Special Report EU support for the fight 
against torture and the 
abolition of the death 
penaltyEN 2015  NO 09
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-2647-1 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/448120 QJ-AB-15-009-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2636-5 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/38781 QJ-AB-15-009-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2659-4 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/160111 QJ-AB-15-009-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
EU support for the fight 
against torture and the 
abolition of the death 
penalty
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 09
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber III — headed by ECA Member Karel Pinxten — which specialises 
in external actions spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Klaus-Heiner Lehne; supported by Thomas Arntz, 
attaché in Mr Lehne’s private office; Sabine Hiernaux-Fritsch, head of unit; Werner Vlasselaer, team leader; Kim Hublé, 
auditor and Athanasios Tsamis, auditor.
From left to right: S. Hiernaux-Fritsch, T. Arntz, K.-H. Lehne, A. Tsamis,  
K. Hublé, W. Vlasselaer.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Abbreviations
I–VII  Executive summary
1–10  Introduction
1–4 The prevalence of torture and the death penalty
5–10  The EU’s commitment to fighting torture and the death penalty
11–12  Audit scope and approach
13–53  Observations
13–30  Despite appropriate needs assessments, the Commission did not optimally target funding
14–20  Human rights country strategies were not properly taken into account to allocate funding, and coordination 
with other EU action was weak
21–27  The process for selecting projects was well documented but insufficiently rigorous
28–30  The demand‑driven approach ensured that beneficiary organisations had sufficient expertise and 
ownership of the actions but it also had disadvantages
31–53  Projects were implemented as planned but the overall impact of the EIDHR  
funding was limited
32–39  Project activities were generally carried out as planned
40–48 The impact of EIDHR funding was limited by the modest EIDHR financial contribution being spread out too 
thinly and in certain situations by unfavourable political contexts
49–53  Project achievements are sustainable but grants did not make civil society organisations more 
self‑sustainable
04 Contents
54–56  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — The death penalty in Africa
 Annex II — The death penalty in Asia
 Annex III — The death penalty in Latin America
 Annex IV — The death penalty in the United States
 Annex V — Global calls for proposals 2007 ‑2013
 Annex VI  —  Projects for which the Court’s auditors reviewed the Commission’s assessment of 
concept notes and full proposals
 Annex VII — Grants examined
 Reply of the Commission and the EEAS
05
 Abbreviations
COHOM : The Council’s Human Rights Working Group
DG Development and Cooperation : Directorate -General for Development and Cooperation
EEAS : European External Action Service
EIDHR : European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
OPCAT : Operational Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 
or Punishment
UN: United Nations
06
 Executive  
summary
I
The international community has made many efforts 
to eradicate torture and other ill -treatment. Neverthe -
less, torture and other ill -treatment persist and impun -
ity for the perpetrators remains a reality in many coun -
tries worldwide. As regards the death penalty, there 
are still 58 retentionist countries. Each year, more than 
5 000 executions take place.
II
The EU is strongly committed to preventing and 
eradicating all forms of torture and other ill -treatment 
as well as to abolishing the death penalty throughout 
the world. To pursue these objectives, the EU deploys 
a range of diplomatic initiatives that include bilateral 
agreements, political dialogue and participation in 
multilateral forums. Furthermore, the EU considers 
progress in the adherence to human rights as a key 
condition for its development cooperation and funds 
projects devoted to these issues. The main instrument 
used is the European Instrument for Democracy and 
Human Rights (EIDHR), which provides grants to civil 
society organisations for implementing projects. Over 
the 2007-2013 period, the Commission awarded 183 
EIDHR grants totalling 100.9 million euro for projects 
relating to the fight against torture and the death 
penalty.
III
The Court assessed the effectiveness of the EIDHR’s 
promotion of the prevention of torture, the rehabili -
tation of victims of torture and the abolition of the 
death penalty. The Court focused on how the funding 
was allocated and whether sustainable results were 
achieved. The audit work consisted of an analytical 
review and interviews with staff from the Commission, 
the European External Action Service (EEAS) and bene -
ficiary organisations, as well as a detailed examination 
of a sample of 31 projects. This involved missions to 
United Kingdom (London), the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Georgia and South Africa and a desk 
review of projects that concern China and the United 
States.
Executive summary 07
IV
The Court concludes that EIDHR support for the fight 
against torture, the rehabilitation of victims of torture 
and the abolition of the death penalty was only par -
tially effective.
V
The Commission appropriately establishes human 
rights priorities for each partner country. Although the 
funding was generally well allocated, the Commission 
does not take sufficiently account of these priori -
ties. Furthermore, projects funded are often not well 
coord  inated with other EU action, such as traditional 
development support and dialogue with the partner 
country. The demand -driven approach to finan cing 
projects ensured that projects were generally imple -
mented by motivated civil society organisations with 
good expertise. The project selection was well docu -
mented but lacked rigour. Moreover, when weak -
nesses of selected projects were identified, the project 
designs were not improved accordingly.
VI
Project activities have been carried out as planned 
and are generally cost -effective. The results achieved 
by the grants are sustainable. However, the systems 
for measuring impacts are rather weak, with unclear 
logical frameworks for projects, a lack of well -defined 
benchmarks and targets and an inconsistent approach 
to project evaluations. When projects provide direct 
assistance to victims, the impact is tangible albeit 
limited to relatively small target groups. The impact 
of other projects, which typically seek legislative or 
policy reforms, is limited by the fact that progress also 
depends on many other factors and political contexts 
that were not always favourable. The results achieved 
have good prospects of becoming sustainable. The 
civil society organisations supported, however, remain 
very dependent on financial support.VII
The Court makes a number of recommendations for 
the Commission to improve the support for the fight 
against torture and the death penalty. The recommen -
dations concern the targeting of financial resources, 
the coordination with other EU efforts, the selection 
and improvement of project proposals, the perfor -
mance measurement framework and the sustainability 
of beneficiary organisations.
08
 Introduction
The prevalence of torture 
and the death penalty
01 
The Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights1 states that no one shall be sub -
jected to torture or to cruel, inhuman 
or degrading treatment or punish -
ment2. The UN Convention against 
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
Degrading Treatment or Punishment3, 
which was signed in 1984, defines the 
term torture (see Box 1 ) and lays down 
rules for states to make the struggle 
against torture more effective. By the 
end of 2014, 156 states had signed and 
ratified the Convention and 10 states 
had signed the Convention but not yet 
ratified it.02 
The Operational Protocol to the 
Convention against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treat -
ment or Punishment4 (OPCAT) aims 
to establish a system of regular visits 
by independent international and 
national bodies to places of detention 
in order to prevent torture. By the end 
of 2014, 76 states had signed and rat -
ified  OPCAT and 19 states had signed 
 OPCAT but not yet ratified it. Increas -
ing the level of OPCAT ratification 
remains a significant challenge.
03 
Despite the efforts made by the inter -
national community, torture persists 
and impunity for the perpetrators of 
torture is still a reality in many coun -
tries. Recent reports of international 
civil society organisations5 mention 
the prevalence of torture and ill - 
treatment in 131 countries worldwide. 
As a result, important challenges 
remain as regards preventing torture 
and rehabilitating victims.1 Adopted by the United 
Nations (UN) General 
Assembly on 
10 December  1948.
2 Article 5.
3 Adopted and opened for 
signature, ratification and 
accession by General 
Assembly Resolution No 39/46 
of 10 December 1984 with 
entry into force on 
26 June 1987.
4 Adopted by the UN General 
Assembly on 
18 December 2002 and 
entered into force on 
22 June 2006.
5 Amnesty International, Report 
2014/2015 ‘The State of the 
World’s Human Rights’ and 
Human Rights Watch, World 
Report 2015 (Events of 2014).
Definition of torture
Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted 
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punish -
ing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating 
or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or 
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 
person acting in an official capacity6.
6 The language used concerning consent or acquiescence by a public official extends state obligations into the private sphere and should be 
interpreted to include state failure to protect persons within its jurisdiction from torture and ill -treatment committed by private individuals.Box 1
09 Introduction
7 In law or in practice. Seven of 
these countries have 
abolished the death penalty 
only for ‘ordinary’ crimes, as 
opposed to ‘exceptional’ 
crimes such as crimes under 
military law or crimes 
committed in exceptional 
circumstances.
8 Source:  Amnesty International. 
These figures are estimates as 
several countries do not issue 
official figures.
9 For ease of reading, the 
concept of torture and other 
ill-treatment is referred to 
hereafter in the text as torture.
10 Articles 2, 3, 6 and 21 of the EU 
Treaty and Article 205 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of 
the EU.
11 Adopted by the Council on 
25 June 2012.
12 In the case of African, 
Caribbean and Pacific 
countries, the Cotonou 
Agreement sets out mutual 
obligations, including respect 
for human rights, which are 
monitored through 
continuing dialogue and 
evaluation. The mutual 
obligations are subject to the 
dispute settlement clause of 
Article 96, on the basis of 
which consultations and 
appropriate measures, 
including the suspension of 
the agreement, can be taken 
with regard to the country in 
question.
13 Such as the UN General 
Assembly’s Third Committee, 
the UN Human Rights Council, 
the Organisation for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe 
and the Council of Europe.04 
Although 140 countries have abol -
ished the death penalty7, there are still 
58 retentionist countries (see Annexes 
I to IV ). Over the 2007-2014 period, 
37 countries executed an average total 
of more than 5 000 persons per year8. 
More than 83 % of the executions took 
place in China, more than 13 % in Iran, 
Iraq, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, 
and about 3 % in other countries. At 
the end of 2014, more than 19 000 per -
sons were under sentence of death 
worldwide.
The EU’s commitment to 
fighting torture and the 
death penalty
05 
The eradication of all forms of tor -
ture and other ill -treatment9 as well 
as the abolition of the death penalty 
are priorities of the EU’s human rights 
policy. The EU’s strong commitment in 
this respect is based on the European 
treaties10 and reflected in the strategic 
framework and action plan on human 
rights and democracy11 and the EU 
guidelines (see Box 2 ).06 
To pursue the objectives of its human 
rights policy, the EU deploys a range 
of diplomatic activities. Partnership 
and cooperation agreements with 
non -EU countries include a human 
rights clause that is meant to en -
courage countries to comply with 
human rights standards. In the event 
of non - compliance, different mea -
sures, such as reducing or suspending 
cooperation, are provided for12. The 
EU also includes human rights issues 
in its political dialogues with partner 
countries or regional organisations. 
Furthermore, the EU is engaged in 
specific human rights dialogues and 
consultations with currently 41 non -EU 
countries and promotes human rights 
through its participation in multilat -
eral for  ums13. Diplomatic ‘demarches’ 
(which are confidential) and declara -
tions (which are public) concerning 
non -EU countries’ authorities are also 
a significant means of exercising diplo -
matic pressure.
EU guidelines
EU guidelines on human rights provide practical instructions both for EU institutions and Member States to 
implement the EU’s human rights policy. There are in total 11 EU guidelines that cover a wide range of issues. 
They are established by the Council’s Human Rights Working Group (COHOM), approved by the Committee of 
Permanent Representatives and adopted by the Council. EU guidelines are not legally binding but represent 
a strong political signal of the human rights priorities of the European Union.Box 2
10 Introduction
14 The decision to develop 
a human rights -based 
approach was taken with the 
adoption of the EU’s strategic 
framework and action plan on 
human rights and democracy 
(see paragraph 5).
15 Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
20 December 2006 on 
establishing a financing 
instrument for the promotion 
of democracy and human 
rights worldwide (OJ L 386, 
29.12.2006, p. 1) replaced by 
Regulation (EC) No 235/2014 
(OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 85. The 
EIDHR builds upon and 
replaces the European 
Initiative for Democracy and 
Human Rights, which was 
established in 1994.
16 Financing for projects up to 
100 % is possible, though, in 
duly substantiated cases.
17 ‘Fight against torture’ refers to 
both the prevention of torture 
and the rehabilitation of 
victims of torture.07 
On 25 July 2012, following the adop -
tion of the EU’s strategic framework 
and action plan on human rights and 
democracy, the Council appointed an 
EU special representative responsible 
for ensuring the coherence, effective -
ness and visibility of the EU’s human 
rights policy. Furthermore, the spe -
cial representative has to contribute 
internally to implementing the stra -
tegic framework and action plan on 
human rights and other instruments 
such as the EU guidelines on human 
rights. The special representative also 
enhances the dialogue on human 
rights with governments of non -EU 
countries, international and regional 
organisations and civil society.
08 
In addition to these activities, the EU 
aims to promote human rights by 
considering progress on human rights, 
good governance and democracy as 
a key condition for its development co -
operation. In 2012, the Council de  cided 
to develop a human rights -based ap -
proach to development cooperation in 
order to ensure that the EU in  creases 
its efforts to assist partner countries 
in implementing their international 
human rights obligations14. It will do so 
by incorporating human rights prin -
ciples into all EU operational develop -
ment activities.09 
Furthermore, the EU funds projects 
that are entirely devoted to promoting 
human rights. The main instrument for 
promoting the prevention of torture, 
the rehabilitation of victims of torture 
and the abolition of the death penalty 
is the European Instrument for Dem -
ocracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), 
which complements the geograph -
ical instruments. It was launched in 
2006 to provide support for promot -
ing dem  ocracy and human rights in 
non -EU countries15.
10 
The EIDHR has been granted an overall 
budget of 1.1  billion  euro covering all 
EU human rights objectives for the 
2007-2013 period. Most EIDHR funding 
is disbursed in the form of grants that 
are awarded to civil society organisa -
tions for the purpose of implement -
ing projects. In principle, the grants 
involve co -financing as they finance 
only up to 80 % of project expendi -
ture16. The EIDHR has global coverage, 
including many industrialised coun -
tries, and enables funding without 
bilateral consent as no government 
approval is required of the country 
where the projects are implement -
ed. EIDHR expenditure for the fight 
against torture17 and the death penalty 
amounts to 100 million euro for the 
2007-2013  period (see Table 1 ). The 
number of contracts concluded during 
that period is shown in Table 2 . Most 
of the projects concern awareness 
campaigns, advocacy activities, moni -
toring practices, prevention measures, 
legal support for victims of torture and 
those sentenced to the death penalty, 
or the treatment and rehabilitation of 
victims.
11 Introduction Table 1EIDHR expenditure relating to torture and death penalty per continent, 2007 ‑2013
(euro)
Torture 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Africa 0 3 967 906 456 120 4 248 938 2 192 122 514 511 3 844 082 15 223 679
America 0 2 226  820 388 122 1 178 945 758 097 0 2 530 910 7 082 894
Asia 36 465 10 281  020 613 754 2 366  367 1 936 457 0 11 242 841 26 476 904
Europe 0 2 956 958 235 093 2 661 831 2 830 007 100 000 787 065 9 570 954
Multi-continental 0 6 175 025 0 10 800 143 1 499 207 0 6 734 343 25 208 718
TOTAL 36 465 25 607 729 1 693 089 21 256 224 9 215 890 614 511 25 139 241 83 563 149
Death penalty 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Africa 0 0 76 863 285 000 734 333 0 0 1 096 196
America 0 0 1 581 610 290 859 0 1 345 046 0 3 217 515
Asia 0 0 722 028 731 761 1 416 450 2 009 842 0 4 880 081
Europe 0 0 0 0 0 200 074 0 200 074
Multi-continental 0 0 4 067  552 657 674 0 3 263 246 0 7 988 472
TOTAL 0 0 6 448 053 1 965 294 2 150 783 6 818 208 0 17 382 338
Source:  European Commission.Table 2EIDHR number of contracts relating to torture and death penalty per continent, 
2007 ‑2013
(euro)
Torture 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Africa 0 7 4 5 4 3 6 29
America 0 7 3 3 6 0 4 23
Asia 1 19 5 5 4 0 18 52
Europe 0 7 2 4 6 1 3 23
Multi-continental 0 6 0 10 1 0 6 23
TOTAL 1 46 14 27 21 4 37 150
Death penalty 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Africa 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
America 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 8
Asia 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 9
Europe 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Multi-continental 0 0 7 1 0 4 0 12
TOTAL 0 0 14 6 3 10 0 33
Source:  European Commission.
12
 Audit scope and approach
11 
The Court assessed the effectiveness 
of the EIDHR’s promotion of the pre -
vention of torture, the rehabilitation of 
victims of torture and the abolition of 
the death penalty. The audit focused 
on the following two questions:
(a) Was the funding well allocated?
(b) Did the grants achieve sustainable 
results?
12 
The audit focused on the 2007-2013 
period and was carried out between 
July 2014 and January 2015. It con -
sisted of various components. Firstly, 
the Court examined the allocation 
of funding through the five global 
calls for the period under review (see 
Annex V ). The examination involved 
interviews with staff at the European 
External Action Service (EEAS) and the 
Directorate -General for Development 
and Cooperation (DG Development 
and Cooperation) as well as a review 
of the Commission’s assessment of the 
concept notes and full proposals for 
45 projects (see Annex VI ). Second -
ly, the Court examined seven EIDHR 
grants awarded to three civil society 
organisations in United Kingdom 
(London), which were visited during 
the audit. Thirdly, the Court examined 
13 EIDHR projects concerning the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Georgia and South Africa. To this end, 
the Court carried out audit missions to 
these countries to interview staff from 
the EU delegations concerned, as well 
as representatives of the organisations 
that received EIDHR grants. Lastly, 
the Court carried out a desk review of 
11 EIDHR pro  jects concerning China 
and the United States (see Annex VII ). 
The audit sample represents 24 % of 
the expenditure concerned.
13
 Observations
Despite appropriate 
needs assessments, the 
Commission did not 
optimally target funding
13 
The Court examined whether the calls 
for proposals were based on an ap -
propriate needs assessment and were 
well focused and coordinated with 
other EU actions such as traditional 
development support and dialogue. 
The audit also assessed the selection 
of projects by examining whether the 
selection process was transparent, 
well documented and rigorous and 
 whether the demand -driven approach 
was appropriate.
Human rights country 
strategies were not properly 
taken into account to 
allocate funding, and 
coordination with other EU 
action was weak
14 
As the financial resources allocated to 
the fight against torture and the death 
penalty are modest compared to the 
challenges (see paragraph 10), they 
need to be focused on countries and 
issues with substantial needs and con -
siderable potential for improvement. The Commission obtains adequate in -
formation about the human rights situ -
ation in partner countries by examin -
ing information that is available in the 
public domain, through its contacts 
with civil society organisations and by 
actively examining the situation on the 
ground. EU delegations prepare notes 
on human rights issues on a regular 
basis and include relevant comments 
and analyses in their management 
reports18.
15 
The Commission uses the information 
available in order to assess the needs 
appropriately and define priorities, as 
reflected in various documents. The 
EIDHR multiannual strategy papers19 
provide a description of the expected 
results of the EIDHR, as well as their 
respective financial allocations. In 
addition, annual action programmes 
are drawn up containing individual de -
scriptions of the key elements20 of the 
actions that are going to be financed. 
At country level, priorities are defined 
in human rights country strategies (see 
Box 3 ). They are confidential, including 
the part of the document that sets out 
the priorities, which limits their added 
value.18 External action management 
reports.
19 In the period under review, 
such strategy papers existed 
for the 2007-2010 and 2011-
2013 periods.
20 Amount allocated, priorities 
and approach to allocating the 
funds.
Human rights country strategies
Since the second half of 2011, the EU and its Member States have drawn up more than 150 human rights 
country strategies. Each strategy contains a thorough analysis of the situation in the country concerned and 
sets out a number of common priorities for the EU and the Member States. The plan is that the strategies 
should be updated every 2years, or whenever there are major changes. There are 57 strategies where the fight 
against torture is one of the priorities, and 72 strategies where the fight against the death penalty is a priority.Box 3 
14 Observations
16 
Grants are awarded following calls for 
proposals (the demand -driven ap -
proach). In the 2007-2013 period, there 
were three global calls for proposals 
dedicated to the fight against torture 
and two global calls for proposals 
dedi  cated to the fight against the 
death penalty. These calls for pro -
posals with a global coverage were 
managed by the DG Development and 
Cooperation headquarters and led to 
the award of 80 and 24 grants, respec -
tively. The projects were selected from 
a total of 789 project proposals. Grants 
were also awarded through coun -
try-based support schemes. These 
are calls for proposals managed by 
the EU delegations and are specific to 
one country. They led to the award of 
70 grants for the fight against torture 
and 9 grants for the fight against the 
death penalty. The objectives of the 
calls for proposals are in line with the 
objectives stated in the EIDHR strategy 
papers and the EU guidelines.
17 
The global calls for proposals did not 
focus on the countries where the EU 
considers the fight against torture and 
the fight against the death penalty to 
be part of the priorities (see Box 3 ). 
Whereas the overall objectives of the 
projects examined concerning China 
and the United States are clearly men -
tioned as priorities by the EU human 
rights country strategy, projects in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Georgia and South Africa concern the 
fight against torture even though the 
country human rights strategies for 
these countries do not clearly state 
the fight against torture as a prior -
ity. As a result, EIDHR resources were 
deployed in countries where the fight 
against torture or the death penalty 
was not a priority.18 
The objectives of most calls for pro -
posals were described in a general 
way. Whereas the 2007 call for pro -
posals to support actions on torture 
made a distinction between preven -
tion (lot 1) and rehabilitation (lot 2), 
the calls launched in 2009 and 2012 no 
longer made this distinction. Rather, 
they encouraged a comprehensive 
and holistic approach encompassing 
three priorities — prevention, account -
ability and rehabilitation — which are 
considered interrelated and mutually 
re inforcing. The calls for proposals 
relating to the death penalty also pro -
moted an integrated approach. They 
had no specific emphasis or targets.
19 
In Georgia, EIDHR projects are well 
complemented by other EU action, 
such as traditional development sup -
port, negotiations for the EU–Georgia 
Association Agreement and dialogue. 
The human rights dialogue with 
Georgia is of particular importance 
since it consolidates EIDHR projects by 
addressing the issues on which they 
focus. In the other countries examined, 
however, EIDHR projects are not part 
of a coherent, strategic and coordinat -
ed approach for addressing issues re -
lating to torture and the death penalty. 
The projects do not complement each 
other well and are not linked to the 
Commission’s traditional development 
support. Furthermore, the Commis -
sion’s dialogue does not complement 
EIDHR projects as effectively as it 
might. Issues relating to torture have 
not been addressed in human rights 
dialogues with the Democratic Re -
public of the Congo and South Africa 
despite the fact that EIDHR projects 
focus on torture prevention and the 
rehabilitation of torture victims. The 
death penalty has been included in 
15 Observations
the human rights dialogue with China 
and the EU–United States consultation 
on human rights but the issues raised 
were different from the ones focused 
upon by the EIDHR projects.
20 
The implementation of the human 
rights -based approach to develop -
ment cooperation (see paragraph 8) 
is running behind schedule. In May 
201421, the Commission presented the 
Council with a ‘toolbox’ setting out 
how the Commission will work towards 
a human rights -based approach to 
development cooperation. It includes 
practical checklists and announces the 
development of a support package. 
The human rights -based approach is 
yet to be implemented even though 
a first assessment is due to take place 
already in 2016.The process for 
selecting projects was 
well documented but 
insufficiently rigorous
21 
The process for selecting projects 
is transparent and well document -
ed. Project assessments (see Box 4 ) 
are justified with detailed scores by 
each assessor, as well as a narrative 
assessment. Furthermore, the overall 
conclusions of the evaluation boards 
are reported with sufficient detail, 
including the final project rankings, 
the determination of the threshold for 
selection, an explanation as to why 
projects are considered ineligible and 
the justification for reassessments.21 Although the action plan of 
the strategic framework and 
action plan on human rights 
and democracy (see 
paragraph 5) stipulates that it 
was to be finalised in 2013.
Assessing project proposals
In line with the practical guide to contract procedures for European Union external actions, civil society 
organisations that wish to obtain a grant first have to submit a concept note describing the main features of 
the project they propose. When the concept note is accepted by the evaluation board, they are then invited 
to submit a full project proposal. Both the concept note and the full proposal are assessed by two persons, 
in most cases an independent external assessor and a representative of the EU delegation where the action 
is planned22. The assessments are carried out using a scoring system and standardised evaluation grids with 
criteria that cover aspects of design, relevance, capacity, feasibility, effectiveness, sustainability and cost - 
effectiveness. Grants are awarded to the projects with the highest scores.
22 When the project concerns actions in more than one country, the project is assessed by a representative of the regional directorate of DG 
Development and Cooperation.Box 4
16 Observations
22 
The standardised evaluation grids 
used by the Commission (see Box 4 ) 
have a number of shortcomings that 
hinder qualitative and objective 
assessments:
(a) there is only limited guidance for 
scoring various criteria, and many 
criteria use wording such as ‘suf -
ficient’, ‘appropriate’, ‘satisfactory’ 
and ‘strategically chosen’ with -
out explaining precisely what is 
expected;
(b) since 2011, project relevance is 
only assessed on the basis of the 
concept note and not on the basis 
of the full proposal;
(c) several criteria are combined into 
one score. It is not clear how scores 
should be given when the assess -
ment of the individual criteria 
varies;
(d) there are no minimum require -
ments where they could be ex -
pected for essential aspects such 
as the feasibility or the impact of 
a project.
23 
For each call for proposals, the Com -
mission issues guidelines for assessors. 
These are meant to explain how asses -
sors should conduct their assessments 
in order to ensure that all assessments 
are made in a coherent and consistent 
manner. However, the guidelines for 
assessors insufficiently mitigate the 
shortcomings of the standardised 
evaluation grids (see paragraph 22) 
and insufficiently clarify how specific 
requirements of the calls for pro -
posals should be assessed. In relation 
to torture, for example, the calls for proposals indicate that preference is 
given to a holistic and comprehensive 
approach as well as to actions that 
explore linkages between the promo -
tion of economic, social and cultural 
rights and the eradication of torture. In 
the case of the death penalty, projects 
should contain actions which entail 
an integrated approach to the fight 
against the death penalty. However, 
these criteria are not explicitly as -
sessed or scored.
24 
The project assessments examined by 
the Court (see paragraph 12) were not 
always carried out with the necessary 
rigour:
(a) for 25 of the 45 project assess -
ments examined, at least one 
narrative assessment makes no 
analysis per criterion even though 
this is required. These assessments 
therefore provide less justification;
(b) in 4 of the 45 project assessments 
examined, no clear explanation 
was given as to why low scores 
were granted for certain criteria;
(c) for 11 of the 45 project assess -
ments examined, the Court’s 
auditors noted inconsistencies 
between the scores given and the 
narrative assessments. In most 
cases, this involved relatively high 
scores on criteria despite negative 
narrative assessments.
17 Observations
25 
Assessors frequently issue different 
opinions for the same project. For 
the 45 projects examined, there was 
a significant difference between the 
scores of the two assessors for 20 % of 
all criteria23. The evaluation committee 
has the option not to accept the scores 
awarded by the assessors and to carry 
out a reassessment of all the cri teria. 
However, the approach to reassess -
ments was not consistent. For three of 
the five calls for proposals examined, 
the evaluation committee carried out 
a reassessment when the difference 
between the total scores of both as -
sessments was considered significant. 
Furthermore, the definition of what is 
a significant difference also changed 
over time. As a result, a number of 
project proposals with high scoring 
differences were not reassessed. For 
one call for proposals24, there were no 
reassessments despite a significant 
difference25 between the assessors’ 
total scores for four of the 10 pro -
jects. For another call for proposals26, 
reassessments were carried out but it 
was not specified for which projects 
this should be done and three of the 
eight proposals were not reassessed 
where there was a significant differ -
ence between the total scores of both 
assessors.26 
The grants requested by civil soci -
ety organisations need to observe 
certain limits. The minimum and 
maximum amounts for grants have 
increased during the period under 
review. The average contract amount 
for death -penalty projects increased 
from 550 000 euro for the 2008 call 
for proposals to 735 000 euro for 
the 2011 call. The average contract 
amount for torture projects increased 
from 715 000 euro for the 2007 call for 
proposals to 903 000 euro for the 2009 
call. The amounts were increased to 
reduce the number of contracts and 
therefore the Commission’s workload.
27 
Smaller local civil society organisations 
have comparative disadvantages when 
requesting grants due to cumbersome 
application procedures, language 
requirements27 and, for some calls 
for proposals, the requirement to be 
active in more than one country. The 
increased minimum amount for grants 
made it even more difficult for them to 
apply for grants even where they have 
the potential to set up relevant and 
effective projects. To mitigate this, the 
Commission organises seminars and 
training sessions for local civil society 
organisations, promotes partnerships 
and allows sub -granting.23 Difference of at least two 
points out of five in a single 
criterion. As each assessment 
contains 17 criteria, the Court 
reviewed 765 criteria in total.
24 Call for proposals 126-224.
25 Higher than 10 out of the 
50 points.
26 Call for proposals 131-085.
27 Applications have to be made 
in English, French or Spanish.
18 Observations
The demand‑driven 
approach ensured that 
beneficiary organisations 
had sufficient expertise and 
ownership of the actions but 
it also had disadvantages
28 
The demand -driven approach makes 
it possible to address sensitive issues 
without government consent. The 
applicants of the projects examined 
have sufficient technically skilled staff 
and, in the majority of the cases, had 
already implemented projects of a 
similar scale and nature. In more than 
a quarter of the cases, however, the 
project significantly exceeded the 
scale of any activity the beneficiary 
organisation had carried out in the 
past, thereby posing a potential risk 
for the adequate implementation of 
the pro  ject. In only one of those cases, 
however, did the limited capacity of 
the organisation prove to be a major 
problem.
29 
The demand -driven approach has 
a number of negative consequences:
(a) the geographical scope of pro -
jects may not coincide with the 
places where the most impact can 
be achieved with the EIDHR. In 
most cases, the projects cover by 
and large those areas where the 
organisations were already active. 
In some cases, this resulted in sup -
port for activities with only very 
limited potential impact because 
the projects targeted countries 
where, for political reasons, 
no progress can reasonably be 
expected;(b) in an effort to secure grants, civil 
society organisations may pre -
sent projects with overambitious 
objectives. Of the 31 projects 
examined, the Court identified 13 
projects with clearly overambitious 
objectives. They typically relate 
to changes that require govern -
ment commitment in order to be 
implemented. However, there is no 
evidence that such commitment 
exists, indeed quite the contrary;
(c) beneficiary organisations may 
not clearly commit themselves to 
measurable activities. This makes 
it very difficult for the Commis -
sion to objectively assess at a later 
stage whether project activities 
have been carried out satisfactor -
ily. Indicators have been defined 
for measuring project activities 
but although such indicators are 
in principle measurable, baselines 
and quantified targets have gener -
ally not been set even though this 
would have been possible in most 
cases.
30 
The negative consequences of the de -
mand -driven approach have not been 
properly addressed. When weaknesses 
are identified by the assessors of the 
project proposals, this does not lead 
to improvements in project designs28. 
This is a missed opportunity.28 Article 204.5 of Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 1268/2012 of 
29 October 2012 on the rules 
of application of Regulation 
(EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council on the financial 
rules applicable to the general 
budget of the Union (OJ L 362, 
31.12.2012, p. 1) states that the 
proposal may not be 
substantially changed.
19 Observations
29 97.8 % on average.
30 Even though this verification 
was difficult for the 10 cases 
where even the main project 
activities were not quantified 
(see paragraph 29).Projects were 
implemented as planned 
but the overall impact of 
the EIDHR funding was 
limited
31 
The Court examined whether the pro -
jects were implemented as planned in 
terms of activities, budget and tim -
ing. Furthermore, the Court assessed 
whether the cost -effectiveness of 
projects was appropriately considered. 
The Court also examined whether they 
had the expected impact and whether 
the achievements are sustainable.
Project activities were 
generally carried out as 
planned
32 
The civil society organisations that 
implement projects reported on their 
activities during and at the end of the 
project implementation periods. Pro -
ject reporting is very much focused on 
activities rather than on the achieve -
ment of objectives. This hinders 
a results -oriented management of the 
expenditure.33 
This problem is related to the fact that 
logical frameworks (see Box 5 ) pre -
sented by civil society organisations 
are generally poorly drafted. They of -
ten present specific objectives, expect -
ed results and activities that are not 
fully coherent. In actual fact, the re -
quired template for the logical frame -
work is not well suited to this type of 
projects and is overly complicated for 
many civil society organisations.
34 
The budgets of the projects examined 
have always been adhered to and were 
almost fully used29. By and large, main 
project activities were carried out as 
planned30. Nevertheless, in eight of the 
16 projects examined where imple -
mentation had already ended, some 
of the planned activities had not been 
carried out. This was often related to 
the projects being overambitious (see 
paragraph 29).
Logical frameworks
Civil society organisations that request grants are required to submit a logical framework of the project they 
wish to implement. A logical framework is a document in standard table format that sets out overall objec -
tives, specific objectives, expected results and planned activities for a project.Box 5
20 Observations
35 
In four cases, implementing projects as 
planned was hindered by unexpected 
events, such as partners not delivering 
their expected contributions or major 
changes in the political environment. 
In these cases, the issues were appro -
priately dealt with by the civil society 
organisations in consultation with the 
Commission. This was done by chan -
ging one or more project partners or 
by changing the geographical scope of 
the project.
36 
The implementation period for 11 pro -
jects was extended by between 2 and 
13 months. The arguments given for 
extending the implementation period 
did not convincingly set out why the 
grant was not fully used by the end of 
the initial implementation period or 
indicate that an extension was nec -
essary and sufficient to achieve the 
project objectives. There is a risk that 
project implementation periods were 
extended mainly to enable beneficiary 
organisations to spend the budget in 
full rather than to achieve the project 
objectives.37 
As grant contracts are awarded 
following calls for proposals and not 
a tendering procedure, it is difficult 
for the Commission to fully ensure the 
cost -effectiveness of the expenditure. 
Furthermore, the Commission did 
not define benchmarks to assess the 
cost -effectiveness. There is neverthe -
less no indication that the overall cost 
of most of the projects examined is not 
reasonable for the expected results. 
In several cases, individual salaries 
are even relatively low, which demon -
strates the dedication of many of the 
staff of the civil society organisations 
that implement projects. In 3 of the  
31 examined cases, however, the 
cost -effectiveness was suboptimal. In 
those cases, the overall cost was high 
compared to the expected results.
38 
The Court made a comparison for the 
14 out of the 31 projects examined 
that aim to provide assistance direct -
ly to final beneficiaries31. For these 
projects, there is evidence that the 
projects implemented by the organisa -
tions located in beneficiary countries 
are more cost -effective than those 
based in other countries. The former 
reach out to more final beneficiaries 
and present a lower average cost per 
beneficiary receiving assistance.31 Of the 183 grant contracts 
signed in the 2007-2013 
period, 76 concerned projects 
whose main activity was to 
provide assistance for final 
beneficiaries, e.g. victims of 
torture.
21 Observations
39 
Most budgets for the projects ex -
amined include a 7 % increase in the 
direct costs to cover indirect costs. The 
beneficiary organisations have differ -
ent interpretations of what is covered 
by this flat -rate amount. As a result, 
office rent, salaries of finance/adminis -
trative/general management staff and 
other costs are treated differently. De -
pending on the case, all, some or none 
of these costs are included in the grant 
budget on top of the flat -rate amount 
for indirect costs.
The impact of EIDHR funding 
was limited by the modest 
EIDHR financial contribution 
being spread out too thinly 
and in certain situations 
by unfavourable political 
contexts
40 
EIDHR funding to fight torture and the 
death penalty reflects the EU’s strong 
common commitment to the fight 
against torture and the abolition of 
the death penalty. As such, it aims to 
enhance the EU’s moral influence over 
human rights issues. The resources al -
located, however, are relatively modest 
(see paragraph 10) compared to the 
global challenges faced (see para -
graphs 1 to 4). The funding available 
for the 2007-2013 period was thinly 
spread out over 183 projects imple -
mented in more than 120 countries 
worldwide, thus diluting its impact.41 
Project impacts were generally diffi -
cult to measure as the impact sought 
is frequently intangible, no targets are 
set for performance indicators (see 
paragraph 29) and reporting by civil 
society organisations to the Commis -
sion concentrates on activities (see 
paragraph 32). Furthermore, progress 
depends not only on project achieve -
ments but also on many exogenous 
factors. This makes it difficult and in 
some cases impossible to assess the 
extent to which the activities contrib -
uted to progress.
42 
Evaluations are carried out to assess 
the impacts of the projects. How  ever, 
they do not provide a full picture 
as the approach is not harmonised. 
Indeed, it is left to the beneficiary 
organisations that apply for a grant to 
decide whether they wish to plan for 
a project evaluation or not32.
43 
14 of the 31 projects examined had as 
their main activity to provide assis -
tance for final beneficiaries. 10 were 
successful in achieving that objective. 
This is demonstrated by the number of 
people who have received assistance, 
the reputation of the civil society 
organisations that implemented the 
projects and the appreciation of final 
beneficiaries as shown in statistics and 
expressed to the Court during inter -
views. However, with the exception of 
the projects implemented in Georgia, 
the projects examined have a limited 
impact overall as they focus on small 
target groups.32 In only 18 of the 31 projects 
examined was provision made 
for project evaluations to be 
performed at the end of the 
project. See also paragraph 26 
of the Court’s Special Report 
No 18/2014 concerning 
EuropeAid’s evaluation and 
results -oriented monitoring 
systems ( http://eca.europa.eu ).
22 Observations
44 
For the other four projects that mainly 
provide assistance for final beneficiar -
ies, there is no evidence of significant 
impact. Two projects provided legal 
support for individuals facing the 
death penalty in the United States but 
only in very few cases was it possible 
to avert the death penalty. Two other 
projects led to court submissions in 
many countries for cases of torture but 
few cases resulting in a positive deci -
sion have yet been reported.
45 
17 of the 31 projects examined had 
main objectives other than providing 
assistance for final beneficiaries. Im -
plementation has ended in nine cases; 
in six of those cases, the impact is less 
than expected:
(a) a project that focused on torture 
prevention in nine former Soviet 
republics was partially effective in 
setting up monitoring systems and 
promoting best -practice models of 
rehabilitation. There is no evidence 
that the project was successful in 
increasing interaction between 
governments and civil society in 
the area of torture, in increasing 
civil society capacity and in in -
creasing access to support services 
for the most vulnerable groups of 
prisoners;
(b) a project that addressed the death 
penalty in 17 countries success -
fully increased public awareness, 
promoted transparency, enhanced 
networks and coalitions and in -
creased civil society capacity. How -
ever, it was not so successful with 
regard to the more substantial pro -
ject objectives, such as abolishing 
the death penalty or establishing 
moratoriums on executions. With 
regard to criminal -justice policy 
development and legal reform, 
there was some progress in only 
four of the 17 project countries 
and the objective of increasing ratifications of international con -
ventions was hardly successful at 
all;
(c) one project focusing on detention 
conditions in military guardhouses 
in Georgia had no demonstrated 
impact. Military guardhouses in 
poor condition were closed down 
after the end of the project but 
there is no evidence that the pro -
ject contributed to this;
(d) a project that sought to strengthen 
organisations that fight against the 
death penalty in two states in the 
United States had some impact, al -
beit far from the extent expected;
23 Observations
(e) a project whose objective was to 
move China towards considering 
signing OPCAT and to contribute 
to the prevention of torture and 
other forms of ill -treatment in 
China did not achieve most of the 
detailed project results. There 
was some progress regarding the 
supervision of pre -trial deten -
tion centres, and criminal law was 
amended to bring it more closely 
in line with international stand -
ards. However, no greater consid -
eration of OPCAT was achieved, no 
new implementing guidelines with 
regard to illegally obtained evi -
dence were implemented, a pilot 
scheme for monitoring was run in 
only one detention centre and no 
improved complaints mechanism 
was put in place;
(f) one project sought to reduce the 
use of the death penalty in China 
by promoting judicial discretion 
through the training of judges in 
local courts and the development 
of strict sentencing and evidence 
guidelines for trial procedures. 
During the project implementation 
period, several positive changes 
occurred. Several pieces of legisla -
tion and several policies relating to 
the death penalty were reformed: 
for example, the standard of sen -
tencing in death penalty cases was 
unified, the death penalty was only 
handed down to criminals who 
had committed extremely serious 
crimes and 13 non -violent crimes 
ceased to be eligible for the death 
penalty. However, no direct link 
can be made between the project 
and these changes.46 
For the eight projects that are on -
going, it is still too early to reach 
conclusions about their impact. There 
are, however, indications that at least 
two projects will have less impact than 
expected:
(a) one project supports greater 
domestic compliance in six Afri -
can countries with international 
torture law obligations, norms and 
procedures. Although the work -
shops have been successful, as 
shown by increasing numbers of 
participants, there is no evidence 
that the project has had a substan -
tial impact;
(b) another project entailed research 
to develop sets of guidelines for 
better interpretation of the crim -
inal policy by Chinese courts. The 
guidelines have been submitted 
to the Supreme People’s Court but 
there has not been any reaction so 
far. The efforts made will have no 
impact if the judicial authorities 
are unwilling to use the guidelines. 
A positive outcome is unlikely 
since state officials have become 
more reluctant to support initia -
tives that favour the abolition of 
the death penalty.
24 Observations
47 
There are various reasons why the 
impact of projects is limited:
(a) some project objectives were over -
ambitious and therefore could not 
be met (see paragraph 29);
(b) progress in the area of torture and 
the death penalty is generally slow 
and tends to take longer than the 
projects themselves;
(c) the political context in the tar -
geted countries was not always 
conducive to substantial progress. 
Government willingness is particu -
larly important for project objec -
tives that do not directly target 
final beneficiaries.48 
Even though progress depends not 
only on project achievements but 
also on exogenous factors (see para -
graph 41), there are indications that 
six of the projects examined that 
contributed towards abolishing the 
death penalty in the United States 
had a combined positive impact. Their 
contribution took various forms. Four 
projects focused on raising awareness, 
for instance by empowering the voices 
of families of the executed, operating 
a national speakers’ bureau or con -
ducting a nationwide media campaign. 
Two projects conducted research, one 
into how to influence policymakers 
and the other into assessing the situ -
ation in four states with regard to the 
death penalty. These projects contrib -
uted to positive developments (see 
Box 6 ) although the precise extent of 
the contribution cannot be assessed. 
There are indications that the aware -
ness- raising projects have had more 
impact than the two projects entailing 
research.
 Developments in the United States as regards the death penalty
Developments in the United States as regards the death penalty were mostly positive during the period under 
review. The death penalty was abolished in New Mexico (in 2009), Illinois (in 2011), Connecticut (in 2012) and 
Maryland (in 2013), the number of death sentences fell from 118 in 2009 to 83 in 2013 and the number of exe -
cutions fell from 52 in 2009 to 39 in 201333.
33 Source:  Death Penalty Information Center. In 2015, the death penalty was also abolished in Nebraska.Box 6
25 Observations
34 The Court noted only one 
exception.Project achievements are 
sustainable but grants 
did not make civil society 
organisations more 
self‑sustainable
49 
The project proposals examined 
address financial, institutional and 
policy sustainability. In addition, the 
sustainability of results is covered in 
the reports that were submitted by 
civil society organisations at the end 
of project implementation34. Although 
project impacts frequently fall short of 
expectations (see paragraphs 43 to 48), 
the projects contributed to changes 
that are likely to be permanent.
50 
Furthermore, the grants that were 
awarded enabled the beneficiary or -
ganisations to expand their geograph -
ical scope in several cases, which was 
beneficial for the organisation. In some 
cases, even the beneficiary organisa -
tions’ thematic scope was enhanced by 
the EIDHR grant.
51 
However, most civil society organisa -
tions are not self -sustainable. Some 
of the civil society organisations 
concerned manage to secure a part 
of their financing needs by income - 
generating activities or by donations 
from the general public, but this 
remains very limited overall. To finance 
their activities, they are highly depen -
dent on grants from the few donors 
that provide funding for the fight 
against torture and the death penalty.52 
The fact that civil society organisations 
are not self -sustainable jeopardises 
the continuity of their activities. The 
suspension or cessation of EIDHR fund -
ing often results in beneficiary organ -
isations winding down their activities 
and laying off staff, thereby losing 
expertise. In some cases, the lack of 
self-sustainability even jeopardises the 
continuity of the civil society organisa -
tions themselves.
53 
Only 5 of the 31 projects that were 
examined included activities to make 
civil society organisations more 
self-sustainable. This objective was 
not achieved in three cases because 
planned income -generating activities 
were not set up or community owner -
ship of services was not achieved. In 
the two other cases, self -sustainability 
was successfully established:
(a) in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, a project that financed 
 local centres to provide psycho -
logical and legal support for vic -
tims of sexual violence succeeded 
in making the centres self -sustain -
able. The project did so by estab -
lishing various income -generating 
activities, such as agriculture, bak -
ing, carpentry and knitting, or by 
providing micro loans for the local 
community;
(b) a project in the United States 
enabled local civil society organi -
sations in two states to develop 
a fundraising plan in order to en -
sure their financial sustainability. 
Both affiliates became financially 
sustainable, without funding from 
the coordinating organisation at 
national level.
26
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
54 
EIDHR support for the fight against 
torture, the rehabilitation of victims of 
torture and the abolition of the death 
penalty was only partially effective as 
the modest funding was not optimally 
targeted and progress was hindered 
by unfavourable political contexts.
Recommendation 1
Target modest resources better
The Commission should concentrate 
EIDHR funding on the most relevant 
issues and on the countries with the 
greatest needs and where the greatest 
impact can be expected, in line with 
the priorities defined in the human 
rights country strategies.
55 
The Commission obtains adequate 
information about human rights situ -
ations in partner countries and estab -
lishes appropriate priorities for each 
partner country. Although the fund -
ing was generally well allocated, the 
Commission does not take sufficient 
account of these priorities. Further -
more, in many countries the projects 
funded by EIDHR grants are not suf -
ficiently complemented by or coord -
inated with other EU action, such as 
traditional development support and 
dialogue with the partner country. The 
demand -driven approach to financing 
projects ensured that projects were 
generally implemented by motivated 
civil society organisations with good 
management and technical expertise. 
Although the project selection pro -
cess was well documented, it lacked 
rigour and certain disadvantages of 
the demand -driven approach were 
insufficiently mitigated. In cases where selected projects had overambitious 
objectives or were insufficiently clear 
on what was precisely to be achieved, 
the project designs were not improved 
(see paragraphs 14 to 30).
Recommendation 2
Improve coordination with other EU 
action
The Commission should, wherever 
possible, openly state the EU priori -
ties as defined in the human rights 
country strategies and should focus 
project selection, the Commission’s 
traditional development support and 
political dialogue on those priorities 
in a coordinated manner. Further -
more, the Commission should ensure 
swift implementation of the human 
rights -based approach.
Recommendation 3
Improve projects’ selection
The Commission should further 
improve the standardised evaluation 
grids and the guidelines for assessors 
so as to ensure that all assessments are 
coherent and consistent. It should be 
fully clear to assessors precisely which 
criteria they should assess and how 
they should give scores. The assess -
ments themselves should be carried 
out with more rigour and provide clear 
explanations for all criteria assessed. 
The reassessment approach should be 
clear and consistently applied.
27 Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendation 4
Better use the possibilities for 
improving project proposals where 
assessors have identified design 
weaknesses
The Commission should more sys -
tematically invite applicants to adjust 
their project proposals to ensure that 
weaknesses identified by the assessors 
are better taken into account, while 
safeguarding that djustments are 
non -substantial so that fair and equal 
treatment remains guaranteed.
56 
By and large, project activities have 
been carried out as planned and are 
generally cost -effective, in particular 
the projects implemented by civil soci -
ety organisations in partner countries. 
The results achieved by the grants are 
sustainable. However, the systems for 
measuring impacts are rather weak, 
with unclear logical frameworks for 
projects, a lack of well -defined bench -
marks and targets, and an inconsistent 
approach to project evaluations. When 
projects provide assistance for victims, 
the impact is tangible, albeit limited 
to relatively small target groups. The 
contribution of projects which seek 
legislative or policy reforms is difficult 
to assess as progress typically also 
depends on many other factors. In 
several cases, project impacts were 
hindered by unfavourable political 
contexts. The achievements that were 
made are sustainable. However, the 
civil society organisations that were 
supported mostly depend to a large 
extent on financial support and the 
intensity of their activities often de -
creases significantly when EIDHR fund -
ing ends (see paragraphs 32 to 53).Recommendation 5
Develop the performance measure ‑
ment framework further
The Commission should simplify the 
template for the logical framework 
of EIDHR projects so that the links 
between objectives, activities and 
impacts become clearer. Impact indi -
cators and measurable targets should 
be defined on the basis of baselines 
and project activities that are planned. 
The approach to project evaluations 
should be harmonised.
Recommendation 6
Focus more on improving the sustain ‑
ability of beneficiary organisations
In its calls for proposals, the Com -
mission should promote measures to 
make civil society organisations more 
self-sustainable, for example through 
donor coordination, and should con -
sider ways to provide continued sup -
port for beneficiary organisations that 
are performing well.
28 Conclusions and recommendations
This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 30 June 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

29
 Annexes
The death penalty in AfricaAnnex I
Algeria
Libya
SudanMali
ChadNigerEgypt
AngolaEthiopia
South AfricaNigeriaMauritania
NamibiaZambiaKenyaSomalia
Democratic 
Republic of the Congo
Botswana MozambiqueMorocco
MadagascarSouth Sudan
CongoCameroon
ZimbabweGabonGhanaGuinea
TanzaniaUgandaTunisia
Senegal
Central African Republic
Côte d'IvoireBurkina Faso
BeninEritrea
MalawiLiberiaTogoSierra Leone
LesothoRwandaDjibouti
Guinea-Bissau
SwazilandEquatorial Guinea
MauritiusEquatorial Guinea
ComorosCape Verde
Sao Tome and PrincipeSeychellesGambia
Burundi
Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics © UN-FAO © Turkstat0 250 500 750 1000  kmSource: Amnesty International 2013Abolitionist
Abolitionist de facto
Retentionist
Source:  Eurostat.
30 Annexes
The death penalty in AsiaAnnex II
ChinaRussian Federation
IndiaKazakhstan
Mongolia
Saudi ArabiaTurkey
Iraq
PakistanIran
Myanmar YemenAfghanistan
Thailand
IndonesiaUzbekistan
OmanJapanTurkmenistan
Syria
VietnamNepalKyrgyzstan
MalaysiaTajikistan
CambodiaJordan
MalaysiaBangladeshGeorgia Azerbaijan
Laos
Sri LankaSouth KoreaDem People's Rep of Korea
Bhutan
Israel
United Arab EmiratesKuwait
QatarLebanon
Singapore MaldivesBahrainPalestine
BruneiPhilippinesArmenia
Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics © UN-FAO © Turkstat0250 500 750 1000  kmAbolitionist
Abolitionist de facto
Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only
Retentionist
Source: Amnesty International 2013
This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.
Source:  Eurostat.
31 Annexes
The death penalty in Latin AmericaAnnex III
BrazilUnited States of America
ArgentinaPeruMexico
BoliviaColombiaVenezuela
ChileParaguayEcuadorGuyana
UruguayCuba
SurinameNicaraguaHonduras
Guatemala
PanamaGuyana (France)Haiti
Costa RicaBelizeDominican Republic
El SalvadorJamaicaBahamas
Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics © UN-FAO0 250 500 750 1000  kmSource: Amnesty International 2013Abolitionist
Abolitionist de facto
Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only
Retentionist VenezuelaColombiaCuba
PanamaHaiti
GuyanaDominican Republic
Jamaica
Trinidad and TobagoDominica
Martinique (France)Bahamas
BarbadosGuadeloupe (France)
GrenadaSaint Vincent and
the GrenadinesSaint Kitts and NevisAntigua and Barbuda
Saint Lucia
Source:  Eurostat.
32 Annexes
The death penalty in the United StatesAnnex IV
Mexico
Bahamas
CubaTexasUtahMontana
CaliforniaNevadaIdaho
ArizonaOregon
KansasColoradoIowaWyoming
New MexicoNebraskaMinnesota
Ohio
MissouriIllinois
GeorgiaOklahomaSouth Dakota
AlabamaArkansasWashington
WisconsinNorth DakotaMaine
VirginiaNew York
LouisianaKentucky
TennesseePennsylvania
North Carolina
FloridaIndianaMichigan
MississippiSouth CarolinaWest VirginiaVermont
MarylandNew JerseyNew Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
DelawareRhode Island
District of Columbia
Administrative boundaries: © UN-FAO0 250 500 750 1000  kmAlaska
Hawaii
0 500 1000  km 0 200 400 kmCanadaRussiaCanada
Source: Amnesty International 2013Abolitionist
Retentionist
Source:  Eurostat.
33 Annexes
Global calls for proposals 2007 ‑2013
Call for 
proposalType and 
descriptionSubject TopicGrant 
amount 
per 
project  
(euro)Duration Amount 
initially 
allocated  
(euro)Amount 
finally 
awarded  
(euro)
126-224Global call  
‘Restricted 
Call for 
Proposals 
2007’TortureSupport to human rights and democracy actions 
on torture and other forms of ill -treatment  
Lot 1 : Prevention of torture (30  % of the amount)  
Lot 2 : Rehabilitation of victims of torture (70  % of 
the amount)Minimum :
200 000  
Maximum :
1 500 000 Minimum :
12 months  
Maximum :
36 months22 000  000 22 171 837
127-238Global call  
‘Open Call 
for Proposals 
2008’Death 
penaltyActions supporting human rights and democracy 
issues covered by the EU guidelines on the death 
penaltyMinimum :
150 000  
Maximum :
1 000  000 Minimum :
12 months  
Maximum :
36 months4 000  000 8 244 166
128-815Global call  
‘Restricted 
Call for 
Proposals 
2009’TortureSupport to human rights and democracy actions 
on torture and other forms of ill -treatmentMinimum :
200 000  
Maximum :
1 500 000 Minimum :
18 months  
Maximum :
36 months20 000  000 25 266 659
131-085Global call  
‘Restricted 
Call for 
Proposals 
2011’Torture/  
death 
penaltyLot 1 : Strengthening the role of civil society net -
works in promoting human rights and democratic 
reform  
‘= > not specifically related to torture; only 1 project 
of Lot 1 included in the audit scope  
Lot 2 : Actions supporting the EU guidelines on the 
abolition of death penaltyMinimum :
200 000  
Maximum : 
1 500 000 Minimum :
18 months  
Maximum :
36 monthsLot 1 : 
14 600  000  
Lot 2 : 
7 000  000Lot 1 : 
855 324 
(only 
related 
to project 
covered by 
the audit ) 
Lot 2 : 
6 618 135
132-762Global call  
‘Restricted 
Call for 
Proposals 
2012’TortureFighting impunity on  
Lot 1 : Civil society actions against torture and 
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment  
Lot 2 : Civil society actions promoting the effective 
functioning of the International Criminal Court 
and the Rome Statute System  
‘= > Lot 2 not included in the audit scopeMinimum :
500 000  
Maximum :
1 500 000 Minimum :
24 months  
Maximum :
36 monthsLot 1 : 
16 215 000  
Lot 2 : 
6 000  00021 219  618
Source:  European Commission.Annex V
34 Annexes
Projects for which the Court’s auditors reviewed the Commission’s assessment of 
concept notes and full proposals
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
Georgia2008/148-044 2007/126-224 TortureAssociation Jus -
tice and LibertyPrevention of torture in 
military guardhouses.204 961.00 Audited
2008/148-184 2007/126-224 TortureEmpatia 
AssociationStrengthening the system 
of rehabilitation for torture 
victims in Georgia679 937.0 0 Audited
China 2008/148-024 2007/126-224 TortureThe Great 
Britain– China 
CentrePrevention of 
torture in the PRC787 966.00 Audited
Democratic 
Republic of the 
Congo2008/148-156 2007/126-224 TortureSolidarité Pour La 
Promotion Sociale 
Et La Paix AsblAssistance et réhabilitation des 
victimes de la torture en RDC421 836.00 Audited
Argentina, Bra -
zil, Madagascar, 
Morocco,  
Thailand and 
Turkey2008/148-045 2007/126-224 TortureAssociation for 
the Prevention of 
TorturePreventing torture through 
the promotion of the optional 
protocol to the convention 
against torture in five target 
countries986 306.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
Moldova 2008/148-070 2007/126-224 TortureUnited Nations 
Development 
ProgrammeSupport for strengthening the 
national preventive mech -
anism as per OPCAT provisions640  000.00Assessor’s scores are 
significantly different
Israel 2009/148-034 2007/126-224 TortureAdalah —The 
legal centre for 
Arab minority 
rights in IsraelCombating and preventing 
torture and ill -treatment of 
Palestinian prisoners held in 
Israeli prisons and Palestin -
ian civilians in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territory638 651.00Just fell short for 
selection
Argentinanot 
contracted2007/126-224 TortureComité para 
la defensa de 
la salud, la 
ética profesional 
y los derechos 
humanos asocian 
civilPrograma de asistencia 
y rehabilitación a víctimas 
de la represión y la tortura 
en contextos de acciones 
judiciales por crímenes de las 
humanidad683 708.00Just fell short for 
selectionAnnex VI
35 Annexes
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
Indianot 
contracted2007/126-224 TortureStichting 
Interkerkelijke 
Organisatie voor 
Ontwikkeling -
swerkingReducing the impact of 
conflict among disadvantaged 
groups in Nepal530 243.00Project name does 
not relate to the 
objective of the 
global call
Kenya 2008/148-075 2007/126-224 TortureIndependent 
Medico -Legal 
UnitInitiative of holistic rehab -
ilitation and prevention of 
torture project1 058 322.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
Georgia 2013/318-878 2013/132-762 TortureEmpatia 
AssociationCaucasian anti-torture 
network: multi rehabilitation 
services for torture victims and 
fighting impunity980 000.00 Audited
China 2013/318-802 2013/132-762 TortureThe Rights 
Practice LbgFighting torture in China: 
strengthening the role of civil 
society662 500.00 Audited
South Africa 2013/318-879 2013/132-762 TortureStichting Young 
In Prison (YIP)Ending impunity in torture and 
cruel, inhuman and degrading 
treatment of children in prison 
in South Africa and Malawi882 817.00 Audited
United Kingdom, 
London2013/318-874 2013/132-762 TortureThe Redress Trust 
Limited LBGReparation for torture: 
global sharing of expertise 
Target countries: Kenya, Peru, 
Libya and Nepal (with some 
activities involving up to 15 
countries in Africa, Asia, Latin 
America, the Middle East and 
Europe1 194 521.00 Audited
Democratic 
Republic of the 
Congo2013/318-8862013/318-
886TortureCentre Interna -
tional Pour La 
Justice Transition -
nelle Interna -
tional Center 
For Transitional 
Justice AsblComplementarity in practice: 
strengthening the national 
judicial response to interna -
tional crimes in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo and Côte 
d’Ivoire959 965.00 AuditedAnnex VI
36 Annexes Annex VICountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
Colombia 2013/318-801 2013/132-762 TortureCorporación cen -
tro de atención 
psicosocialPrevención y Atención Integral 
a personas y familias víctimas 
de tortura en Colombia 
y Ecuador738 410.00Just fell short for 
selection
ACP countries 2013/318-847 2013/132-762 TortureOmega Research 
Foundation 
LimitedTowards stronger controls on 
the supply and use of torture 
technologies1 059  387.00Assessor’s scores are 
significantly different
Uganda 2013/318-799 2013/132-762 TortureAfrican Centre For  
Treatment And  
Rehabilitation Of  
Torture Victims 
Non -Govern -
mental  
OrganisationStrengthening and enhancing 
torture  
prevention, rehabilitation and  
accountability in east Africa1 200  000.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
United States2009/167-748 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyMurder Victim’s 
Families For Hu -
man Rights Non 
Profit CorporationVoices of victims against the 
death penalty485 615.65 Audited
2009/167-820 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyThe National Coa -
lition To Abolish 
The Death Penalty National Coalition to Abolish 
the Death Penalty intensive 
assistance programme305 060.86 Audited
2009/167-888 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyWitness To Inno -
cence CorporationAmerican DREAM campaign 374 944.62 Audited
2009/211-244 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyAmerican Bar As -
sociation FundThe death penalty assess -
ments project: toward 
a nationwide moratorium on 
executions708 162.00 Audited
China 2009/167-381 2008/127-238Death 
penalty The Great Britain 
China CentrePromoting judicial discretion 
in the restriction and reduc -
tion of death penalty use576 723.00 Audited
United Kingdom, 
London2009/167-880 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyPenal Reform 
International UkProgressive abolition of the 
death penalty and alternatives 
that respect international 
human rights standards926 924.00 Audited
2009/214-466 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyReprieve LbgEngaging Europe in the fight 
for US abolition504 454.00 Audited
37 Annexes Annex VICountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
United States 2009/167-889 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyDeath Penalty In -
formation CenterChanging the course of the 
death penalty debate:  
a proposal for public opinion 
research, message develop -
ment and communications on 
capital punishment in the US193 443.00 Audited
All countries 2009/167-901 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyInternational 
Harm Reduction 
AssociationRestricting the death penalty 
for drug offences  
through human rights impact 
assessment  
(HRIA) of multilateral drug 
enforcement  
assistance for death penalty 
states292 565.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
Benin, Burkina 
Faso, Burundi, 
Congo  
Brazzaville, 
Lesotho, Liberia, 
Malawi, Mali,  
Niger, Central 
African Republic, 
Central Asian 
Republics, 
Caribbean: 25 
countries2009/167-753 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyComunita Di 
S Egido Acapas -
sociazone 
Cultura Assistenza 
PopolareDu moratoire à l’abolition de la 
peine capitale. Promotion du 
rôle de la société civile au plan 
international  
et synergies 
politico -institutionnelles725 000.00Just fell short for 
selection
Belarusnot 
contracted2008/127-238Death 
penaltyAssociazione 
Terra del FuocoRunning for rights 203 000.00Project name does 
not relate to the 
objective of the 
global call
38 Annexes
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
United States2012/297-0762011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyWitness to Inno -
cence CorporationEyes wide open project 850 032.14 Audited
2012/297-0782011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyEqual Justice USA 
Inc CorporationBreaking barriers: engaging 
new voices to abolish the 
death penalty in the United 
States495 014.31 Audited
China 2012/297-0722011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyBeijing Normal 
University‘Use less’ – Judicial restraints 
on the use of the death 
penalty in China938 783.76 Audited
 United 
Kingdom, 
London2012/297-0792011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyPenal Reform 
International UK 
LGBProgressive abolition of the 
death penalty and implemen -
tation of humane alternative 
sanctions after a moratorium 
or abolition864  038.00 Audited
2012/297-0802011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyReprieve LGBEngaging Europe in the fight 
for abolition in the US, MENA 
and south-east Asia715 47 7.0 0 Audited
Jordannot 
contracted2011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyWomen for 
Cultural 
DevelopmentMa’ Alhaya (All for life) 479 666.80Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
United Statesnot 
contracted2011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyNevada Coalition 
against the Death 
PenaltyCoordinated Nevada 358 153.00Just fell short for 
selection
Lebanonnot 
contracted2011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyAssociation Jus -
tice et MiséricordeLutte pour l’abolition de la 
peine de mort au Liban1 200  000.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
Georgia 2010/222-921 2010/128-815 TortureGeorgian Centre 
For Psycho -Social 
And Medical 
Rehabilitation For 
Torture VictimsEnsuring access to reha -
bilitation services for people 
affected by torture and 
contribution to the prevention 
of torture in Georgia766 000.00 Audited
South Africa 2010/222-102 2010/128-815 TortureUniversity Of 
Cape TownHarnessing African institu -
tions for the prevention and 
combating of torture and 
other ill -treatment in six 
African states — the develop -
ment and implementation of 
operational standards.1 194  359.00 AuditedAnnex VI
39 Annexes
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)Reason for 
selection
Democratic 
Republic of the 
Congo2010/222-810 2010/128-815 TortureCoopi -  
Cooperazione 
InternazionaleProjet de prévention, protec -
tion et réhabilitation des 
victimes de VS et de leurs com -
munautés et au renforcement 
des capacités communautaires 
et étatiques à l’Est de la RDC 1 395  000.00 Audited
United Kingdom,
London2010/222-086 2010/128-815 TorturePenal Reform 
InternationalStrengthening institutions and 
building civil society capacity 
to combat torture in nine CIS 
countries 1 130 583.00 Audited
2010/222-733 2010/128-815 TortureThe Redress Trust 
Limited LbgReparation for torture: global 
sharing of expertise1 033  805.00 Audited
Benin 2010/223-216 2010/128-815 TortureCare France 
AssociationETODE: Pour la justice et les 
droits des femmes et des filles1 159 409.00Just fell short for 
selection
Nigerianot 
contracted2010/128-815 Torture Concern UniversalPreventing women’s ill -treat -
ment/Rehabilitating widows 
in CRS and Eboyni State313 060.00Assessors’ scores are 
significantly different
Turkeynot 
contracted2010/128-815 TortureRoh Saglig -
inda Insan Haklari 
Girisimi (Human 
Rights in Mental 
Health Initiative)Project for creating a civic 
monitoring system in the 
mental health field380 000.00Project name does 
not relate to the 
objective of the 
global call
Source:  European Commission.Annex VI
40 Annexes Annex VIIGrants examined
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)
United 
Kingdom, 
London2013/318-874 2013/132-762 TortureThe Redress Trust Limited 
LBGReparation for torture: global sharing of 
expertise 
Target countries: Kenya, Peru, Libya and 
Nepal (with some activities involving 
up to 15 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin 
America, the Middle East and Europe1 194 520.70
2009/167-880 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyPenal Reform International 
UK LGBProgressive abolition of the death penalty 
and alternatives that respect interna -
tional human rights standards926 924.40
2009/214-466 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyReprieve LBGEngaging Europe in the fight for US 
abolition504 454.40
2012/297-0792011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyPenal Reform International 
UK LBGProgressive abolition of the death 
penalty and implementation of humane 
alternative sanctions after a moratorium 
or abolition 8 6 4  037.6 0
2012/297-0802011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyReprieve LBGEngaging Europe in the Fight for abolition 
in the US, MENA and south-east Asia715 476.94
2010/222-086 2010/128-815 TorturePenal Reform International 
UK LGBStrengthening institutions and building 
civil society capacity to combat torture in 
nine CIS countries 1 130 583.00
2010/222-733 2010/128-815 TortureThe Redress Trust Limited 
LBGReparation for torture: global sharing of 
expertise1 033  805.00
China2008/148-024 2007/126-224 TortureThe Great Britain–China 
CentrePrevention of torture in the PRC 787 966.00
2013/318-802 2013/132-762 Torture The Rights Practice LBGFighting torture in China: strengthening 
the role of civil society662 500.00
2009/167-381 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyThe Great Britain–China 
CentrePromoting judicial discretion in the 
restriction and reduction of death penalty 
use576 723.00
2012/297-0722011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyInternational Death Penalty 
Research Centre, Beijing 
Normal University‘Use less’ — Judicial restraints on the use 
of the death penalty in China938 783.76
Democratic 
Republic of the 
Congo2008/148-156 2007/126-224 TortureSolidarite Pour La Promo -
tion Sociale Et La Paix AsblAssistance et réhabilitation des victimes 
de la torture en RDC421 836.00
2013/318-886 2013/132-762 TortureCentre International Pour 
La Justice Transitionnelle 
International Center For 
Transitional Justice AsblComplementarity in practice: strength -
ening the national judicial response to 
international crimes in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo and Côte d’Ivoire959 965.00
2010/222-810 2010/128-815 TortureCoopi — Cooperazione 
InternazionaleProjet de prévention, protection et réha -
bilitation des victimes de VS et de leurs 
communautés et au renforcement des 
capacités communautaires et étatiques 
à l’Est de la RDC1 395  000.00
41 Annexes Annex VIICountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)
Democratic 
Republic of the 
Congo2012/307-100 132-685 TortureSolidarite Pour La Promo -
tion Sociale Et La Paix AsblAssistance aux survivants de la torture 
et actions de prévention (Monitoring, 
plaidoyers et sensibilisation) contre la 
torture en RD Congo131 500.00
2013/308-415 132-685 TortureLigue De La Zone Afrique 
Pour La Defense Des Droits 
Des Enfants Etudiants Et 
Eleves AsblMonitoring et suivi d’instructions des 
dossiers judiciaires des femmes et enfants 
victimes des violences sexuelles et basées 
sur le genre103 300.00
2009/224-243 128-135 TortureLigue De La Zone Afrique 
Pour La Defense Des Droits 
Des Enfants Etudiants Et 
Eleves AsblRenforcement d’un kiosque juridique et 
de soutien psychologique concernant les 
violences faites aux femmes61 463.00
Georgia2008/148-044 2007/126-224 TortureAssociation Justice And 
LibertyPrevention of torture in military 
guardhouses.204 961.00
2008/148-184 2007/126-224 Torture Empatia AssociationStrengthening the system of rehabilita -
tion for torture victims in Georgia679 937.0 0
2013/318-878 2013/132-762 Torture Empatia AssociationCaucasian anti-torture network: multi 
rehabilitation services for torture victims 
and fighting impunity980 000.00
2010/222-921 2010/128-815 TortureGeorgian Centre For 
Psycho -Social And Medical 
Rehabilitation For Torture 
VictimsEnsuring access to rehabilitation services 
for people affected by torture and con -
tribution to the prevention of torture in 
Georgia766 000.00
South Africa2013/318-879 2013/132-762 TortureStichting Young In Prison 
(Yip)Ending impunity in torture and cruel, 
inhuman and degrading treatment of 
children in prison in South Africa and 
Malawi.882 817.00
2010/222-102 2010/128-815 Torture University Of Cape TownHarnessing African institutions for the 
prevention and combating of torture and 
other ill -treatment in six African states 
— The development and implementa -
tion of operational standards.1 194  359.00
2012/302-948 131-543 TortureThe Greater Nelspruit Rape 
Intervention Project GroupSexual assault and domestic violence 
rights programme.173 317.00
42 Annexes
CountryContract 
numberCall for 
proposalSubject Beneficiary Project nameGrant 
amount 
(euro)
United States2009/167-748 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyMurder Victim’s Families 
For Human RightsVoices of victims against the death 
penalty485 615.65
2009/167-820 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyThe National Coalition To 
Abolish The Death PenaltyNational coalition to abolish the death 
penalty intensive assistance program305 060.86
2009/167-888 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyWitness To Innocence American DREAM campaign 374 944.62
2009/211-244 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyAmerican Bar AssociationThe death penalty assessments project: 
toward a nationwide moratorium on 
executions708 162.00
2009/167-889 2008/127-238Death 
penaltyDeath Penalty Information 
CenterChanging the course of the death penalty 
debate:  
a proposal for public opinion research, 
message development, and communica -
tions on capital punishment in the US193 443.00
2012/297-0762011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyWitness To Innocence Eyes wide open project 850 032.14
2012/297-0782011/131-
085/2Death 
penaltyEqual Justice USA Inc 
CorporationBreaking barriers: engaging new voices 
to abolish the death penalty in the United 
States495 014.31
Source:  European Commission.Annex VII
43
While the need for greater coherence and synergies 
with other EU efforts in order to achieve a greater 
human rights impact is acknowledged, our ser -
vices are already working in this direction, keeping 
in mind the delicate balance between EU human 
rights priorities, the relevance of projects and the 
capacity and ownership of partner civil society 
organisations. We aim, however, to select the best 
projects. The fight against torture and the death 
penalty figures among EU’s global priorities. This 
is reconfirmed in the communication on the EU 
human rights action plan for 2015-2019. Therefore, 
torture not being explicitly mentioned among the 
priorities in a specific country does not exclude 
projects against torture from taking place in that 
country.
Finally, the requirements of transparency, as well as 
fair and equal treatment of grant applicants, should 
be taken into account during the award proce -
dure, especially in view of the very high number of 
applicants.
VI
Projects funded under the EIDHR programme pro -
duce sustainable results and are cost -effective. The 
substance of these projects being often of a highly 
political nature, easily quantifiable metrics will not 
be available, unlike for instance road - building pro -
jects. Moreover, human rights initiatives are inher -
ently dependent on a political and legal context 
which no donor can presume to control. A very 
natural paradox in the human rights field is that 
the most urgently needed actions take place in the 
most difficult contexts.
The EU is one of the very few donors supporting 
financially the fight against torture and the aboli -
tion of the death penalty. In many cases, it is the 
only one. That is why our partner organisations are 
relying heavily on our support. The Commission is 
trying to mitigate the consequences of such a reli -
ance in collaboration with the few other donors in 
this field (for example the UN Voluntary Fund for 
Victims of Torture or EU Members States’ Task Force 
on torture) in order to ensure as much coordination 
and coherence as possible.
Please also refer to our reply to paragraph 33.Executive summary
IV
The Commission and the EEAS are fully convinced 
of the effectiveness of the EIDHR as one of several 
instruments in the fight against torture and the 
death penalty, a belief widely shared by the human 
rights community at large. This is evidenced for 
instance by the American Bar Association’s public 
acknowledgment of the role of an EIDHR grant in 
the abolition of the death penalty in the state of 
Pennsylvania.
V
The EIDHR is fully consistent with the European 
Union’s human rights priorities, both globally and 
for individual countries. The nature and objectives 
of the EIDHR put human rights organisations in the 
driving seat and give them an effective and practi -
cal tool to reach their own policy objectives, while 
at the same time helping to reach those of the 
EU — a win–win situation. The grants award proce -
dures on which the EIDHR is based are strictly and 
transparently implemented, a notable feat consider -
ing the very large number of applicants across the 
world under each call and the inherent difficulty 
in assessing applications in a field — human rights 
protection — that does not lend itself easily to 
quantifiable assessments. The EIDHR  covers actions 
in very complex political situations and often diffi -
cult country settings, considering that human rights 
objectives are not easily achievable even under the 
most favourable conditions. The exceedingly low 
number of complaints or litigation related to the 
EIDHR — and indeed the persistently high number 
of applications in each call for proposals (a total 
of ca. 1 200 concept note applications under the 
calls for proposals studied by the Court) — show 
that this view is also shared by the global human 
rights community at large. The Commission there -
fore fully intends to continue with the EIDHR as 
a demand-driven process encouraging civil society 
organisations to design their projects in line with 
their administrative, operational and geographical 
capacities and their own strategy.Reply of the Commission  
and the EEAS
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 44
These two implementing modalities are comple -
mentary and allow for a worldwide coverage in line 
with the EIDHR mandate.
15
Depending on local circumstances (overall political 
climate, room for human rights advocacy discourse) 
and with the agreement of EU heads of mission, the 
main priorities of the local human rights country 
strategy can be made public. However, public com -
munication of these priorities should be avoided if 
it is assessed that this would be detrimental to the 
implementation of the strategy.
In addition, what matters is that the priorities in the 
human rights country strategies are known to those 
who are in charge of EIDHR implementation.
16
In addition to calls for proposals, other implement -
ing modalities are in place through the EIDHR, such 
as targeted actions.
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 14.
17
The nature and objectives of the EIDHR put human 
rights organisations in the driving seat and give 
them an effective and practical tool to reach their 
own policy objectives while at the same time help -
ing to reach those of the EU — a win–win situation. 
Complementarity and coherence between funding 
and political priorities are of course fundamental, 
keeping in mind the delicate balance between 
factors such as EU human rights priorities, the rel -
evance of projects and the capacity and ownership 
of partner civil society organisations. In addition, 
the progressive implementation of a rights -based 
approach to development aims at reinforcing the 
coherence of our support.
Under the global calls, the Commission is favour -
ing a bottom-up approach in its procedures and 
defines its priorities in close consultation with civil 
society organisations. The EIDHR therefore pro -
motes a non -prescriptive approach and encourages 
civil society organisations to design their projects 
in line with their administrative, operational and 
geographical capacities and their own strategy.VII
Of the six recommendations made by the Court, 
the Commission accepts one, partially accepts 
three and does not accept the remaining two 
recommendations.
Introduction
05
The strong commitment of the EU towards the 
eradication of torture and ill treatment and the 
abolition of the death penalty has been reinforced 
in the newly adopted action plan on human rights 
and democracy for the period 2015-2019.
Observations
14
In order to respond to the needs and in accordance 
with its worldwide mandate, the EIDHR is work -
ing through a strategic combination of targeted 
projects, calls for proposals and emergency funds 
managed by both headquarters and delegations, 
using procedures allowed for under the current 
legal framework for grants awards.
The call for proposals is the first implementing 
modality of the instrument. It is based on a partner -
ship with civil society organisations and favours 
a bottom -up approach that encourages civil society 
organisations to design their projects in line with 
their administrative, operational and geographical 
capacities and their own strategy.
The second implementing modality of the EIDHR 
allows for targeted projects designed as a means of 
filling in the gaps in the call for proposals process 
in line with political priorities in the most difficult 
countries. This flexibility is reinforced in the annual 
action programme for 2015 and ‘aims at support -
ing actions in a flexible and reactive way through 
direct awards in proven situations of short-, mid- to 
long -term human rights crises, where the publica -
tion of a call for proposals would be inappropriate 
or impossible, and/or where funding organisations 
working for human rights and their defenders prove 
to be seriously hampered’.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 45
19
While the need for coherence and synergies with other 
EU efforts in order to achieve a greater human rights 
impact is acknowledged, our services are already work -
ing in this direction, keeping in mind the delicate bal -
ance between EU human rights priorities, the relevance 
of projects and the cap  acity and ownership of partner 
civil society organisations. We aim however to select 
the best projects.
The EIDHR has a worldwide mandate. In order to fulfil 
its mandate, the EIDHR follows an approach combining 
coherent and complementary tools: the global calls for 
proposals (thematic target), the local calls for proposals 
(thematic and geographical target) and the targeted 
projects (for the most difficult cases) as well as the 
emergency fund.
Please also refer to our reply to paragraph 17.
Regarding human right dialogues, the EEAS and the 
Commission take into account the comment from 
the Court and would like to highlight a few points: 
The agenda of the human rights dialogues is agreed 
between the country and the EEAS, in consultation 
with the delegation, DG International Cooperation and 
Development and  and other Commission services. It 
aims to address the priorities that have been identi -
fied in the human rights country strategies and/or the 
national human rights strategies. Given the political 
nature of the exercise, the agenda can vary to ensure 
focused discussion on some key priorities rather than to 
cover all priorities each time. This does not mean that 
the objectives of the EIDHR projects are not reflected in 
the overall dialogue between the country and the EU.
The EIDHR projects on the death penalty follow almost 
in totality the elements of the policy as laid out in the 
EU human rights guidelines on the death penalty, i.e. 
resting on three pillars (total abolition, moratorium, 
respect for minimum standards). However, the fact that 
the issues raised in human rights dialogues with third 
countries do not fully coincide with the projects is not 
a case of lack of consistency. The case of the United 
States provides such an example. During the bilateral 
consultations, the EU informs the American side about 
its general initiatives on death penalty as well as By their nature, global calls for proposals are 
targeting more sensitive actions that are difficult 
to implement at national level or to be tackled 
through local calls for proposals.
In the context of local calls, the Commission factors 
into the award and selection criteria the contextual 
risks and sensitivities, as well as coherence with the 
EU human rights strategy.
The fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the 
human rights country strategy is not a reason not 
to finance a project in the country in order to fight 
torture or the death penalty. The global nature of 
the theme means there is a need to build global 
awareness and advocacy to strengthen impact in 
multilateral fora.
The process of human rights country strategies 
(HRCSs) is relatively recent.
With regards to Georgia, two out of three projects 
evaluated were drafted before the approval of the 
HRCS by the Council on 10.5.2011. Also, the political 
context has played an important role in pushing for 
a response and support for the fight against torture 
in Georgia.
In South Africa, the fight against torture was not 
included in the five priorities of the HRCS. However, 
the fight against torture was introduced as a pri -
ority in the 2014 local call for proposals in South 
Africa. Consequently, the EU delegation in Pre -
toria took the view that the theme of support had 
become a human rights priority.
18
The approach chosen ensures a holistic approach 
and had been discussed with civil society organi -
sations to address adequately the variety of chal -
lenges facing organisations working on these issues 
and ensuring the best results. Nevertheless, the 
Commission acknowledges that there is still room 
in the global call for proposals selection process to 
better define, increase targeting and define sug -
gested activities. The Commission has hence been 
working towards an even more targeted focus in 
the call for proposals, notably in the global EIDHR 
call for proposals for 2015, which will be launched in 
July 2015.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 46
 — A prior information notice for the elaboration 
of a general training pack and the provision of 
technical assistance to delegations was pub -
lished in late July 2014. A service contract notice 
is now under preparation with detailed informa -
tion on the nature as well as the scope of the 
required service.
22
The standardised evaluation grids and other guid -
ance documents provide for a rigorous and consist -
ent assessment of grant applications, whether at 
the concept note or full application stage, especially 
taking into account the very large number of appli -
cations under EIDHR calls for proposals.
22 (a)
The assessor’s special attention is drawn to an exten -
sive paragraph of a document called ‘Guidelines 
for assessors’ currently in use as an integral part of 
the annexes to the ‘Practical guide for procurement 
and grants for EU external action’ (PRAG) since 2013. 
In this document, assessors are strongly reminded 
that it is of the utmost importance that they provide 
the evaluation committee with fully pertinent and 
well-justified comments for each subsection of the 
evaluation grid and that these comments should be 
consistent with the corresponding scores. In addi -
tion, an information session is organised with all 
assessors prior to the evaluation process in order to 
reply to all their potential questions on the criteria 
of the evaluation grid. The flow of communication 
between the European Commission and the team 
leader is ensured during the whole process.
22 (b)
With the project remaining the same between these 
two stages (concept note and full application), the 
necessity to proceed with a fresh assessment on 
the relevance was not considered to be imperative. 
However, the new version of the PRAG to be issued 
in July 2015 will allow for the evaluator to reassess 
the relevance on the basis of the full proposal on an 
ad hoc basis.specific actions in the US. The latter however is for 
information purposes only as regards the official 
US administration, as the death penalty actions in 
this country are addressed at state level, with the 
respective governors and boards of parole where 
the death row inmate is incarcerated.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the 
Soprop project was implemented in parallel with 
the Aprodepep on death penalty abolition (2007-
2009) and with the EU political dialogue with the 
DRC. Even if the law on the abolition of the death 
penalty was not passed in the parliament, the 
debates around the law were already an opportu -
nity to promote a public debate .
20
In order to move toward a rights-based approach (RBA), 
encompassing all human rights for EU development, 
several concrete steps have already been taken:
 — Mainstreaming of the RBA-based approach into 
procedures and templates: identification fiche for 
aid modalities, Commission project monitoring sys -
tem (ROM  — results-oriented monitoring) for pro -
jects and programmes results and outcomes and 
the Commission grid of criteria for the evaluation 
of projects. In addition, the drafting of roadmaps 
for engagement with civil society organisations has 
been adapted by integrating key elements of the 
RBA.
 — The RBA has already been integrated as a principle 
in the EU programming for the justice sector in 
 Niger and Zimbabwe, as well as in the program -
ming of EU aid in Peru.
 — Training sessions have been held for (a) heads of 
cooperation, (b) human rights, (c) gender, (d) CSOs, 
(e) local authorities (f) justice sector focal points in 
delegations, as well as staff at DG International 
Cooperation and Development headquarters.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 47
This point was clarified in the guidelines for asses -
sors and also during the 1-day briefing with exter -
nal assessors.
24
The number of cases being commented upon 
should be seen in the context of the total number 
of concept notes (1 193) and full proposals (316) 
managed and assessed under those calls.
The procedure has furthermore been tightened 
in the meantime, with the adoption in 2013 of the 
‘Guidelines for assessors’.  Please refer our reply to 
paragraph 22 for further details.
24 (a)
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 24.
25
As regards the cases where reassessment could take 
place, please note that according to Section 6.4.8.6 
of the PRAG, ‘ the evaluation committee may decide to 
approve the ranking drawn up by the secretary on the 
basis of the assessors’ report. If the committee does not 
accept the scores awarded by the assessors to a pro -
posal, for example where there is a significant differ -
ence between the scores awarded by the assessors, it 
must justify this decision in the evaluation report ’.
Performing reassessments is an option, which 
explains why any discrepancy in scores is not an 
absolute criterion, especially with a view to the 
large number of applications in EIDHR calls for 
proposals.22 (c)
On the one hand, evaluation grids have to be 
detailed enough to allow for a comprehensive eval -
uation of the applications. On the other hand, they 
must remain manageable for the evaluators in order 
to be filled in within a reasonable lapse of time. 
Separating every single aspect of each criterion 
would also increase the risk of overlapping, mean -
ing that the same detail would be evaluated under 
several criteria. The Commission does not therefore 
intend to change the current grid templates at this 
stage.
22 (d)
The minimum requirement approach applies to 
calls for tenders, where the contracting authority 
outlines in detail the service, works or supplies it 
wants to purchase and imposes minimal require -
ments that have to be met by tenderers. It is not 
feasible to apply such an approach to grants, where 
the applicant defines its action. It is not realistic -
ally conceivable that the Commission could design 
specific requirements as to the feasibility or impact 
of actions that might vary considerably from each 
other and whose content is unknown beforehand to 
the Commission.
23
Since 2013, the guidelines for assessors have been 
part of the PRAG (Annex e 4b), and Section 3.2 of 
that document makes the inclusion of comments 
under each criterion mandatory. Furthermore, the 
recent practice, since 2012, has been to hold a 1 -day 
training session for external assessors where all 
aspects of their work are addressed.
Please also refer to our reply to paragraph 22 (a).
In addition, the Commission would like to clarify 
that the assessment of the holistic approach (which 
implies partnership between organisations) has not 
been integrated in the evaluation grid. This decision 
has been made on purpose to leave the possibility 
for very good projects targeting only one or two 
of the factors that are relevant to the fight against 
torture to be selected for funding. The guidelines 
strongly recommended partnerships between 
organisations but did not make that compulsory. 
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 48
28
The Commission carefully assesses the situation 
on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure that 
a beneficiary organisation has the capacity and 
the technical skills to carry out a particular project. 
Nevertheless, the financial capacity of applicants is 
only one of the criteria taken into account to evalu -
ate a proposal. Sometimes, the NGO supported 
may very well be the only one able to act in a very 
sensitive environment. The Commission’s role is also 
to assist and accompany smaller organisations in 
the implementation of the grant and strengthening 
their managerial capacity.
29
The EIDHR is designed to support civil society 
organisations to become an effective force for polit -
ical reform and defence of human rights. Therefore, 
the EIDHR favours a demand -driven approach that 
encourages civil society organisations to design 
their projects in line with their administrative, 
operational and geographical capacities as well as 
with their own strategy.
29 (a)
The Commission uses several implementing modal -
ities which allow for a geographical and thematic 
coverage in line with the EIDHR mandate.
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 14.
Moreover, the Commission would like to recall 
that the fight against torture and the abolition of 
the death penalty are long-term processes. The 
impact and the results of the projects are difficult to 
quantify in most of the cases and relate to quali -
tative rather than quantitative information. This 
factor is however recurrent in assessing projects in 
the human rights field, given the nature of human 
rights projects.
Finally, there are indeed countries where there 
is very little potential for human rights improve -
ment in the short term. However, the Commission 
strongly believes that this should not prevent the 
EIDHR from supporting civil society organisations 
and remaining engaged in these countries, espe -
cially when it is one of the only remaining sources 
of funding in such a very sensitive field. Promoting 
a debate, increasing awareness and advocacy are an 
effective approach.26
The size of a grant is not related to its expected 
impact, especially in a field such as human rights 
that does not lend itself to straightforward quan -
tification. The EIDHR is tackling sensitive issues 
in often difficult political contexts and its imple -
mentation requires thorough and time -consuming 
management. The capacity of grants beneficiaries 
is therefore essential to achieving the objectives 
of the programme. Increasing workloads taken 
together with the principle of sound administrative 
management also make the increase in the aver -
age value of grant contracts absolutely inescap -
able. This is the main reason for the increase in the 
minimum amounts of grants and for the increased 
use of sub -granting flexibility (financial support to 
third parties).
27
Smaller organisations continue to apply to global 
calls for proposals usually in partnership with more 
established partners. In many calls for proposals, 
partnership is strongly recommended, especially 
for actions with a global or regional transnational 
scope. This allows for instance smaller organisations 
to increase their capacities and access EU funds.
For the past 4 years, the Commission has organ -
ised a civil society seminar before the launch 
of the global calls for proposals to provide the 
opportunity for local organisations (but not only) 
to familiarise themselves with the EIDHR and its 
procedures. In 2014, the EIDHR Forum gathered 
more than 500 participants including grass- roots 
(sponsored) organisations.
In addition, EU delegations organise locally dedi -
cated training sessions on EU procedures for local 
organisations (project cycle management etc.).
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 49
33
The organisations working on such sensitive issues 
often face threatening situations, have limited 
capacities and sometimes experience difficulties 
in complying with EU procedures. The Commission 
would also like to highlight that EU delegations and 
headquarters regularly organise information and 
training sessions on EU procedures including pro -
ject cycle management, in order to tackle as much 
as possible the lack of awareness and expertise of 
civil society organisations.
34
It should be underlined that the total amount for 
activities not taking place is invariably deducted 
from the final payment.
36
This observation refers to one out of many potential 
risks that the authorising officer has to take into 
account.
37
The Commission does not share the ECA’s observa -
tion. Suboptimal cost -effectiveness of expenditure 
is marginal when compared to the total number of 
contracts under these EIDHR calls.
Furthermore, although calls for proposals and 
calls for tenders respond to the same principles of 
transparency, fairness and equality of treatment, 
the nature and requirements of procurement and 
grant contracts are substantially different. Grants 
typically preclude profit -making and imply that the 
ownership of the project rests squarely with the 
beneficiary, while tenders allow for profit -making 
and involve the full transfer of deliverables to the 
Commission, including property rights. In any case, 
cost -effectiveness of the expenditure is not neces -
sarily linked to the type of procedure chosen.
Finally, tendering procedures are defined in Arti -
cle 101 of the Financial Regulation as concerning 
‘contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing 
between one or more economic operators and one or 
more contracting authorities ’. It is not clear how this 
could be generally useful in the human rights field, 
where few economic operators venture.29 (b)
The Commission would like to underline that:
(1) The organisations working on such sensitive is -
sues are often facing threatening situations. By 
their very nature, human rights activities target 
ambitious goals that might be seen as idealistic 
or overambitious. It should furthermore be noted 
that some human rights objectives are absolute 
by their nature — for example the absolute pro -
hibition of torture, slavery or racial discrimination 
—but the relevance of these objectives lies in spe -
cific, realistic activities and outcomes that respond 
to the main needs of the targeted group and in 
achieving sustainable and permanent impact.
(2) The burden of improving the human rights situ -
ation in any given country falls mainly on the na -
tional governments, something that is particularly 
true in the implementation of projects related to 
torture prevention and the death penalty. The 
political will of the government or its ministries 
is difficult to pre -empt and the evolution of the 
political context can impact the implementation 
of the projects positively or negatively. Indeed, if 
a government is willing to abolish capital punish -
ment or torture, funding an action with the same 
aim might be considered redundant.
29 (c)
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 33.
30
The legal framework applying to calls for proposals 
precludes any modification of the proposal save for 
non -substantial aspects (see Article 204 of the Rules 
of Application for the Financial Regulation (RAP)) or 
negotiations with putative beneficiaries. Applicants 
may only be requested to clarify supporting docu -
ments or submit missing information. The require -
ments of transparency as well as fair and equal 
treatment of grant applicants therefore preclude 
any wholesale renegotiation of applicants’ projects 
during the award procedure, especially in view of 
the very high number of applicants. We also refer 
to our replies to the observations on the respective 
role of assessors and the evaluation committee for 
paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 above.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 50
43
The field of human rights does not, by its very 
nature, lend itself to straightforward quantitative 
measurement. Please refer to our reply to para -
graph 41.
If the objectives and targets are well -defined, even 
if they are modest, and if the project is successful in 
reaching them, the impact is not necessarily limited. 
In particular, the development of a methodology for 
a specific target can have a huge impact on future 
projects and therefore on the long -term objective 
of the project.
Many examples can be cited within the projects 
under examination by the Court. One project in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo was focusing on 
women and children victims of domestic and sexual 
violence. The methodology proposed by the NGO 
was to develop a model for the sustainability of care 
rooms aiming to provide assistance to sur  vivors 
of rape as a form of ill-treatment (ill-treatment is 
assimilated to torture under international law). If 
successful (the project is still ongoing) this method -
ology will be then applied to other areas and could 
have a multiplier effect.
Finally, the Court highlights the case of a project 
in Georgia which focused on a very small group: 
detainees within the army. This project shows that 
prevention plays an extremely positive role even 
if not immediately visible from the outside. On the 
long-term outcome, the project allowed for the first 
time the monitoring by civil society of army guard -
houses and indirectly supported an informed deci -
sion of the Georgian government to set up national 
preventive monitoring under the Public Defender’s 
Office.
44
The outcome of legal support is always uncertain. 
Nevertheless, the few positive cases that can be 
won with the support of the EIDHR have had a great 
impact and created a precedent. Moreover, the 
impact should not be limited to the outcome of the 
specific cases or court decisions but should include 
all intermediary steps that can be strategic for other 
cases and should be evaluated with a long-term 
perspective.
Please refer to our replies to paragraphs 43 and 45.38
Historically speaking, organisations with the most 
specific expertise in the field of the fight against tor -
ture, ill -treatment and the death penalty are based 
in Europe (e.g. London, Copenhagen, Geneva) and 
the United States. They are working at a global level 
and are fulfilling a key role in terms of advocacy to 
the human rights international bodies. Cost-effec -
tiveness considerations should be balanced with 
regards to the added value and unique expertise of 
these organisations.
Given the type of projects usually funded by the 
EIDHR (capacity building, trainings, advocacy, etc.), 
the funds dedicated to human resources often 
represent a substantive part of the global budget. 
Salaries in Europe or in the United States are indeed 
much higher than those applying in most third 
countries.
39
Indirect costs calculated as a percentage of direct 
eligible costs are a long -established practice 
through the PRAG contractual templates. They are 
defined in Article 14 of the general conditions of the 
grants contract, and correspond to costs that cannot 
be directly attributable to the action. That definition 
is often completed by a more detailed breakdown of 
costs in Annex III (budget) of the grants contract.
40
The EIDHR is working in a sensitive and complex 
context where the impact is difficult to quantify and 
progress sometimes slow, particularly in the most 
difficult cases.
41
These difficulties, while real, are inherent to any 
activity in the human rights field in third countries. 
Please also refer to our replies to paragraphs 29, 32 
and 43.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 51
45(a)
Even though the governments of Belarus, Russia 
and Tajikistan have not shown any indication of 
ratifying the optional protocol of the convention 
against torture this does not mean that activities 
should not be implemented in those countries to 
work towards a future ratification. In Tajikistan, for 
example, the project activities contributed to the 
Ombudsperson conducting his very first prison 
visit and establishing a working group at the end 
of 2013 on the monitoring of detention facilities, 
which includes representatives of civil society and 
prison officials. In Belarus, the project supported 
anti -torture NGOs which started to monitor pre -trial 
detention centres. In Russia, the project has pro -
vided new tools to Russian NGOs for advocating to 
the authorities.
45 (b)
The fight against torture and the abolition of the 
death penalty are long-term processes. Progress 
and improvements are often slow and do not neces -
sarily coincide with the limited duration of the con -
tracts. The political context also plays a substantial 
role in determining the achievement of results such 
as for example the ratification of the convention 
against torture or a moratorium on the death pen -
alty. In this observation, the ECA refers to a project 
working in a very challenging and sensitive context 
(Middle East and North Africa (MENA), east Africa, 
Russia, central Asia, Belarus) where progress is 
indeed very slow.
45 (c)
The project represented the first intervention when 
NGOs were allowed to monitor army guardhouses. 
See our reply to paragraph 43 on the impact of the 
project in Georgia.
45 (d)
According to the final report, all activities have 
been successfully completed but it is true that the 
impact might not have reached the level expected 
beforehand by the organisation, a not too uncom -
mon phenomenon in this field.45
Projects funded under the EIDHR programme pro -
duce sustainable results and are cost -effective. The 
substance of these projects being often of a highly 
political nature, easily quantifiable metrics will not 
be available, unlike for instance for road -building 
projects. Moreover, human rights initiatives are 
inherently dependent on a political and legal 
context which no donor can presume to control. 
A very natural paradox in the human rights field is 
that the most urgently needed actions take place 
in the most difficult context. Moreover, the fight 
against the death penalty and torture is a long-term 
process. Given the nature of such projects and the 
sensitivity of the contexts in which it operates, the 
Commission recognises that the impact has been 
difficult to quantify. It is necessary to remain active 
in such contexts, in line with the objectives and 
worldwide scope of the EIDHR.
In addition, the field of human rights does not, by 
its very nature, lend itself to straightforward quanti -
tative measurement.
In line with the bottom-up approach, potential 
beneficiaries identify the objectives, geographic 
scope activities and final beneficiaries of proposed 
projects in line with their (administrative, opera -
tional and geographical) capacity and strategy. 
Consequently, activities proposed by applicants 
may indeed be overambitious and potentially not 
have the desired impact.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 52
47 (a)
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 29 (a).
Box 6
The Commission welcomes the ECA’s observation 
on the positive results of the EIDHR fight against 
the death penalty in the United States.
As an example of the positive impact of the EIDHR, 
the governor of the state of Pennsylvania recently 
introduced a moratorium on the death penalty 
leading to the immediate granting of a temporary 
reprieve to inmate Terrence Williams and 186 other 
individuals currently on Pennsylvania’s death row.
Please find the link to Governor Tom Wolf’s 
memorandum highlighting the key role of the 
American Bar Association report (funded by the 
EIDHR): http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_27523525/
gov -tom -wolf -issues -death -penalty -moratorium
One of the decisive arguments put forward by the 
governor in its decision is the Pennsylvania Death 
Penalty Assessment produced by the American Bar 
Association.
51
The European Union is one of the very few donors 
supporting financially the fight against torture and 
the abolition of the death penalty. In many cases, 
it is the only one. That is why our partner organi -
sations are relying heavily on EIDHR support. The 
European Commission is trying to mitigate this by 
allowing them to hire fundraising officers in the 
frame of EIDHR projects, and the Commission also 
works in collaboration with the few other donors 
in this field (for example the UN Voluntary Fund for 
Victims of Torture or EU Members States’ Task Force) 
in order to ensure as much coordination and coher -
ence as possible.
Furthermore, it is an unavoidable paradox that the 
self-sustainability of human rights NGOs cannot by 
definition be guaranteed by continued or increased 
Commission funding. This complicated issue cannot 
be solved by increased EU funding.45 (e)
Given the nature of EIDHR projects and the sensitiv -
ity of the settings in which they are implemented 
the impact is often difficult to quantify and pro -
gress is sometimes slow, particularly in the most dif -
ficult cases such as China. It is necessary to remain 
active in such contexts, in line with the objectives 
and worldwide scope of the EIDHR.
45 (f)
Please refer to our reply to 45 (e).
46
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 45.
46 (a)
The impact of the project in Africa needs to be 
measured in the medium to long term. This will be 
assessed by monitoring the level of compliance 
(reporting, further domestication) and effective 
implementation (development of case -law, access 
to detention centres, reparations and decrease 
of cases of torture) of both ratified international 
instruments and domestic legislation to combat 
and prevent torture in each targeted country.
46 (b)
The impact of the project in China is difficult to 
measure due to a lack of adequately redacted 
information from the grant beneficiary. The delega -
tion has received concrete elements pointing to the 
likelihood of success of the action, which is imple -
mented by an actor well established in its partici -
pation in policy reform in China. At the same time, 
the project is led by an influential professor whose 
expertise has been sought in the ongoing amend -
ment of the criminal law which is under review and 
is expected to further reduce the crimes receiving 
the death penalty.
Please also refer to our reply to paragraph 29 (a).
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 53
55
It is essential that projects in the human rights 
field, and especially those regarding torture and 
the death penalty, adequately reflect the priorities 
and modalities determined by those closer to the 
realities on the ground. During dialogues, funding 
of projects and their objectives are often discussed. 
However, agendas need to be focused on a few 
priorities each time. These priorities are decided 
in consultation between the EEAS and Commis -
sion services, the delegation as well as the partner 
country. Moreover, many of the actions funded 
either challenge engrained state practices and are 
thus viewed critically by partner countries, or are 
of a global, transnational nature, where traditional 
development support or dialogue with partner 
countries are not possible.
Finally, in view of the large number of applicants 
under EIDHR global calls, considering that the cur -
rent legal framework for grants does not foresee 
such an option, and taking into account the general 
principles of fair and equal treatment as well as that 
of transparency, the Commission does not intend 
to negotiate the contents of grant applications with 
the applicants prior to contract signature.
Recommendation 2
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Depending on local circumstances (overall political 
climate, room for human rights advocacy discourse), 
and with the agreement of EU heads of mission 
the main priorities of the local HRCS can be made 
public. However, communication should be avoided 
if it is assessed that this would be detrimental to the 
implementation of the strategy. This does not stop 
consistency between priorities and development 
assistance.
The Commission has started to implement the 
rights -based approach (RBA) and will continue to do 
so. For more concrete details on implementation of 
the RBA, see our reply to paragraph 20.52
Please refer to our reply to paragraph 51.
53 (a)
Please refer to reply to paragraph 51.
Conclusions and recommendations
54
Human rights actions are inherently difficult to 
assess and are particularly sensitive to political 
developments in target countries. Actions coun -
tering torture and capital punishment are by their 
nature even more sensitive than other human 
rights projects. Within this context, EIDHR funds 
have been put to good use, with great care taken to 
reach a delicate balance between a wide reach — 
EIDHR global calls are a huge success in terms of 
attracting many applicants from across the world — 
and rigorous management of funds. The Commis -
sion intends to continue its efforts to strengthen 
the role of the EIDHR as a vital instrument of EU 
human rights policy abroad.
Recommendation 1 — Target modest 
resources better
The Commission partially accepts this recommenda -
tion. We agree on the need to concentrate EIDHR 
funding on the most relevant issues as it is already 
narrowing the focus of its global calls for proposals, 
for instance the EIDHR 2015 global call.
In line with the bottom -up approach, the Com -
mission will continue to ensure a delicate balance 
between EU human rights priorities, the relevance 
of projects and the capacity and ownership of part -
ner civil society organisations.
Given the nature of EIDHR activities in often very 
difficult contexts, the Commission will therefore 
reject the recommendation for narrower geograph -
ical focus and will keep a non -prescriptive approach 
that does not focus on impact and a specific list of 
countries.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 54
56
As outlined fully in our replies to paragraphs 29 and 
45, impact measurement in the human rights field 
is particularly difficult to achieve, contrary to some 
other fields of development aid. Human rights 
progress is a dynamic process where even a pro -
ject of seemingly limited nature may tip the bal -
ance towards the abolition of the death penalty in 
Pennsylvania, as evidenced in our reply toBox 6 of 
this report. This difficulty in measuring the outright 
impact of a single human rights project is unlikely 
to change dramatically even if new impact meas -
urement systems were to be introduced.
The self -sustainability issue, a vital one for human 
rights organisations, cannot be solved by increased 
reliance on long -term funding from the Commis -
sion — especially for those outside the EU. To this 
end, the Commission has in some cases accepted 
that fund -raising efforts be included in project 
budgets.
Recommendation 5
The Commission partially accepts this 
recommendation.
In the light of the difficult political contexts in 
which EIDHR projects are implemented, a simpli -
fied logical framework would be beneficial for civil 
society organisations.
According to the bottom -up approach applicable to 
the EIDHR, targets and baselines should be defined 
by the applicants themselves. The varying capaci -
ties of civil society organisations have also to be 
taken into account. However, any measurement of 
the impact of human rights projects must abso -
lutely take into consideration the very specific con -
text in which EIDHR projects are implemented, not 
to mention the fact that the countries or regions 
most in need of action as regards torture and death 
penalties are those where progress on these issues 
cannot be expected to be straightforward. The 
difficulty of quantifying human rights issues must 
also be considered. We do not, therefore, consider 
specific targets and baselines as tools that could be 
used in this specific context.
The Commission is also already working on an 
improved impact assessment of human rights 
projects.Recommendation 3
The Commission partially accepts this recom -
mendation. As regards the standardised grids and 
guidelines for assessors, they were changed in 2013 
and the Commission does not foresee any immedi -
ate changes to them. However, the Commission is 
continuously assessing its procedures with a view 
to improvements, especially concerning calls for 
proposals.
The Commission applies rigorous standards to 
EIDHR calls for proposals, despite very challeng -
ing numbers in terms of applications received (a 
total of 1 193 applications for the EIDHR calls for 
proposals covered by this audit). The coherence 
and consistency of the evaluation process is already 
safeguarded through public and detailed terms 
of reference and guidelines for assessors of grant 
applications. Award criteria are clear and consist -
ently assessed by outside experts, and clear guide -
lines exist on when to reassess applications. See 
also our reply to paragraph 23.
Recommendation 4
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation.
Current rules only allow for non -essential adapta -
tions to grant applications to be made prior to con -
tract signature. This has in some instances allowed 
for ineligible or excessive expenditure to be deleted 
from the initial budget.
The Commission cannot however enter into rene -
gotiation of project design with applicants prior to 
contract signature, in view of the large number of 
applicants under EIDHR global calls, considering 
that the current legislative framework for grants 
does not foresee such an option, and taking into 
account the general principles of fair and equal 
treatment as well as that of transparency.
In accordance with Article 204(5) of the RAP , the 
evaluation committee may formulate some recom -
mendations which will then be taken into account 
at contracting level by the authorising officer.
Reply of the Commission and the EEAS 55
Recommendation 6
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation.
The self -sustainability of civil society organisations 
active in the field of human rights is important for 
the Commission, which has to that end accepted 
in justified cases to fund NGO staff working on 
fund -raising issues. Self -sustainability is also 
ensured through the co -financing requirement  — 
raising that requirement further might however 
endanger many actions through lack of alternative 
funding sources. Self -sustainability also implies 
that grant beneficiaries should not be reliant on 
the Commission as their sole funding option, or on 
being awarded grant contracts on a continuous 
basis, irrespective of the merits of their projects. 
This is all the more the case since the very competi -
tive calls for proposals procedure applies as a rule 
to grants awards. Beneficiaries that perform well 
when implementing their project will usually also 
perform well during the grant award procedure.
As for donor coordination, this is indeed relevant 
at the planning stage, but not at that of a call for 
proposals, and we fail to see how the current legal 
framework could allow for the intervention of third 
parties at that stage.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
The EU is strongly committed to preventing and eradicating 
all forms of torture and other ill-treatment as well as to 
abolishing the death penalty throughout the world. The 
Court assessed the effectiveness of the European Instrument 
for Democracy and Human Rights, which provides grants to 
civil society organisations for implementing projects that 
pursue these objectives.
The Court concludes that the support provided was only 
partially effective. Although the Commission made 
appropriate needs assessments, it did not optimally target 
the funding. Because of this and also due to unfavourable 
political contexts, the overall impact of the projects funded 
was not optimal. The Court makes a number of 
recommendations for the Commission that concern the 
selection of project proposals, the coordination with other 
EU efforts, the performance measurement framework and 
the sustainability of beneficiary organisations.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS