropriate methodology have to be addressed.25 More specifically, the selection of human rights indicators is also necessitated by the following methodological considerations:

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

23 UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding t he form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991

24 Craig G. Mokhiber, “Toward a Measure of Dignity: Indicators for Rights-Based Development,” The Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 18 (2001) 159

25 Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Workshop on Measurement and Human Rights, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, July 6-8, 2006


Page 13 of 39


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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information

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

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

26 General Comment No. 19 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sets out an exhaustive listing of grounds for non-discrimination, which may require disaggregation of data, if feasible.


Page 14 of 39


greater transparency, credibility and accountability in human rights monitoring.

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

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

Information source bias relates to the availability of information and the possible biases stemming from the type of organizations that produce the information. Most available reports by human rights organizations, having access only to those violations that are reported, are based on reported cases of violation rather than a comprehensive database. Moreover, the very nature of the organizations may entail inherent bias in the way information is collected, compiled, analyzed and reported. For instance, foreign government reports such as those produced by the US State Department and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office will necessarily have certain biases and differ from information provided by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. There are also differences in reporting and interpretation among different human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House as well as between government agencies and CSOs. In relation to narrative and qualitative reports, there will be varying degrees of bias and uncertainty associated with differences in source material, ideological influences, and the fact that there are many incentives not to report human practices and problems accurately or at all.29

27 Rajeev Malhotra and Nicholas Fasel, “Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A Survey of Major Initiatives,” draft for discussion at Turku, 3 March 2005. (http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/Background.doc)


29 Human Rights Watch, for instance, relies heavily on communication with a network of “local human rights activists and civil society members” throughout all stages of its research. As such, there is always a risk that HRW


Page 15 of 39

http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/Background.doc


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

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

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

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

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

2.3 The National Human Rights Framework

Until the mid-1970s, Ethiopia is best described as a feudal state under a centralized imperial government. The last Imperial government was replaced by a socialist oriented military dictatorship after a popular uprising in 1974. The military government was itself abolished by a coalition of rebel forces under the name Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in May 1991. In July of the same year, the EPRDF and other political organizations established the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) under a national charter.30

reports channel the institutional and methodological biases inherent in using secondary sources as the principal basis for monitoring. Moreover, such selective approach is by definition non-responsive to comparisons across time and space.

30 However, some of the major partners of the EPRDF in the TGE, notably the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Southern Ethiopia Peoples' Democratic Coalition, subsequently left the government.


Page 16 of 39


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

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

31 The status of Dire Dawa as a federal city administration is not confirmed in the Constitution.

32 Article 50 of the FDRE Constitution: Although the Constitution confers upon regional states extensive legislative, administrative and judicial powers, some scholars and politicians argue that

33 The president and vice president of the Federal Supreme Court are recommended by the prime minister and appointed by the House of People's Representatives; for other federal judges, the prime minister submits candidates selected by the Federal Judicial Administrative Council to the House of People's Representatives for appointment.

34 International and non-governmental observers concluded that opposition parties would have been able to participate had they chosen to do so.

35 While the election was deemed by the European Union election observer team to fall short of international standards for fair and free elections, other teams drew different conclusions.


Page 17 of 39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_Dawa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government


severely criticized by international human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch.36

Currently, the Ethiopian Human Rights regime substantively consists of:

International and regional human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia;

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

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

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

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

Benchmarks set within the national policy framework

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

Table 1: Major Human Rights Instruments Ratified by the Government of Ethiopia37

The human rights instrument Adopted (UN)

Ratified by Ethiopia

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

1966 June 11 1993

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1966 June 11 1993

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1965 June 23 1976

Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment

1984 March 14 1994

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

1979 September 10 1981

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 May 14 1991African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 June 2 1998

36 Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Overview: Ethiopia Country Page, January 18, 2006 (available at: www.hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=ethiop)

37 Pursuant to (Art. 9(2) of the constitution such instruments are considered as part of the law of the land


Page 18 of 39

Ghetnet Metiku, 08/18/09,

Update with treaty database and/or recent reports

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=ethiop


In addition to commitments under the international and African human rights systems, the FDRE Constitution dedicates Chapter III to fundamental rights and freedoms. The rights set forth in the text of the Constitution cover civil, political, economic, cultural, social, environmental and developmental rights. The document emphasizes that 'Human rights and freedoms emanating from the nature of mankind, are inviolable and inalienable' (article 10/1).

Main Features of the Human Rights Chapter of the Ethiopian Constitution Follows the holistic approach: It covers both civil and political and

economic, social and culture rights. Provides also for collective rights: These include the right to

development of nations, nationalities and peoples to self determination, full measure of self government promotion and preservation of language, cultural values and history

Recognizes, adopting separate provisions, rights of vulnerable groups. The rights of workers, women and children.

The language used and limitations prescribed generally follow standards set by international human rights instruments.

Provides for derogatory clause which makes only right to self determination, equality before the law and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and from slavery absolute rights while the right to life is absolute according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Provides for a wide range of human rights recognized under international human rights law. There are by and large equivalent provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Contains exceptionally detailed provisions for the protection of the rights of the arrested, accused and convicted persons.

Adopts a unique categorization of rights as human and democratic rights (14-28 Human 29-44 Democratic)

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

2.4 The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission

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


Page 19 of 39


Commissioner was nominated by the HPR in July 2004 following a procedure that included public consultations. Similarly, the deputy Chief Commissioner and Commissioner for Children’s and Women’s Rights were nominated in July 2005. With the appointment of the Commissioners, the Commission was able to constitute a Council of Commissioners, as required by the establishing law and become functional.

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

– educating the public to be aware of human rights;

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

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

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

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

The Core Programs of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission– Human Rights Education- the core of this activity revolves around creating

public awareness on human rights or on specific rights through face-to face contacts or via the media, publications; supporting awareness raising education and promotion by being a depository for human rights materials as well as through training key professionals

– Human Rights Protection (complaint Investigation) – includes activities dealing with inherited backlogs, filed complaints, sensitive or priority cases, systemic or group issues; ensuring the application of remedies, attempting


Page 20 of 39


amicable resolution of cases as well as ensuring the implementation of settlements.

– Human Rights Monitoring – under this category the Commission monitors places of detention; ensures the implementation of recommendations; monitors the general human rights situation of the country; as well as undertakes event monitoring.

– Advising Government- this program involves the Commission’s provision of advice on existing legislation, policy and practices; provision of advice on proposed legislation, policy and practices as well as provision of advice on Treaty Bodies Reportingto the Government.

– Human Rights Research– under this Program, the EHRC seeks to conduct in-house or contracted research into human rights issues; carry out in-house or contracted research to support the development of guidelines, policies, procedures, etc; carry out in-house or contracted research to support program delivery; encourages academic research into human rights issues and develop a program of action research.

– Democratic Institutions Programme (DIP): under the DIP, major donors and UN agencies working in Ethiopia have agreed to collectively support the strengthening of the capacity of the main democratic institutions in the Country including the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The current program aims at strengthening the capacity of the EHRC to be in full compliance with international standards for national human rights institutions (such as the Paris Principles). The Program is being implemented through a UNDP National Execution Modality with the EHRC as the national implementing partner and in close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

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

3 The National Human Rights Monitoring Report

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

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

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

– Securing Funding: under the UNDP/DIP initiative;

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


Page 21 of 39


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

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

– Engaging Staff: As part of its organizational capacity building initiative, the Commission has engaged a coordinator, three project officers (for research, vulnerable groups, and investigation), and 3 research assistants (with experience in supporting State reporting by the MoFA) for the preparation of the national monitoring report; and,

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

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

3.1 Basis and Nature of the Report

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

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

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

38 Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Establishment Proclamation No. 210/2000, Federal Negarit Gazeta - No. 40 4thJuly, 2000

39 As per Article 2/5 of the Proclamation, "Human Right" includes fundamental rights and freedoms recognized under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and those enshrined in the international agreement ratified by the country


Page 22 of 39


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

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

These mandates inherently require the regular monitoring of the human rights situation in the country. In addition, the reporting mandates of the Commission are reiterated in the provisions determining the powers and duties of the Chief Commissioner (Article 19) and guiding reporting by the Commission (Article 39). The first provision mandates the Chief Commissioner to: “undertake study of recurrent cases of human right violations and forward together with remedial proposals to the House” and “submit a report, to the House, on matters of human rights and on the activities of the Commission”.40 The second provision further gives the Commission specific mandate to issue regular official reports.41

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

3.1.1 Guiding Principles and Values

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

– Commitment to human rights: The leadership and staff of the EHRC are committed to human rights principles and values recognized under the Ethiopian and international human rights frameworks in substance, methods, and organization. Such commitment shall in particular be

40 Article 19/1 (d) and Article 19/1 (g)41 Articles 39/1 and 39/242 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The role of

national human rights institutions in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/1998/25, CESCR General comment 10, Nineteenth session, Geneva, 16 November-4 December 1998

43 Committee on the Rights of the Child, The role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, General Comment No. 2 (2002), Thirty-second session, 13-31 January 2003

44 Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (The “Paris Principles”), General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993, annex

45 General guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by States parties under article 44, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention (CRC/C/58), para. 18


Page 23 of 39


owed to the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and the FDRE Constitution as an expression of their will.

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

– Impartiality and neutrality: The leadership and staff of the EHRC shall be, and shall be perceived to be, neutral and without personal or institutional bias in their duties. However, such neutrality shall not extend to the values of the EHRC and the public interest.

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

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

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


Page 24 of 39


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

3.1.2 Purpose and Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 Scope and Coverage

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

As an initial baseline assessment the report has to be comprehensive, i.e., thematically covering all rights, geographically national, covering the 46 Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and

Documentation Series, Volume 1: What is Monitoring, HURIDOCS, 2003


Page 25 of 39


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

Proposed Thematic Outline for the National Human Rights ReportIntroductionBackground– Overview of the National Human Rights System– The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission– The National Human Rights ReportFundamental Rights and Freedoms– Personal Freedoms and Individual Liberties– Equality before the Law, Access to Justice and Fair Trial– Democratic/Participation Rights– Economic Rights, Social Rights and Access to Social Services – Rights of Vulnerable Groups– Rights of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (Collective Rights)Investigations by the Commission– Complaints Before the Commission – Investigations Initiated by the CommissionSummary and Analysis of Findings– Application of Human Rights Principles– Achievements, and Opportunities – Gaps, and ChallengesConclusions and Recommendations– Conclusions– RecommendationsReferencesAnnexes

On the other hand, time and other resources put limits on the scope and coverage of the report indicating that it could not be both extensive and in-depth. To balance these two considerations, the development of the report will adopt strategies such as utilizing available secondary sources including reports issued by the State and non-state human rights actors, promote the involvement of human rights organizations as well as academic institutions, and focus on identifying issues for further and in-depth consideration under the research, monitoring and other programs of the EHRC.

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


Page 26 of 39


3.3 The Research Process

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

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

– Clarifying the process and building consensus

– Identifying and benchmarking indicators

– Setting the baseline situation (human rights situation analysis)

– Monitoring progress periodically

The fist and second stages are preparatory in the sense that the focus is on the ‘design’ of the research framework. The actual implementation occurs at the third stage involving data collection, compilation, analysis and report preparation. Only the first three stages are relevant to the first national report.

Table 2: Summary of the Proposed Research ProcessPurpose Specific Objectives Result

Stage One: Clarifying the Process and Building Consensus

Clarifying the profile of the undertaking and developing uniform understanding among all involved (staff, key actors, stakeholders)

– Establish a clear basis for the planned research in the national and international human rights framework;

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

– Determine or review the scope and coverage of the national human rights report thematically, geographically, and in terms of stakeholder involvement in the process;

A background paper outlining the basis, nature and methodological framework of the planned national human rights monitoring process


Page 27 of 39


– Determine or review the methodological approaches to be used for the development of the report.

Stage Two: Benchmarking

Design measurable indicators to determine the current status of human rights in Ethiopia and set benchmarks to measure progress in the future

– Describe an ideal state where all human rights have been realized for all or where all persons enjoy dignified human existence;

– Identify the core components (structural, process and results) constituting the vision;

– Identify the most proximate measurable indicators of quality and quantity for each core component;

– Select or prioritize indicators most relevant to the context of the planned national monitoring process taking into account issues such as the availability and accessibility of information, capacity, and time-frame; and,

– Identify sources, types and quality of information needed to measure the selected or prioritized indicators.

A set of measurable indicators of status and progress towards the realization of human rights in Ethiopia

Stage Three: Setting the Baseline

Establishing the initial or current situation of human rights and creating a frame of reference for future monitoring of progress

– Measuring the quantitative and qualitative aspects of prioritized or selected indicators of structural conditions, processes, and outcomes;

– Identifying areas of relative progress and gaps in the realization of human rights in terms of intensity and

Baseline data on the status of rights as well as focal issues, recommendations and intermediate targets for future action by human rights actors as well as the interventions of the EHRC


Page 28 of 39


expanse of effects on rights holders and vulnerable groups;

– Tracing the immediate, intermediate, structural and root causes for the non-realization and/or better progress towards realization of identified rights;

– Identify measures needed to address the structural and root causes and bring about positive progress towards the realization of all human rights for all persons;

– Identify actors legally and morally responsible or better placed to take identified measures.

Stage Four: Monitoring Progress

Measuring progress towards realizing human rights since the baseline or the last monitoring report

– Measuring the same indicators covered in the baseline within the same or comparable context;

– Calculating the quantity and direction of change for each indicator vis-à-vis the baseline and ideal state of realization or dignified human existence;

– Identifying areas and levels of achievement above and below planned/anticipated levels of performance vis-à-vis the recommendations of the last human rights report and time bound plans;

– Tracing the immediate, intermediate, structural and root

A national human rights monitoring report indicating:– The current status

and quantified changes in the state of human rights in Ethiopia;

– Second baseline reference points for further monitoring and periodic progress (rate) monitoring;

– Information to enhance progress in subsequent periods; and,

– Actionable recommendations.


Page 29 of 39


causes for the non-realization and/or better progress towards realization of identified rights;

– Identify measures needed to address the structural and root causes and bring about positive progress towards the realization of all human rights for all persons;

– Identify actors legally and morally responsible or better placed to take identified measures.

3.4 Indicators and Benchmarks

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

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

Table 3: Status of Indicator Identification (along Articles of the FDRE Constitution)

Rights for which Indicators have been

identified

Rights for which appropriate indicators are

yet to be identifiedPersonal Freedoms and Individual

Right to Life (Articles 14 and 15)

Right to Honor and Reputation (Article 24)


Page 30 of 39


Liberties Security of the Person/Protection from Bodily Harm (Articles 14 and 16)

Freedom of Movement (Articles 14 and 32)

Protection from Inhumane Treatment (Article 18)

Right to Privacy (Article 26)

Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion (Article 27)

Non-Retroactivity of Criminal Law (Article 22)

Prohibition of Double Jeopardy (Article 23)

Access to Justice and Procedural Due Process

Protection from Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty (Article 17)

Rights of Persons Arrested (Article 19)

Rights of Persons Accused (Article 20)

Rights of Persons in Custodial Institutions (Article 21)

Equality Before the Law (Article 25)

Access to Justice (Article 37)

Juvenile Justice

Democratic/ Participation Rights

Rights of Nationality (Article 33)

Freedom of Thought, Opinion and Expression (Article 29)

Access to Information (Article 29)

Freedom of Assembly, Demonstration and Petition (Article 30)

Freedom of Association (Article 31)

Right to Participate in Government and take Part in Public Affairs (Article 38)

Economic Rights, Social Rights and Access to Social Services

Right to Work and Gainful Employment (Articles 41/6 and 41/7)

Right to Improving Living Standards, and Consultation (Article 89)

Right to Health, Education, and Other Social Services (Articles

Right to Private Property (Articles 40/1-3, 40/6-8 and 44/2)

Economic Freedom (Articles 41/1 and 41/2)

Marital, Personal and Family Rights (Article 34)


Page 31 of 39


41/4 and 90)47

Rights of Vulnerable Groups

Women’s Rights (Article 35)

People Living with HIV/AIDS

Rights of Farmers and Pastoralists

Children’s Rights (Articles 36 and 41/5)

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 41/5)

Rights of Elderly Persons (Article 41/5)

Rights of Farmers and Pastoralists48

Children’s Rights (Articles 36 and 41/5)

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 41/5)

Rights of Elderly Persons (Article 41/5)

Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples (Collective Rights)

Right to Cultural, Linguistic and Ethnic Identity (Article 39/2 and 39/5)

Right to Self-Determination (Articles 39/1, 39/3-5, and 88)

State Responsibility to Protect and Promote Cultural Legacies (Article 41/9 and 91)

Right to Development (Article 43)

Environmental Rights (Articles 44 and 92)

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

3.5 Sources of Information

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

– documentation of events-based data on human rights violations;

47 Right to social security (UDHR, Art. 22); Right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (UDHR, Art. 25); Right to Education (UDHR article 26); Right to adequate housing (UDHR, Art. 25); and, Right to Food (UDHR article 25)

48 Access to Land (Articles 40/4, 40/5 and 44/2); and, Right to Receive Fair Price for Their Products


Page 32 of 39


– compilation of aggregate socio-economic and other administrative statistics;

– household perception and opinion surveys; and,

– data based on expert judgments.

The national human rights monitoring report will use a mix of these sources with emphasis on official statistics, and cases investigated by the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. In light of the broad scope and coverage of the Report as well as time and resource constraints, the principal sources utilized will be secondary. The Report is thus expected to utilize the following sources of quantitative and qualitative information:

– databases of international and regional IGOs, and treaty monitoring bodies;

– policy and legislative documents of the Federal and Regional legislatures;

– official statistical data issued by the Government of Ethiopia, especially the reports of the CSA, MoFED, and other policy monitoring bodies;

– human rights monitoring reports submitted by the Government of Ethiopia in compliance with its treaty obligations;

– periodic reports and official records of executive, judicial and legislative bodies as well as independent agencies at Federal and Regional levels;

– databases maintained by international IGOs and other organizations in line with the UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics;49

– the case files maintained by the Investigation Department of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman Institute;

– the reports and case files of government and non-government organizations providing legal, medical, social and other relevant services to victims of human rights violations; and,

– other human rights reports prepared by human rights organizations operating in Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission will develop appropriate guidelines and standards with a view to ensuring the relevance, validity and reliability of data and information collected from unofficial sources. In particular, the use of information, data, reports, etc … as inputs for the EHRC’s National Human

49 UN Economic and Social Council, 1994, Report of the Special Session of the Statistics Commission, E/1994/29, New York, 11-15 April, 1994


Page 33 of 39


Rights Report would be based on an objective assessment of: the relevance of purpose and scope; reliability of methods (research design, data collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation and reporting); comprehensiveness and depth of coverage; timeliness of data; triangulation and cross confirmation; and, other scientific/accepted criteria.

3.6 Implementation/Work Plan

The HRC Team has reviewed EHRC organizational and project documents including the strategic plan, the DIP program document and the EHRC annual work plan as a basis for the development of the work plan for the Report. Accordingly, the tentative deadline for the completion of the Report has been set at the end of December 2009 and the following timeframe developed for the major activities/phases in the process:

Major Activity/Output Time Allocated50 DeadlineDesign a conceptual and methodological framework

5 weeks August 20, 2009

Collect, compile and analyze baseline information

6 weeks November 30, 2009

Finalize the report 4 weeks December 27, 2009Total Time Starting 3rd

Week of July14 weeks

After assessment of the structural, material, human and financial resources available within and at the disposal of the Commission, the Team has determined that the involvement of existing departments and engagement of their resources is of paramount importance. It has especially been emphasized that the Research and Training Department and the Investigation Department as well as the department responsible for the rights of women, children and other vulnerable groups is critical. Thus, with a view to ensuring the comprehensive and active engagement of EHRC departments and staff, a detailed allocation of responsibilities and harmonization of activities should be conducted. To this end, the proposed work plan will have to be revised in consultation with the responsible department heads once the overall framework has been approved by the Council of Commissioners.

The following table provides the detailed tentative work plan for the development of the National Human Rights Report.

Table 4: Work Plan for the Development of the National Human Rights ReportMajor Activities/Expected

OutputsSpecific

Activities/TasksTime-frame51

(Months)Focal &

Responsible Persons

1 2 3 4 5 6Design a coherent, comprehensive and rights based conceptual and

Conduct a review on the basis, nature, structure

DIP POs and HRC Team

50 Some of the specific activities and tasks will run concurrently51 Starting 3rd Week of July


Page 34 of 39


Major Activities/Expected Outputs

Specific Activities/Tasks

Time-frame

(Months)Focal &

Responsible Persons

1 2 3 4 5 6methodological framework (July 14 – August 20)52

and scope of monitoring by NHRIsConduct a review of human rights monitoring approaches

DIP POs and HRC Team

Organize ‘in-house’ consultation and consensus building session with EHRC staff

DIP POs and EHRC department heads

Design a system of indicators and benchmarks

DIP POs and Reporting Team

Develop a draft background paper and submit to EHRC management for approval

DIP Research Officer

Finalize the background paper

DIP Research Officer

Establish a comprehensive and systematically organized baseline information on the status of human rights and situation of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia (15 August 2009 – 30 November 2009)

Design a research plan/protocol

DIP POs and HRC Reporting Team

Compile relevant secondary sources


Develop, pre-test, and duplicate data collection tools


Identify, recruit, train and orient enumerators to be deployed for data collection

DIP POs and EHRC departments

Organize logistics for field visits to

DIP POs and EHRC

52 Some of the specific activities/tasks under this expected output have already been completed. In fact, this background document is the result of such activities. The remaining tasks by the date of submission are the in-house consultations and finalization of the document, both of which require approval of the current draft by the Council of Commissioners.


Page 35 of 39


Major Activities/Expected Outputs

Specific Activities/Tasks

Time-frame

(Months)Focal &

Responsible Persons

1 2 3 4 5 6data collection sites

departments

Conduct data collection in the nine Regional States as well as Diredawa and Addis Ababa

DIP CU, POs and EHRC departments

Compile and review data from all sites


Review cases investigated and determined by the EHRC53

DIP POs and EHRC Investigation Department

Analyze collected and compiled data


Prepare a national baseline report (December 2009)

Prepare a draft national report and submit to EHRC management

DIP POs and EHRC department heads

Organize validation workshop

DIP CU and POs

Finalize the report DIP POs

Finally, it should be noted that the implementation of this work plan is subject the realization of some assumptions relating to expediency in the approval of the background document, resource allocation, harmonization with other EHRC activities planned for the last two quarters of 2009, and possibility of addressing constraints in relation to office facilities. Most importantly, the plan has made critical assumptions on the active and smooth engagement of EHRC staff including department heads, experts, administrative and support staff. Failing this assumption, the engagement, orientation and deployment of

53 Since the planned comprehensive case management system may not be in place for the current report, this activity involves the development of a simple digital database using the SPSS statistical software. Such an approach would ensure the timely availability of case-related information forming a significant part of the Report. Moreover, in light of the fact that two of the DIP project officers already have experience in the application of SPSS, it would enable the utilization and sharing of existing expertise within the EHRC. Ideally, secretarial staff in the Commission could be given a short orientation briefing by the POs and assigned to undertake the data entry once the system has been designed.


Page 36 of 39


external personnel would extend the deadlines for all remaining activities and expected outputs.

3.7 Inputs/Resource Requirements

The following table describes the resource requirements of developing the national human rights report. While financial inputs have been stated more explicitly, the table also indicates the human and material requirements of the task.

Table 5: Resource RequirementsActivities Cost Items Computation Sum

One day orientation session for data collectors (25 persons)

Transportation 1,500/day x 3 days 4,500Rental of venue 4,500/day x 1 day 4,500Per diem 150/person/day x 25

persons x 3 days11,250

Lunch and refreshments

50/person x 25 persons 1,250

Stationary and supplies

1,500

Labor and publicity 1,500Contingency 2,500

Sub-Total 27,000

Organize logistics for field visits to data collection sites

Fees and reimbursement to local contact persons

1,500/region x 10 regions

15,000

Communication, stationary and supplies


15,000

Labor and publicity 500/region x 10 regions 5,000Contingency 1,500/region x 10

regions15,000

Sub-Total 50,000

Field visits to 10 out of town sites (9 Regional States and Diredawa)

Transportation 1,500/day x 15 days/region x 10 regions

22,500

Per diem 150/person/day x 2 persons x 15 days/region x 10 regions

45,000

Fees and reimbursement to local contact persons


15,000



15,000

Labor and publicity 1,500/region x 10 regions

15,000

Contingency 5,000/region x 10 regions

50,000

Sub-Total 162,5


Page 37 of 39


00Data collection in Addis Ababa

Transportation 1,500/day x 15 daysReimbursements for data collectors

150/day/person x 5 persons x 15 days

11,250



15,000


Sub-Total 32,750

Monitoring visits Transportation 3,000/ visit x 5 visits 15,000Per diem 150/day x 6 days/visit x

5 visits4,500

Labor and publicity 1,500/ visit x 5 visits 7,500Contingency 1,500/ visit x 5 visits 7,500

Sub-Total 34,500

Three day out of town validation workshop

Transportation 1,500/day x 5 days 7,500Rental of venue 4,500/day x 3 days 13,500Per diem 150/person/day x 50

persons x 5 days37,500

Lunch and refreshments

50/person/day x 50 persons x 3 days

7,500


3,000


Sub-Total 79,000

Publication Translation and editing

25,000

Desktop publication and layout design

5,000

Printing 50,000Translation, dissemination and publicity

15,000

Sub-Total 95,000

TOTAL 480,750

In estimating the resource requirements of the Report, the HRC Team has taken into account the financial provisions with the EHRC Work Plan for 2009 as well as the resources available to the Commission. However, time and related constraints have impacted upon the selection of more cost-effective alternatives to realize expected outputs in a timely manner. As a result, the overall financial requirements may exceed the total amount allocated for the Report within the Work Plan.


Page 38 of 39



Page 39 of 39

Background document nhrm report

Documents

human rights monitoring

key human rights actors

recognition ofspecific

conception of monitoring

ehrc staff

ehrc management

ehrc reporting teamtuesday

profile ofthe ehrc