Report from the Commission on the implementation of measures intended to promote observance of human rights and democratic principles in external relations for 1996-1999
Date: 2000-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU relations, activity report, democracy, human rights, rule of law

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 14.11.2000
COM(2000) 726 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES INTENDED TO PROMOTE
OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES IN
EXTERNAL RELATIONS FOR 1996 - 1999

PREFACE

The Rt Hon Chris Patten, CH

Member of the European Commission
responsible for External Relations

The principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law form a
cornerstone of the European Union. At a time in which the Commission is setting out new
priorities to consolidate and develop these principles, this report provides a useful overview of
the large range of activities supported by the Union through the ‘European Initiative for
Human Rights and Democracy’ (EIDHR). Between 1996 and 1999, over 300 million Euros
were allocated to projects throughout the world from EIDHR alone; this figure does not
include the contribution from other areas of the EU budget such as that for development
cooperation and cooperation with associated countries.

The European Parliament, member States and our partners in civil society have called for
more transparency and accountability in the deployment of Community funds. This report
responds to that call. It sets out a detailed financial breakdown of where and how money was
spent. Furthermore, by highlighting individual projects as examples, the report illustrates the
concrete action facilitated by Community finance. It also addresses why particular activities
were pursued, drawing attention to the pivotal role of the European Parliament in both the
development of policy and the expansion of available resources.

This survey of our activities firstly makes clear that a major priority for the Union has been
the development of its partnership with non-governmental organisations and civil society.
Unlike in some other areas of Community action, NGOs are the principle implementing
partners for projects under EIDHR. Without their essential contribution, the vast majority of
activities outlined in this report could never have been realised. In addition to this partnership,
it is a fundamental aim of the EU to help strengthen a robust and pluralistic civil society
throughout the world.

Secondly, with regard to the development of activities between 1996 and 1999, it can be seen
that funding has increased dramatically in certain areas. For example, the priority attached by
the Union to promoting awareness and professional competence in the field of human rights is
illustrated by a large increase for projects concerning human rights education. Similarly,
enhanced assistance for strengthening legal systems reflects a growing emphasis on
institution-building and the rule of law. Where certain activities are marked by an apparent
decline in resources in 1999, such as those projects described contained in the section on
‘target groups’, this represents an evolution of projects which focussed on specific categories
of individuals towards instruments which better ensure their protection through larger,
thematic programmes.

This report can make a significant contribution to the dialogue on human rights issues and
activities between the Commission and its partners. Above all,
it demonstrates that the
European Union will always face a demand for assistance in the human rights field which will
outstrip its ability to fund many worthwhile projects. Nevertheless with the help of reports
such as this, we will be better able to establish a strategy to make best use of our resources.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

Thematic overview ................................................................................................... 8

1.1.

DEMOCRATISATION AND THE RULE OF LAW................................................ 8

1.1.1. Democratic transition and elections....................................................................... 8

1.1.2.

Parliamentary activities ....................................................................................... 10

1.1.3. The legal system, the judiciary and capital punishment ..................................... 12

1.1.4. Legal assistance for civil and political rights....................................................... 15

1.1.5.

Public bodies and the defence of human rights ................................................... 16

1.1.6. Transparency of public administration ............................................................... 18

1.2.

PLURALIST CIVIL SOCIETY.............................................................................. 20

1.2.1.

Freedom of expression and of the media ............................................................. 20

1.2.2. Human rights education and public awareness................................................... 22

1.2.3. Equal opportunities and non-discrimination ...................................................... 25

1.2.4. Non-governmental organisations ......................................................................... 27

1.3.

CONFIDENCE BUILDING TO RESTORE PEACE.............................................. 29

1.3.1. Conflict prevention and resolution ...................................................................... 29

1.3.2. Measures to bring to justice perpetrators of serious violations of human rights

and humanitarian law .......................................................................................... 32

1.3.3. National efforts to subordinate the armed forces to civil authorities ................. 34

1.3.4. Human rights monitoring..................................................................................... 36

1.4.

INITIATIVES FOR TARGET GROUPS ............................................................... 38

1.4.1. Groups requiring special protection .................................................................... 39

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

The empowerment of women ................................................................................. 39

Children ................................................................................................................. 41

National minorities ................................................................................................. 43

Indigenous people................................................................................................... 46

Refugees and displaced persons.............................................................................. 48

Prisoners................................................................................................................. 50

Victims of torture ................................................................................................... 52

1.4.2.

Priority groups for protection and awareness-raising ........................................ 54

(a)

Journalists and media professionals ........................................................................ 54

3

(b)

(c)

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

3.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

i)

Magistrates, lawyers and court and prison staff....................................................... 56

Military, police and security forces......................................................................... 58

Geographical summary........................................................................................... 60

ACP countries, including South Africa and Nigeria ................................................ 60

Latin America......................................................................................................... 62

Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of the Former Yugoslavia, the New
Independent States and Mongolia ........................................................................... 66

Meda countries and Turkey .................................................................................... 70

Asia........................................................................................................................ 73

Procedural aspects .................................................................................................. 77

Inter-departmental coordination.............................................................................. 78

Organisation of Commission departments............................................................... 78

Call for proposals ................................................................................................... 81

Ad-hoc projects (targeted projects) ......................................................................... 81

Micro-projects........................................................................................................ 82

Co-operation with International Organisations........................................................ 82

Multi-annual programming..................................................................................... 82

Incentive amounts .................................................................................................. 83

Technical assistance ............................................................................................... 83

4

Introduction

This report sets out an overview of the activities in the protection and promotion of human
rights and democracy funded by the European Commission in external relations between 1996
and 1999. It examines the major thematic priorities and the regional strategies of such action,
and provides an analysis of some procedural aspects. In addition, an assessment of the
performance of the Commission in this field is included.

• Background

It is the fourth report of this kind, and describes the main lines of action followed in the use of
resources available in the financial years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 under the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (Chapter B7-70 of the EU budget). During the
period assessed by this report, approximately 300 million Euros were allocated to human
rights and democracy projects from this part of the budget alone.

The period assessed by this report is unusually long, which can be explained by a number of
factors. Firstly, the years under review were a time of significant change for the European
Union, in its transition from an economic entity to a political body, and in the development of
its human rights policy. The Treaty of Amsterdam represented a major advance in this policy,
reaffirming that the Union is ‘founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law’ and stressing the importance of
coherence with the European Convention on Human Rights.

1998 was a particularly challenging year for the Commission in implementing the human
rights and democracy budget lines. The European Court of Justice’s ruling of 12 May in Case
C-106/96 concerning the lack of a proper legal base for the implementation of certain
Community actions led to suspending the implementation of Chapter B7-70 in June and July
1998. Implementation was only resumed following an inter-institutional agreement reached at
the end of July 1998. In 1999 two major developments affected the management of EU funds
in support of human rights and democracy: the adoption of a new legal basis and the change
of the Commission with the subsequent restructuring of its services. In April 1999, the
Council adopted two Regulations (975/99 and 976/99), providing a legal basis for all human
rights and democratisation activities under Chapter B7-70 of the EU Budget. The new
Commission began to reorganise its administration, with for the first
time, a single
Commissioner who has responsibility for the promotion of human rights, and a reorganised
human rights and democratisation unit covering all regions in the world.

• Reactions to the previous report

the Commission has taken into account

the European
In preparing this document,
Parliament’s comments contained in resolution A4-0381/97 and in the report of Parliament
Vice-President Imbeni (the ‘Imbeni report’)1, which outline a number of recommendations
regarding the assessment and evaluation of Commission activities in the promotion of human
rights and democracy. This document makes a serious effort to respond to many of these
recommendations. Firstly, by describing key projects in-depth in the thematic section, the

1

European Parliament report on the report from the Commission on the implementation of measures
intended to promote observance of human rights and democratic principles (for 1995) (COM (96) 0672
– C4 – 0095/97), of December 1997, A4-0381/97, Rapporteur: Mr. Renzo Imbeni.

5

Commission seeks to provide an indication of which initiatives were more successful and
the ‘recapitulation of
why, rather than merely ‘a catalogue of good works’. Secondly,
activities under the thematic and geographic headings’ has been avoided as far as possible;
instead the geographic section provides a more analytical overview of regional strategies and
the weight given to particular activities. Thirdly, assessments of Commission action have
been analysed for the first time in the context of this report. It should be made clear, however,
that it has not been possible to address all of Mr Imbeni’s suggestions in this regard;
Commission staff resources have been insufficient for such a task. The Commission
nonetheless shares Mr. Imbeni’s belief that more progress must made in the thorough
evaluation of projects.

One of the requests made by the Parliament was to clarify the role of the present report and
previous Commission reports adopted pursuant to the November 1991 Council resolution on
human rights, democracy and development2. This document covers all projects funded under
the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (Chapter B7-70) in any third
country, while the reports pursuant the November 1991 Council resolution covered human
rights and democratisation activities only in developing countries, funded both from Chapter
B7-70 and from the co-operation instruments (such as the European Development Fund and
the relevant parts of the EU budget dealing with relations with different regions or countries).
In fact, this report deals with that part of the 1991 Council resolution concerning Chapter B7-
70.

This report covers only projects financed by the Commission as part of the Community’s
external action; it does not cover other external relations activities concerning human rights
and democratisation, nor does it examine human rights activities or operations inside the
Community. Similarly, it does not analyse other instruments of the EU budget which also
make an important contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights. The reasons
for this are two-fold, firstly, historically the predecessors of this report dealt with the same
budget lines, and the resources of the Commission did not provide for a wider remit for this
document. Secondly,
to isolate the human rights or democracy element of large-scale
instruments such as those of development cooperation would be complicated and potentially
misleading. However, the significance of such instruments for the advancement of human
rights and democracy should not be underestimated, both in terms of the scale of this
investment and the consistency of such action with the projects and programmes described in
this report. The integration of human rights and democratic issues into development policies
enhances the awareness of Governments of these issues and promotes coherence and
complementarity with other budget lines.

This report is complementary to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights, adopted by the
Council in October 1999. While the present document deals with activities funded under the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights by the European Commission from
1996 to 1999, the EU Annual Report on Human Rights has a wider remit. However, both
reports share the same goals: to enhance the transparency, coherence and consistency of the
Union’s human rights policies.

• Community action in support of human rights and democracy

The European Union has, for many years, been committed to respecting and promoting
human rights and democratic principles. The Union now has an important legal framework for

2

European Parliament Resolution, A4-0381/97, para. 16

6

the promotion of human rights in its external policy and it recognises that it has an important
role to play as an international actor in this field. The Community actively implements its
commitment to human rights and democracy by supporting the activities of international,
regional and non-governmental organisations specialised in the field of human rights and
democracy. An important measure to enhance this commitment was the initiative of the
European Parliament in 1994 to collate a series of budget headings specifically dealing with
the promotion of human rights together in their own Chapter (B7-707) entitled ‘European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.’ Largely thanks to the European Parliament, the
Community now has significant resources to back up its policies and declarations. In 1987,
the budget available for specific human rights activities was only 200,000 Euros; at the end of
1999, that figure had grown exponentially to 100 million Euros.

Council Regulations 975/99 and 976/99 (the ‘Human Rights Regulations’) cover activities
aimed at promoting and defending human rights, supporting the process of democratisation,
and supporting measures to prevent conflict3.

This report examines priority actions from both a thematic and geographical point of view.
Thematic areas covered include democratisation and the rule of law, the promotion of civil
society, conflict prevention, and ‘target group’ initiatives. In each area, the reason for EU
intervention in a particular field is highlighted and projects discussed in terms of their goals,
activities and achievements.

Thematic division

120000000

100000000

80000000

60000000

40000000

20000000

0

Series1

Confidence building

Democrat-isation and
the rule of law

Pluralist civil society Procedural aspects

Target groups

42139004

61748170

113435488

28056524

62187747

Euros

Democratisation and the rule of law:
Pluralist civil society:
Confidence-building to restore peace:
Target groups:
Procedural aspects:

61,748,170
113,435,488
42,139,004
62,187,747
28,056,524

TOTAL

307,566,933

The geographical summary examines regional strategies and the use of funds in Central and
Eastern Europe and the Republics of the former Yugoslavia, South Eastern Europe, the Newly
Independent States and Mongolia (CEEC,SEE and NIS), African, Caribbean and Pacific
countries including South Africa and Nigeria ACP, Latin America, the Mediterranean and
Turkey, and Asia.

3

Council Regulations (EC) No 975 and No 976 of 29 April 1999, OJ L120

7

Regional distribution

Worldwide
12%

MEDA
14%

Latin
America
17%

ACP
21%

Asia
1%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
35%

chart

represents

This
a
geographic allocation in which
cross-
all
references are taken
into
account.

multi-regional

Part 3 deals with procedural aspects of the financing of such actions, and Part 4 provides an
overall assessment of human rights activities funded by the European Commission. The report
aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the large range of activities funded by the
European Union over the last four years, in its active promotion of the respect for human
rights and democracy.

PART 1

1.

THEMATIC OVERVIEW

1.1.

DEMOCRATISATION AND THE RULE OF LAW

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

L e g a l a s s is ta n c e fo r c iv il a n d p o l iti c a l r ig h ts : 4 ,9 5 3 ,5 0 4

T h e l e g a l s y s te m , th e j u d i c i a r y a n d c a p it a l p u n i s h m e n t: 2 7 ,0 4 6 ,3 7 5

D e m o c r a ti c t ra n s i tio n a n d e l e c ti o n s : 1 3 ,1 5 1 ,3 0 7

P u b li c b o d i e s a n d th e d e f e n c e o f h u m a n ri g h ts : 5 ,7 4 0 ,8 4 5

P a rl ia m e n ta ry a c tiv iti e s : 4 ,5 1 1 ,7 7 7

T r a n s p a r e n c y o f p u b l ic a d m in i s tra tio n : 6 ,3 4 4 ,3 1 2

1.1.1. Democratic transition and elections

• Background

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires elections to be free, genuine
and held periodically. The European Parliament has underlined the importance of support for

8

the democratisation process, in particular ‘EU measures to support the electoral process and to
allow comprehensive and effective election monitoring.’4 In 1997 the Parliament created a
specific budget
line to combine efforts to support electoral processes and improve
coordination,5 which is reserved primarily for activities to prepare election observation
missions. Nevertheless, activities in support of electoral processes continue to be financed by
the other regional lines.6

for

The Human Rights Regulations authorise Community support
the process of
democratisation, in particular, for the electoral process and equal participation of the people in
this process.7 The EU prioritises the development of professional methodology, logistics and
training and increasing the visibility of the Union’s support. Following a request from the
Parliament the Commission has prepared a Communication on ‘evaluating EU participation in
election monitoring missions in recent years, with a view towards enhancing the EU’s
8 It
capacity to successfully promote democracy through electoral support operations’.
identifies a number of ways of making the EU’s activities in this area more effective and
coordinated and sets down some guidelines and a framework for future EU electoral
assistance and observation. The Communication identifies the need for a permanent elections
desk in the Commission, an EU elections strategy based on the need for partnership and
coordination with other international organisations.

• Activities and target groups

EU support has been provided to civic education programmes aimed at informing citizens,
especially women, about electoral participation, their rights as voters and how to use legal
instruments to defend those rights. The Commission also supported training courses on
election observation and monitoring to establish a well-prepared pool of election observers;
training for electoral policemen and journalists; education in democratic parliamentary
procedures for politicians and parliamentary staff. Close cooperation between the EC and the
European Institute for the Media led to the development of a method of quantitative and
qualitative measurement of media coverage and access to the media, and assessments of legal
frameworks and media structures.

• Allocation of funds

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 2,717,599 3,099,849 4,283,012 3,050,847

1996 : 2,717,599

1997 : 3,099,849

1998 : 4,283,012

1999 : 3,050,847

TOTAL: 13,151,307

4

5

6

7

8

European Parliament Resolution A4-0410/98, para. 93
Budget Line B7-709: Support and surveillance of electoral processes
B7-7702, B7-703, B7-705, B7-7000, B7-706P and B7-701
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.2.f and No 976/1999, Article 3.2.f
Communication from the Commission on EU election assistance and observation of 11 April 2000,
COM (2000) 191 final

9

• Regional distribution

• Example: Election observation – a common European approach

In 1999, the Commission provided 990,000 Euros to the Swedish International Development
Agency for the implementation of this innovative project in promotion of common European
standards for electoral observation.9 It aims to provide a common approach for the training
activities of electoral observers before their deployment, producing state of
the art
methodology in this field. An election observation handbook, covering all aspects of short and
long-term missions is an important element of this process.

A common standard for
electoral observation,
state of the art training
and a comprehensive
web-site

Additional aims
include the training of over 200
field
observers as a European task force ready for
missions, stressing the importance of setting guidelines
for
standard final post-mission debriefing and
evaluation of observers.

a

The comprehensive training of observers is an opportunity to test the theoretical framework
set up in the handbook, and to form highly prepared observers with a common strategy.
Another key component is the web-site on electoral observation issues including regularly
updated information for trainers, a list of professional observers, an electronic version of the
handbook and information on previous electoral observation missions, field reports scheduled
events. The site brings on-line all the relevant information currently available to electoral
experts, Commission Delegations and NGOs.

1.1.2.

Parliamentary activities

• Background

Free and fair elections will not, of themselves, make a country democratic or give it the
political stability required for democracy to flourish. They must be part of a broader process,
which consolidates the movement towards democracy. This includes ensuring that the central
institutions of state, such as the legislature, operate in a legitimate and effective manner. As
the Commission stated in a 1998 Communication, legislatures must have the institutional
capacity to draft, implement and supervise policies addressing the needs of the people. The
Community should therefore provide support for legislative power, to:

9

B7-709, Project No. 99-079, SIDA ‘Election observation- A common European Approach’

10

“…enable parliaments to perform their dual function of counterweight to the
executive in an independent and constructive manner.”10

• Activities and target groups

Actions supported within the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights aim to
empower parliamentarians to perform their proper democratic role. In emerging democracies,
training introduced young parliamentarians to the complex history and interdependent
relations of human rights and democracy, and the role of parliament
in a democracy.
Parliamentarians were trained in appropriate legislation and budgetary procedures and in
methods of partnership with civil society. Training programmes were complemented by the
organisation of study visits and internships in long established parliaments and projects
addressed the issue of regional cooperation between parliaments. Other activities focused on
the impact of international human rights instruments on national legislation. Support for
parliaments in the least developed countries included equipping the parliamentary buildings
and contributing to their administration.

• Allocation of funds

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 974,318 1,915,463 1,401,996 220,000

• Regional distribution

1996 : 974,318

1997 : 1,915,463

1998 : 1,401,996

1999 : 220,000

TOTAL: 4,511,777

Latin
America
18%

MEDA
4%

ACP
31%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
47%

• Example: Assistance to the Parliament of Ethiopia

In an initiative implemented by the Interparliamentary Union, the Ethiopian Parliament was
provided 511.860 Euros in assistance from the Commission in 1998,11 The project sought to

10

Communication from the Commission of 12 March 1998, on Democratisation, the Rule of Law,
Respect for Human Rights and Good Governance: the Challenges of the Partnership between the
European Union and the ACP States, COM (98) 146 final, at 12

11

strengthen the capacity of members of the Ethiopian Parliament to make informed decisions
throughout the law-making process, to interpret the Constitution and to exercise control of the
government.

Strengthening the capacity
of the Ethiopian parliament
to exercise control of the
government

The backbone of any parliamentary system is the
provision of information, so the project addressed firstly
of
the
of
general
parliamentary
its
information
effectiveness.

the management
improving
and

question

This included the provision of the technological resources necessary to support this process
and contribute to the drive for efficiency. Modernising the handling of information and
(notably
communications
equipment for the parliamentary library) and the introduction of new information technology
in parliamentary procedures.

included the improvement of

the documentation facilities

The project also aimed to improve the human resources available. Training sessions for
parliamentarians were scheduled to develop their technical skills in the use of the new tools,
as well as seminars on national legislation and on techniques of legal drafting. In addition, the
project addressed other aspects of the general functioning of the legislature,
including
parliamentary administration, reporting of parliamentary debates, protocol, and public and
media relations.

1.1.3.

The legal system, the judiciary and capital punishment

• Background

The link between the rule of law and democratic principles has been clearly established by the
EU. In its Annual Report, the EU states that the rule of law and an accessible judicial system
are an essential framework for democracy and human rights, and that ‘Governments and
public officials must act in accordance with the law and within the limits set by the law’.12
The Commission has set out certain key components of the rule of law, including a legislature
and executive giving full effect to human rights, an independent judiciary, effective access to
legal redress, and a legal system which guarantees equality before the law.13 The Human
the process of
Rights Regulations specifically provide for Community support
democratisation, in particular, promoting and strengthening the rule of law, upholding and
strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the legislature from the executive, and
supporting constitutional and legislative reforms, such as the abolition of the death penalty.14

for

The EU has for many years worked to promote the abolition of capital punishment. At the
55th UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU urged member States to ratify the 2nd
Optional Protocol to ICCPR on the abolition of the death penalty, arguing that the possibility
of judicial error and its disproportionate use against disadvantaged groups present a strong
case against its use.15 The Parliament, a longstanding opponent of the death penalty, treated
the subject as a global theme in its Annual Report on human rights. Capital punishment is an

11

12

13

14

15

B7-702, Project No. ET/ED/69/97, Interparliamentary Union ‘Assistance to the Parliament of Ethiopia’
EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1998-1999, adopted by the Council in October 1999, at 39
COM (98) 146 final, ibid, at 4
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.2 (a) & (b) and No 976/1999, Article 3.2 (a) & (b)
UN Commission on Human Rights 55th Session, resolution 1999/61 ‘Question of the Death Penalty’ EU
Statement

12

‘inhuman, medieval form of punishment and it is unworthy of modern societies’16 While the
number of countries retaining capital punishment has fallen, it remains on the statute books of
almost half of the UN member States. It has no proven deterrent effect, is applied arbitrarily,
and is often preceded by a flawed or unfair trial. According to the Parliament, it is a great
success that all Central and Eastern European countries which are candidates for EU
membership have now abolished the death penalty.

• Activities and target groups

The Commission supported assistance from international and national experts in the drafting
of new constitutional provisions and national legislation, through working groups, seminars
and expert advice. Programmes targeted decision-makers involved in the judicial and legal
system. Institution-building within the legal system was a priority, including re-allocation of
competencies between ministries of internal affairs and ministries of justice. Capacity
building was also supported in the sphere of academic and professional education for lawyers,
judges and prosecutors, and in the reform of court procedures, penal codes and prisons. The
publication of official journals was also included in the range of supported activities.

Community funded programmes supporting international efforts for the abolition of the death
penalty included awareness campaigns in countries where capital punishment is still practised
and direct assistance to prisoners under sentence of death. A joint programme was established
between the Commission and the Council of Europe to foster public opinion on various
themes related to the abolition of the death penalty in Russia, Turkey, Albania and Ukraine.
legal experts and the general
The programme provided information to parliamentarians,
public about the 2nd Optional Protocol, and on the penal policy arguments against capital
punishment.

• Allocation of funds

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 7,249,499

1997 : 7,535,042

1998 : 4,676,656

1999 : 8,741,896

Euros 7.249.499 7.535.042 4.676.656 8.741.896

TOTAL: 28,203,093

16

European Parliament Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 29

13

• Regional distribution

MEDA
10%

Latin
America
22%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
18%

Worldwide

5%

ACP
44%

Asia
1%

• Example: Strengthening human rights protection mechanisms, independence

of the judiciary and legal system reform in Russia

In 1999 the Council of Europe and the European Commission agreed on the fourth joint
programme on strengthening human rights protection and the legal system in Russia.17
2,500,000 Euros have been allocated to the programmes in 1998 and 1999. A primary
objective of the programmes has been to encourage the ratification and proper implementation
of human rights conventions by the Russian Federation, including the European Convention
on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the European Convention for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This has involved publication activities,
training instructors and teaching courses on the content and impact of the conventions, and
the functioning of protection mechanisms. Studies on compatibility of Russian legislation
with the requirements of international conventions were conducted and assessment papers
presented at expert seminars and to relevant Russian public institutions. At all stages local
experts and partners throughout the Federation were actively included in the process.

Assistance for structural
reform, judicial training
and improving the
penitentiary system

Improving the functioning of the institutions of the legal
system has been another main objective. For example,
assistance is provided for structural
reform in the
administration of the Ministry of Justice, concerning the
transfer of responsibility for prison administration to the

Ministry of Justice and the reform of the penitentiary system, including training for prison
officials. Activities in co-operation with the Ministry of the Interior addressed inter alia co-
operation with other law enforcement agencies during the period of preliminary criminal
investigations. Dialogue and exchange schemes with the General Prosecutor have been
established to bring its working methods into conformity with the principles of the rule of
law. Strengthening the independence of the judicial system implies support for institution-
building and for the development of professional skills and techniques. The Supreme Court
has therefore been assisted with the functioning of its Court Department, which deals with the
organisation and management of courts, and with the functioning of the Academy of Justice,
which is responsible for the professional training of judges. Help is provided with the drafting
of the statutes, the administration of courts and judicial training, for example of lower court
judges in the application of European Convention on Human Rights in national jurisdiction.

17

B7-701, Project No. 99/073c, Council of Europe ‘Joint Programme “Russia IV” ’

14

1.1.4.

Legal assistance for civil and political rights

• Background

Although legal institutions may have been established in accordance with international
standards, for such institutions to be meaningful, full and equal access must be available to all
citizens. The Parliament has ‘firmly reiterated its support for the general principle that those
subject to criminal proceedings are free and in full possession of their rights’.18

In addition to provisions on the rule of law and institutional reform, the Human Rights
Regulations authorise Community support for ‘organisations offering concrete help to victims
of human rights abuse’.19 For the Commission, a legal system guaranteeing equality before the
law and providing ‘effective and accessible means of legal recourse’ is an essential element of
the rule of law. 20

• Activities and target groups

Throughout the world, Community assistance has provided legal aid to the victims of human
rights violations. In Europe assistance has been directed at legal support for asylum seekers
and minorities such as Roma. The emphasis in ACP countries has been on providing support
for national programmes of judicial assistance, and for judicial clinics. Latin American
projects have also developed the notion of judicial assistance and have focussed on the
coordination of legal aid projects implemented by organisations throughout the region. In
Asia, initiatives which provide redress to the victims of violence have been supported, and in
the MEDA region, legal assistance concentrated on human rights problems in Israel and
including the Helsinki
Palestine. A range of international human rights organisations,
Committee and the Red Cross helped to implement Community action in this area,
in
addition, universities, legal documentation centres and local legal aid centres were involved.

• Allocation of funds

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 739,582

1997 : 1,108,275

1998 : 316,200

1999 : 2,789,447

Euros

739,582 1,108,275 316,200 2,789,447

TOTAL: 4,953,504

18

19

20

European Parliament resolution A4-0468/98, op. 18
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1 (f) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1 (f)
COM (98) 146 final, ibid, at 4

15

• Regional distribution

MEDA
36%

Worldwide

1%

ACP
21%

Asia
3%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
39%

• Example: Legal aid programme in Armenia

In 1997, the Commission provided 116,108 Euros to the Féderation Internationale des Droits
de l’Homme for a legal aid programme for victims of human rights violations in Armenia.21
The aim of the project was to create a service for legal and judicial assistance and advice, with
the objective of improved legal protection for the citizens of Armenia. Four law centres were
set up in Yerevan, Gyumri, Vanadzor and Kapan. Victims of human rights violations were
given information and advice by teams of Armenian lawyers.

Improving legal
protection for the citizens
of Armenia

In addition, training workshops were provided for the
Armenian partner organisation, Avangard, to enhance the
expertise of 4O members of staff on the applicability of

international human rights instruments. An eight-day workshop included training on the basic
principles and management of human rights NGOs, mechanisms of redress for human rights
violations, and information management. Activities connected to the establishment of the law
centres included gathering information about violations, setting up a central database,
lobbying the authorities, and publishing a bulletin on human rights issues and legal cases.

1.1.5.

Public bodies and the defence of human rights

• Background

National commissions and ombudspersons are a relatively recent innovation in the protection
of human rights. The 55th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights drew attention to
the importance of ‘effective, independent, pluralistic national human rights institutions’, and
for the first time a special session of the Commission was devoted to the participation of
national institutions.22 Such bodies often work closely with national government ministries
responsible for the protection of human rights, and as, emphasised in the CHR resolution,
additional resources are vital to ensure their independence. The status of the institution of
ombudsperson was underlined by the Dayton Peace accord which established the Office of
the Human Rights Ombudsperson for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21

22

TACIS D. Project No. 98-4001, Féderation Internationale des Droits de l’Homme ‘Legal aid
programme for victims of human rights violations in Armenia’
UN Commission on Human Rights 55th Session, resolution 1999/72. ‘National institutions for the
promotion and protection of human rights’

16

The Human Rights Regulations authorise the support of
regional or
international organisations in the protection of human rights.23 The Commission has set out
elements of its positive, constructive approach to human rights, including the priority to
‘support local, national and regional institutions involved in the promotion and protection of
human rights, including ombudsmen and others in similar positions’.24

local, national,

• Activities and target groups

In Central and Eastern Europe, a series of local ‘embassies of democracy’ have been
supported. Projects in ACP countries included measures to reinforce regional democracy, the
training of quasi-judicial ombudsmen and the establishment of offices for the promotion and
protection of human rights. In Latin America, emphasis was placed on strengthening national
Implementing partners were
commissions for human rights and regional ombudsmen.
typically national interior or justice ministries,
local government municipalities and the
offices of ombudspersons themselves.

• Allocation of funds

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

1,035,315 3,051,762

497,000

0

• Regional distribution

1996 : 1,035,315

1997 : 3,051,762

1998 : 497,000

1999 : 0

TOTAL: 4,584,077

Latin
America
46%

ACP
30%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
24%

• Example: The Ombudsperson’s Office in Ethiopia

In 1998, in cooperation with the Speaker’s Office of the House of People’s Representatives of
the Federal Republic of Ethiopia, the Commission provided 582,355 Euros for a major

23

24

Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1 (e) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1 (e)
European Commission Communication on ‘The European Union and the External Dimension of
Human Rights policy: from Rome to Maastricht and beyond', COM (95) 567 final

17

conference on a ‘Human Rights Commission and Ombudsperson’s Office’.25 The House of
People’s Representatives convened the conference in order to fulfil the constitutional mandate
of establishing both these institutions.

Learning from
international experience
of institutions of human
rights protection

The purpose of the international conference was to
provide an opportunity to Ethiopian federal and state
legislators, law enforcement officials and the broader
legal and political community to exchange views with

officials and academics from countries which have experience in providing human rights
protection through national human rights commissions and ombudsperson institutions. The
aim was to assist Ethiopian legislators in the drafting of legislation. Also, the publicity
surrounding the process was intended to raise awareness of the issues among the Ethiopian
public as a whole. The theme of the conference was ‘International experiences in institutions
of human rights protection’ and the specific focus was on the roles of the judiciary, human
rights commissions and ombudsmen.

1.1.6.

Transparency of public administration

• Background

Corruption is not simply a moral problem: it
impacts on public administration, distorts
decision-making and undermines the legitimacy of Governments, posing a serious threat to
democracy. Transparency, accountability and strong measures against corruption are key
elements of good government, and an important emphasis of the Commission’s strategy in
promoting institutional and administrative reforms connected with democratisation and the
rule of law. The Commission set out several reforms which warrant particular attention,
including administrative decentralisation, whereby local democracy can develop at a grass-
roots level, making citizens ‘the government’s partners rather than its dependants’, and
measures to prevent fraud and corruption. 26

The Parliament has also made it clear that widespread corruption erodes confidence in the
State’s ability to take effective action and that the most important way of countering this is to
‘help boost the openness and transparency of public bodies’.27 The Human Rights Regulations
also emphasise that Community operations should aim at promoting good governance,
‘particularly by supporting administrative accountability and the prevention and combating of
corruption’.28

• Activities and target groups

in this area has mainly funded initiatives aimed at

Community support
improving
accountability at a local level. In Europe, programmes on communal self-administration, and
training and assistance to local democratic structures and local elected officials in self-
administration, transparency and the provision of information to citizens have been key
themes. In ACP countries, multi-regional programmes on corruption,
transparency and
accountability have been established. The promotion of community leadership and new forms

25

26

27

28

B7-702, Project No.ET/ED/5/97, Office of the Speaker of the Parliament ‘Conference on a Human
Rights Conference and Office of the Ombudsperson’
COM (98) 146 final, ibid, at 15
European Parliament resolution A4-0411/98, op5
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.2 (d) and No 976/1999, Article 3.2 (d)

18

of local democracy has been pursued in the MEDA region, and in Asia, programmes have
examined the notion of ‘responsible citizenship’ and the participation of citizens in the
management of natural resources. In Latin America the emphasis has been on research into
the decentralisation of power and on new movements of political reform in the region.
Partners of the Community have typically included universities and research centres, regional
international human rights organisations and
peace groups, centres for adult education,
national government ministries.

• Allocation of funds

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 2,241,601

1997 : 2,592,029

1998 : 930,682

1999 : 580,000

Euros 2,241,601 2,592,029 930,682

580,000

TOTAL: 6,344,312

• Regional distribution

MEDA
6%

ACP
23%

Latin
America
33%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
38%

• Example: Transparency and accountability in Zimbabwe

In light of serious international concern about the high level of corruption in Zimbabwe, in
1999 the Commission provided 580,000 Euros in support of an initiative of the organisation
Transparency International Zimbabwe.29 The project aims to expose and curb ‘grand
corruption’ in Zimbabwe and is targeted at corrupt practices which have the effect of
distorting official decision making, and which impact seriously on the development process in
the country.

Lobbying for the creation
of a permanent and
independent anti-
corruption bureau with

The specific objectives of the programme are to raise
public awareness on the seriousness of corruption, the
damage caused by it and the need to eliminate it. Also,
the project lobbied for the creation of a permanent and

29

B7-7021, Project No.99/0007, Transparency International Zimbabwe ‘Transparency and accountability
programme (ZIM)’

19

adequate powers

independent Anti-Corruption Bureau with adequate
enforcement powers, for a code of ethics for MP’s,

cabinet ministers and senior Government officials, and for constitutional reform to create and
support transparency in the Government. Particular activities organised for the project have
included establishing a network of like-minded individuals to work with the government in
the implementation of national anti-corruption programmes set out in the Action Plan of
Zimbabwe’s
and
workshops; setting up an anti-corruption database; instructing schoolchildren; publishing a
newsletter and establishing close ties with the media to generate publicity campaigns. The
assistance of the Transparency International Head Office in Berlin, and their office in
Denmark has provided an international pool of experts on anti-corruption issues.

Integrity Workshop’; organising conferences,

seminars,

‘National

1.2.

PLURALIST CIVIL SOCIETY

60000000

50000000

40000000

30000000

20000000

10000000

0

Human rights education and public awareness: 52,657,967

Equal opportunity and non-discrimination: 8,224,244

Freedom of expression and the media: 24,740,028

Non-governmental organisations: 27,813,249

1.2.1. Freedom of expression and of the media

• Background

The right of everyone to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information through
the media are fundamental freedoms recognised by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration.
The Vienna World Conference underlined the importance of free press for the provision of
‘objective, responsible and impartial’ information on human rights. Restrictions on this
freedom are symptomatic of serious human rights abuse, and the suppression of free media
indicates a profound lack of respect for democracy. As documented by organisations such as
Index on Censorship and Article 19, journalists and broadcasters are increasingly subject to
censorship, harsh punishment and even execution in the exercise of their profession.

As the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common
Security and Defence Policy has argued,

20

“A free press is essential for a society to work in a democratic way. The existence of
that governments and institutions are held
independent
accountable for their actions.”30

journalists ensures

The Human Rights Regulations authorise the promotion and protection of the freedom of
opinion, expression and conscience31, and the Commission has underlined the increasing
support of
the media ‘with projects aimed at promoting their
independence and raising awareness of their role in society’.32

the Community for

• Activities and target groups

Community funding between 1996 and 1999 has supported the development of independent
press and broadcasting, the professionalisation of the media and the generation of networks of
information and inter-regional exchanges of information on human rights. Projects have
included the production of reference materials for journalists, training programmes on issues
such as the media and elections and media pluralism, media law, and the role of journalists in
the
situations. Support was also provided for particular publications,
conflict
establishment of journalists’ institutes and networks, media monitoring and professional
training on the media and development issues. Partner organisations included journalists
associations and press institutes, freedom of expression NGOs, news agencies, individual
newspapers and broadcast organisations.

for

• Allocation of funds

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 4,334,918

1997 : 4,654,231

1998 : 6,047,683

1999 : 9,703,196

Euros 4,334,918 4,654,231 6,047,683 9,703,196

TOTAL: 24,740,028

• Regional distribution

Worldwide
1%

ACP
38%

MEDA
17%

Latin
America
3%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
41%

30

31

32

European Parliament Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 30
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1(j) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1(j)
COM (95) 567 final, ibid

21

• Example: IPS-Inter Press Service pilot project

Strengthening a strong, diverse media is a powerful embodiment of democratic values.
Promoting better information and enhancing the capacity of media in developing countries
underpins global efforts to uphold human rights. In 1999, with funding of 497,000 from the
Commission, the international news agency, IPS-Inter Press Service, carried out a pilot
project to test ways of increasing professional news reporting about human rights; including
political, economic ands social rights. 33

In ACP countries, as well as in Asia, IPS, together with over 100 national newspapers and
radio stations, formed regional groups to exchange news reports relating to human rights. By
pooling scarce journalistic resources, they could offer their readers fresh perspectives on the
human rights situation in their region. Civil society was a vital partner; NGOs at every level
began supplying these regional media services with press releases and reports.

Enhancing the capacity
of media in developing
countries underpins
global efforts to uphold
human rights

One of the key insights of this project has been to
demonstrate that debates about ‘universal values’, and the
divisions that exist between regions or communities, are
not exclusively European concepts, but are shared by
countries in the South. Building bridges for greater
communication in this way is a valuable and important

contribution to healing division. The project was both ‘high-tech’ and ‘low-tech’. More than a
thousand press clippings collected from selected publications showed that there is both a
demand and a need for such reporting. The articles were printed world-wide, including in the
Zimbabwe Daily News, the Manila Standard, and the Jamaican Observer. Capital Radio Sri
Lanka and the public service stations of the South African Broadcasting Corporation were
amongst hundreds of participating radio broadcasters. The Internet has also been utilised for
the provision of news on a weekly basis and for the creation of a searchable database of
human rights information. In the course of 1999, forty Asian, African and Caribbean
journalists were trained by professional IPS editors to write about human rights, including an
emphasis on a gender perspective. These journalists produced more than 250 articles last year.
Leading human rights figures such as UN High Commissioner, Mary Robinson, and Burmese
democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi contributed columns, which were syndicated to
major newspapers.

1.2.2. Human rights education and public awareness

• Background

Human rights education is an essential tool to disseminate knowledge on the existence and
applicability of human rights standards and democratic norms. This was recognised in the
Vienna Declaration Programme of Action, which identified human rights education as a
major priority. The UN General Assembly, establishing the Decade for Human Rights
Education in 1994, called on international organisations to increase their involvement in this
field.34 Education and training are cornerstones of Community action in the promotion of a
pluralist society. The European Parliament has called on the Commission to “take steps to
increase the awareness of young Europeans…with a view to promoting genuine human rights

33

34

B7-702, Project No.ACP/CO/74/98, IPS ‘Renforcer l’information de la société civile’
UN General Assembly resolution 49/184 of 23 December 1994

22

education.”35 Similarly,
the Human Rights Regulations authorise technical and financial
assistance aimed at “support for education, training and consciousness-raising in the area of
human rights.”36

• Activities and target groups

Between 1996 and 1999, the Commission has funded a wide range of information networks
and educational projects, with the aim of promoting public awareness about the value of
human rights and democracy, about Commission activities, and of increasing specialised
knowledge for human rights professionals. Human rights education has been targeted to meet
specific needs in different regions.

Projects in Eastern Europe reflected the need for civic education on the process of
democratisation and for professional training for politicians, the military and police. Special
emphasis was also placed on awareness building about the rights of minorities. In Africa, in
addition to programmes on democracy, human rights and the media, projects concerning the
applicability of regional instruments, such as the African Charter, have been supported.
Education programmes in Latin America highlighted the links between human rights and
development, and the role of civil society in situations of conflict. In Europe, projects
included programmes of higher education, training for human rights defenders, and expert
symposiums. In the Middle East, programmes have been targeted towards vulnerable groups
such as women and children, and fora for inter-community education and debate are
supported in this region. Implementing agencies included local human rights NGOs, jurist and
bar associations, human rights institutes, church groups, medical associations, universities and
national ministries for human rights.

• Allocation of funds

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 10,648,478

1997 : 13,145,396

1998 : 5,889,565

1999 : 22,974,528

Euros 10,648,478 13,145,396 5,889,565 22,974,528

TOTAL: 52,657,967

• Regional distribution

35

36

European Parliament Report ‘ TITLE’ A4-0223/96, para.120,
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1(g) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1(g)

23

Worldwide

16%

MEDA
25%

ACP
16%

Asia
2%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
15%

Latin
America
26%

• Example: European Masters Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation

A major contribution of the Community to the goals of human rights education is represented
by the European Masters Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (EMA).37 The
in 1999. Established in 1997 in
Commission provided 1,811,320 Euros for the project
conjunction with 15 leading universities, one in each EU member state, this is the only
regional human rights course in the world. The first half of the ten-month Degree takes place
in Venice, Italy, where students are taught by visiting academics from the partner universities.
In the second half, students are assigned to one of the fifteen universities, according to their
research specialisation. The EMA was set up with the aim of training experts to work for
international organisations, national institutions and NGOs. To address the needs of such
organisations, programmes of education must form links between academic courses and
human rights work on the ground. An important element of the EMA therefore is its action-
oriented, operational approach.

In addition to high quality academic training, students from a variety of backgrounds (law,
political science, history, philosophy) are taught by field officers from international
organisations and NGOs, and the EMA also provides training in the field. For example, for
the last three years students have gone ‘on mission’ to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where they
met field staff from IGOs, NGOs, and lawyers and government officials involved in the effort
to rebuild democracy and respect for human rights. The EMA has been a success. The Office
of the High Commissioner of Human Rights has signed an official memorandum of
understanding with the Degree, and UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE have
associated themselves with it.

Programmes of
education must form links
between academic
courses and human
rights work on the ground

This is the first step in building an international network
of human rights and democracy experts, comprised not
only of graduates, but also by the academics and field
workers who participate in the training. Commissioner
for External Relations, Chris Patten has described the
Degree as “an excellent investment”.38

On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights the
European Union pledged to further develop cooperation in the field of human rights, such as
education and training activities and to ensure the continuation of the Masters Degree.

37

38

B7-704, Project No. 99/069, University of Padova ‘Activities in support of the European Masters
Programme in Human Rights and Democratisation’
Statement of Commissioner Patten to the EU Human Rights Discussion Forum, Brussels, 30 November
1999, Conference report available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/human_rights/intro.

24

Furthermore, the report of the Comité des Sages, the so-called ‘Agenda 2000’, concluded that
the EMA has been “innovative and successful.”39

1.2.3. Equal opportunities and non-discrimination

• Background

The right to non-discrimination is central to the normative framework of human rights, as set
out in the two UN Covenants, the UN Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women and on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
in the European Convention on Human Rights and in ILO Convention
No.111. For the European Union, the defence of the basic principle of non-discrimination is
the core of its understanding of human rights and democracy. As the EU Annual Report on
Human Rights underlines:

“Among the EU’s shared values also figures the firmly held belief that diversity is
one of the foundations on which the Union has been built.”40

Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced provisions making it possible to combat all
forms of discrimination. The Parliament has frequently expressed its commitment to equal
right and non-discrimination, and emphasised that ‘the equal value of all human beings,
independently of gender, race, background or sexual preference, is for most of us a self-
fact.’41 The Human Rights Regulations specify the promotion of equality of
evident
including measures to combat racism and
opportunity and non-discriminatory practices,
xenophobia.42

Article 13 of the EC Treaty (introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam) contains provisions on
discrimination on the grounds of racial and ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability, age
and sexual orientation. The Commission has adopted a proposal for a new anti-discrimination
package on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty.43 As part of its wider activities to fight
discrimination,
the Commission is highly committed to the fight against racism. The
Commission adopted an Action Plan on racism in 1998, in which it aims to integrate the
fights against racism as an objective into all Community actions and policies.44 To further this
process, a working group has been set up which brings together different departments of the
Commission with the purpose of developing a coherent strategy and promoting joint
initiatives.

• Activities and target groups

The core values of equality of opportunity and non-discrimination are therefore truly ‘cross-
cutting’ imperatives in the work of the Community, and are expressed in most areas of
Commission action, principally in the areas of women’s rights, minority rights and education.
Specific activities supported in this field include training programmes on equality of
opportunity, the promotion of handicapped persons’ rights and those of the elderly, projects

39

40

41

42

43

44

‘Leading by Example: A Human Rights Agenda for the European Union for the Year 2000’, Comité des
Sages, European University Institute, 1998, at 22
EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 14
European Parliament Annual Report 1999, ibid, at 12
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1 (i) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1 (i)
Communication from the Commission on certain Community measures to combat discrimination COM
(1999) 564 final
Communication from the Commission on 'An Action Plan Against Racism' COM (98) 183 final

25

for the assistance of migrants and refugees, and for the improvement of local Roma
communities, and activities in support of the World Conference against Racism. Groups
supported have included local community associations and women’s fora,
international
human rights and development NGOs and regional intergovernmental organisations.

• Allocation of funds

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 157,314

1997 : 566,813

1998 : 310,350

1999 : 7,189,767

Euros

157,314

566,813

310,350

7,189,767

TOTAL: 8,224,244

• Regional distribution

Worldwide

11%

ACP
6%

MEDA
18%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
65%

• Example: Rights of the handicapped in Madagascar

In 1999, the Commission provided 765,000 Euros for a project seeking to ensure access to
rights for handicapped persons in Madagascar in cooperation with the organisation Handicap
International.45 The project aimed to provide access to their rights for handicapped persons
through the creation, and promotion of a national association, public awareness-building
throughout Madagascar, and by strengthening the organisational and operational capacity of
local associations of handicapped persons.

Increasing respect for the
opinions of the
handicapped and
creating an organised
national movement

Long term results expected from the project include the
creation of a National Office of Handicapped Persons,
informing handicapped persons about their rights; having
experts play a role at a national level for the defence of
handicapped rights; and the creation of representative
unions in all provinces of Madagascar.

45

B7-7020, Project No.99/0350, Handicap International ‘Accès aux droits de personnes en situation de
handicap’

26

Further intended results are an increased respect for the opinions of the handicapped; national
the creation of
and regional events organised by associations of handicapped persons;
networks of associations capable of developing projects in a regional context; the provision of
highly trained educators to fight against discrimination and the training of such teachers; and
the creation of better facilities for the families of handicapped people.

Specific activities include a series of seminars, workshops, training sessions, the publication
of guidebooks and documentation for research and training on handicapped rights, and the
audio and video broadcast of relevant material. This project also receives funding from
UNICEF and the US Embassy in Madagascar.

1.2.4.

Non-governmental organisations

• Background

Without the contribution of non-governmental organisations, the major advances in the
elaboration and promotion of human rights and democratic norms in the last 50 years could
not have been achieved. As Rachel Brett comments, an essential role of human rights NGOs
is in:

“developing a human rights culture by making people aware of their rights, of their
responsibility not to violate the rights of others, and of the possibilities of redress”46

The Parliament has frequently underlined the importance of human rights NGOs and called
for the establishment of a Human Rights Forum, which would give experts from NGOs an
opportunity to make recommendations on the human rights dimension of EU policies.47 The
resulting EU Human Rights Discussion Forum in November 1999 was an important step
forward in developing the partnership of the Union with NGOs. It involved representatives
from leading NGOs including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the
International Commission of Jurists and was attended by senior figures from the European
Institutions,
including Parliament Vice-President Imbeni and Commissioner Patten, and
member states and the academic world.48 The results of the Forum are further examined in
Part 4 of this document.

institutions,

The Human Rights Regulations clearly state that an objective of the Community is to support
including NGOs involved in the
‘local, national, regional or international
protection, promotion, or defence of human rights.’ The Regulations further identify ‘non-
governmental organisations…community-based organisations and public or private sector
organisations’ as partners eligible for financing.49 For the Commission, NGOs, voluntary
organisations and foundations are the ‘kingpins of our democracy’, in that they now play an
essential part as intermediaries in the exchange of information and opinion between
government and citizens, and in ‘providing citizens with the means with which they may
critically examine Government action.’50 The support and strengthening of such organisations
is therefore a major concern of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

46

47

48

49

50

Brett, R. ‘Non-Governmental Actors in the Field of Human Rights’ in An Introduction to the
International Protection of Human Rights, Hanski & Suski (eds.) Åbo Akademi University, 1998 at 327
European Parliament Resolution A4-0409/98, op 13.
Conference Report available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/human_rights/intro.
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1 (e) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1 (e)
‘La promotion du rôle des associations et
Commission, COM (97) 241 final

fondations en Europe’, Communication from the

27

• Activities and target groups

As recognised in the EU Annual Report on Human Rights, extensive support is provided to
NGOs and for the strengthening of civil society throughout the world. The Commission has
made efforts to ‘enhance the role of civil society and NGOs as participants, promoters and
beneficiaries…’51 Activities between 1996 and 1999 typically involved increasing the
effectiveness of NGO operations and ‘capacity building’; setting up or strengthening trade
unions, NGOs specialised in, for example, women’s rights or employment law, and local
initiatives such as youth centres and civic advice centres.

The increasing possibilities offered by new technologies such as the Internet have been
encouraged by the establishment of networks of information exchange between NGOs.
Training in human rights advocacy and assistance with managerial control are important
elements of enhancing professionalism in the NGO community. Implementing partners have
included national trade unions, citizen’s assemblies and consumer associations, research
centres and universities, and NGOs ranging from the small and local
to established
international organisations. A useful mechanism of funding NGOs has been through micro
projects; small-scale activities to promote democracy which are identified and managed by
the Commission Delegations, especially in the central and eastern European countries, former
Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union.

• Allocation of funds

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 8,407,054 6,602,471 5,030,521 7,773,203

• Regional distribution

1996 : 8,407,054

1997 : 6,602,471

1998 : 5,030,521

1999 : 7,773,203

TOTAL: 27,813,249

MEDA
21%

Worldwide

1%

ACP
7%

Latin
America
27%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
44%

51

EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 14

28

• Example: Technical assistance to Russian human rights NGOs

The Moscow Research Centre for Human Rights (MCHR), coordinated by the Moscow-based
Human Rights Foundation for Civil Society, is an association of independent human rights
NGOs. The Centre was founded in 1993 and received 58,540 Euros from the Commission for
its technical assistance programme in 1996.52 As most organisations working for the
promotion of human rights in Russia are located in Moscow, a key aim of the Centre is to
enhance human rights activities throughout all regions of Russia. In strengthening both formal
and informal NGO groups, the Centre directly supports activists in areas where NGOs are
least developed, for example,
journalists, women’s rights groups,
consumer’s rights advocates, environmentalists, etc.

lawyers, academics,

Directly supporting
activities where NGOs are
least developed

The project also provided technical assistance related to
democratic principles and the rule of law to professional
groups
example,
representatives of the State Prosecutors Office are in

concerned. For

regions

the

in

contact with the Centre on a regular basis. Another important role of the Centre is in the
dissemination of information to the human rights community. It produces a bi-monthly
bulletin ‘Human Rights in Russia’ and regular human rights newsletters. The success of this
project was confirmed when the Centre became the recipient of an EU-US Democracy and
Civil Society award.

1.3.

CONFIDENCE BUILDING TO RESTORE PEACE

20000000

15000000

10000000

5000000

0

Conflict prevention and resolution: 15,226,679

Human rights monitoring:12,157,292

Measures to bring to justice the perpetrators of serious violations of
humanitarian law and human rights: 12,551,835

National efforts to encourage subordination of the armed forces to civil
authorities: 2,203,198

1.3.1. Conflict prevention and resolution

• Background

52

TACIS D. Project No.97-0234, Human Rights Foundation for Civil Society ‘Technical assistance to
Russian regional NGOs’

29

Since 1990, the nature of armed conflict has changed, partly due to the end of the Cold War,
the erosion of nation-states, and, as the OECD explains,

“…the rise of local-level defiance of prevailing political systems on the basis of
ethnicity, religion; increased negative effects of globalisation such as migration,
social disintegration, and displacement”. 53

The Commission has emphasised that the key to handling conflicts is rapid reaction and
‘active prevention’ through the effective implementation of targeted measures.54 It has several
different instruments of non-military crisis management including technical and financial aid
to regional and international organisations, NGOs, national, regional and local authorities and
official agencies, community based organisations and public or private-sector institutes and
operators. Support for these crisis management actors comes also from other geographical co-
operation instruments such as the European Development Fund for ACP Countries and other
relevant
instruments in Chapter B7 of the EU budget. The Human Rights Regulations
expressly provide for Community action for operations aimed at preventing conflict and
dealing with its consequences, including supporting capacity building and early warning,
confidence-building measures, promoting humanitarian law, and supporting international,
regional or local organisations involved in conflict prevention.55

• Activities and target groups

NGOs and civil society actors have always played an important role in the prevention and
transformation of violent conflicts. Conflict prevention and resolution require a co-ordinated
approach and therefore a strong, active network among all the organisations involved in the
field. Between 1996 and 1999, the Commission provided support to many peace-building
initiatives world-wide. In the former Yugoslavia,
initiatives have included social and
economic reintegration of refugees, displaced persons and returnees. In Kosovo, a permanent
forum was established for dialogue between Albanians and Serbs to facilitate public and
transparent debate upon the most sensitive issues. Campaigns, seminars, discussions and
public opinion polls on peace, conflict
for
reconciliation and projects enabling transition to democracy were also supported. The
Commission funded publications on peace initiatives and supported awareness-building with
regard to the peace process.

resolution, dialogue, mediation efforts

• Allocation of funds

53

54

55

OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, Informal DAC task force on conflict, peace and
development cooperation. Term of reference for a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to
security sector reform.
COM (95) 567 final
Council Regulations (EC) No 975, Article 2.3 (a) – (e) and No 976, Article 3.3 (a)-(e)

30

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 2,853,637

1997 : 3,518,912

1998 : 3,761,673

1999 : 5,092,457

Euros 2,853,637 3,518,912 3,761,673 5,092,457

TOTAL : 15,226,679

• Regional distribution

MEDA
9%

Worldwide
3%

ACP
21%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
28%

Latin
America
39%

• Example: Cyprus-Israel/Palestine Peace link: conflict resolution training

project

Four organisations were involved in this project: the Cyprus Peace Centre, Stitching COME,
Neve Shalom (ISR) and PCPD (PAL).56 The total contribution of the Community in 1998 was
100,000 Euros. The project aimed at forging a peace co-operation link between NGOs
actively involved in reconciliation between groups in conflict, i.e. Palestinians and Israelis,
and Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus.

Intensive conflict
resolution training to
promote a civil society
based on tolerance

Specific objectives of the project included establishing a
peace link between Cyprus and Israel/Palestine through
key peace-making organisations; sharing and comparing
methodologies on conflict resolution; developing and
testing new methods of conflict resolution applicable to

the Middle East and Cyprus; providing training for new Turkish and Greek Cypriot
facilitators due to the rapidly growing demand for bicommunal contacts and reconciliation;
providing training for new Israeli and Palestinian facilitators of conflict resolution groups
addressing the need for more professionals on both sides; bringing youth leaders from Cyprus
to Israel for intensive conflict resolution training to enable them to promote effectively a civil
society based upon tolerance, mutual respect and understanding.

56

B7-705, Project No. 98/MAS10, Cyprus Peace Centre ‘NGO network for Peace: conflict resolution
groups exchange’

31

Activities included training for instructors in the Cyprus bi-communal conflict resolution
programme. Training programmes and workshops addressed communication problems by
teaching more effective communication methodologies, such as developing empathy for the
other side and dealing directly with diversity. Exchange visits between the two troubled areas
established synergies among the different NGOs for the constructive mutual understanding of
the conflict resolution issues.

1.3.2. Measures to bring to justice perpetrators of serious violations of human rights and

humanitarian law

• Background

In seeking to deal with the aftermath of conflicts certain measures are considered by the EU to
be essential components of prevention, particularly with regard to the perpetrators of violence.
Impunity creates a climate of fear, and forms a breeding-ground for more violence. There is
less danger of conflicts re-erupting when perpetrators of serious violations of humanitarian
law and human rights are brought to justice.

Given the importance of bringing the perpetrators of war crimes and crime against humanity
to justice, the EU has created a specific budget line to fund programmes through NGOs and
other international organisations aiming to support the International Criminal Court (ICC) and
its values at national, regional and international level. As the EU emphasised at the 54th UN
General Assembly, once in existence and fully operational, the ICC will be ‘a new and
powerful tool to address and to deter the most serious crimes of concern to the international
community as a whole,
thereby helping to create a “climate of compliance” with the
fundamental international rules that protect human life and dignity’.57

The Rome Statute lays the foundation for an effective and credible International Criminal
Court (ICC) which will establish individual accountability for those who have violated
international law, including international humanitarian law. The ICC will have an important
role in deterring war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and in ensuring that
perpetrators are brought to justice. The ICC differs from the ad hoc tribunals in its new
jurisdiction over crimes of an international character and its mandate covering genocide and
other crimes against humanity occurring in both internal and international conflicts. The
European Parliament has urged member States to ratify the Statute and requested that the
Commission and the Council make the signature and ratification of the Statute an essential
element of the negotiation of future agreements with third countries.58

The Human Rights Regulations provide clear authority for supporting the ‘establishment of
ad hoc international tribunals and setting up a permanent international criminal court’.59 In
order to provide an adequate instrument to support the ICC, budget line B7-706 was first
created by the Parliament in 1995 (then A-3041) and is intended to provide support to the UN
Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and for the preparatory work of
setting up the ICC. The specific objectives of budget line B7-706 are the provision of
technical assistance to the existing criminal tribunals (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia), the
provision of financial support for the preparatory work for the setting up and the functioning
of a permanent International Criminal Court; training for the staff of the tribunals, including
in the field of gender mainstreaming.

57

58

59

EU Statement at the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, New York, 20 October 1999
European Parliament Resolution B5-0126 of 6 May 1999, OJ C 279
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 Article 2.3.(e) 976/1999 Article 3.3 (e)

32

• Activities and target groups

Projects which work to overcome some of the major obstacles to the efficient functioning of
the ad hoc Tribunals, and which help to secure the next steps within the process of
establishing the International Criminal Court have been supported. Between 1996 and 1999,
the Commission provided technical assistance to both ad hoc Tribunals including the
provision of legal assistants, a ‘National Trial Observation Initiative’, support to library and
information services and assistance to the victims and witnesses unit.

Initiatives aimed at increasing awareness of the activities of ICTY and ICTR focussed on the
work of the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor and on publicising the work of the ICTR, in
Rwanda, for example informing the media about the ICTR to reduce the propaganda which
can generate violence in the region, where the population has no access to alternative sources
of information. Other projects focussed on the importance of the identification of missing
persons and at the establishment of an ante-mortem database centre in BiH and a monitoring
project of exhumations of mass graves by teams of forensic experts.

• Allocation of funds

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 3,256,000

1997 : 3,300,000

1998 : 2,794,039

1999 : 3,201,796

Euros 3,256,000 3,300,000 2,794,039 3,201,796

TOTAL: 12,551,835

• Regional distribution

Worldwide

51%

ACP
23%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
26%

• Example: International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The overall objective of this joint programme with the UN is to address three major problems
which have impeded the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in implementing its

33

mandate. 60 Firstly, by attempting to correct the misconceptions shared by a large part of the
population in the countries of Former Yugoslavia about the work of the ICTY; secondly, by
ensuring proper legal assistance and a fair trial to accused persons, including a training
programme for defence lawyers; and finally, by ensuring that judges and Tribunal staff
members are able to efficiently conduct legal research.

Overcoming the major
obstacles of implementing
the mandate of ICTY

first

problem has

The
by
counterbalancing distorted information of the highly
partisan media in the area which cover events related

tackled

been

to the ICTY actions in a largely negative way. The presence of field personnel aimed to
establish close working relations with the figures who influence public opinion. This
confidence-building process also addresses specific target groups in the population. The
second problem was addressed by providing the necessary expertise to all the professionals
involved in the trials. The ICTY works with a blend of different rules of criminal procedure
from both adversarial and inquisitorial systems. Both parties before the court must have
‘equality of arms’ to work effectively. Expanding research material at disposal of the ICTY
personnel, judges and staff members, in order to strengthen legal research, written legal
decisions, and the development of jurisprudence addressed the third major impediment to the
effective operation of the ICTY. The issues dealt with by the ICTY are furthermore elucidated
by extensive comparative research, and the tribunal library has been provided with increased
access to law journals, on and off line databases and a complete collection of national laws
from common and civil law systems.

1.3.3. National efforts to subordinate the armed forces to civil authorities

• Background

Armed forces have a crucial influence on the political stability of many countries. It is
necessary therefore to enhance respect for democratic rules within the security forces and to
strengthen civilian control over them through legislative improvement and promoting
awareness in civil society. The Council cites an objective of Community funding as
‘supporting national efforts to separate civilian and military functions, training civilian and
military personnel and raising their awareness of human rights’.61

• Activities

Emphasis has been placed on strengthening the democratic management of security forces; by
transferring experience in the field of civilian control of the armed forces and by promoting
good civil-military relations and civil participation. Not only military officers, but also
parliamentarians, government officials, NGOs, journalists and other civil society actors have
been involved in training courses on the values of a democratic society and the role of the
army.

To this end, many educational programmes, seminars and conferences were funded. Another
activity has involved improving the transparency and democratic accountability of security
forces. Monitoring was an important element of this process, including examining relevant
legislative initiatives concerning access to information, flawed legislation as well as violations

60

61

B7-706, Project No. 99-076, United Nations ‘Joint Programme: Support to the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’
Council Regulations (EC) No 975, Article 2.2 (g) and No 976, Article 3.2 (g)

34

individual

of
rights by the security services, creating an international network of
‘correspondents’, including NGOs, academics, journalists and members of parliaments to
collate and share information on issues involving the security services.

1996 : 966,420

1997 : 509,922

1998 : 726,856

1999 : 0

TOTAL: 2,203,198

• Allocation of funds

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

966,420

509,922

726,856

0

• Regional distribution

CEEC, SEE

and NIS

100%

• Example: Civil control over the military and security policy in Georgia

The Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development in Tblisi, Georgia helped
implement this 1997 project funded by the Commission to the amount of 148,752 Euros.62

Fostering the development
of a democratic model of
civil-military relations in
Georgia

The aim of
this project was to promote civil
participation in building a state defence network to
foster the development of a democratic model of
civil- military relations in Georgia.

Specific objectives were to monitor and collect information on military and security policy in
Georgia and the training of different target groups within the security community and civil
society on civil-military relations, including MPs, civil servants, military representatives and
cadets, NGOs and the media. The distribution of information about the most relevant issues
on civil-military relations in a democratic society was an important element of the project.
Activities have included workshops; training; the establishment of an Information Centre with
a database on civil-military matters; providing assistance to state bodies in their legislative
and policy-making activities. The Information Centre has also monitored the media in the

62

TACIS D. Project No. 98-4009, The Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development ‘Civil
control over the military and security policy in Georgia’

35

region and produced a regular Bulletin, and a textbook which includes feedback information
from the training activities. Five television films have been produced to increase public
awareness on the issue.

1.3.4. Human rights monitoring

• Background

Monitoring is a crucial activity for ensuring compliance with international human rights
standards. The role of monitoring, alternatively described as ‘verification’ or ‘fact-finding’, is
in the first place preventive; it can act as an early warning of impending disaster and have a
dissuasive impact on those who know they will be held accountable. After conflict or serious
violations, monitoring can also be a form of assistance to the authorities in rebuilding a
human rights infrastructure. As Alston and Weiler suggest, monitoring is:

“…a necessary element in any strategy to garner the support of civil society and the
the human rights of
community at
vulnerable groups.”63

large for measures to promote and protect

For the European Union, support for such monitoring is an essential component of its human
rights strategy. Furthermore, the provision of reliable information about the human rights
situation in certain countries is an essential prerequisite to targeting funds to particular needs.
The Parliament has called on the Commission to ‘be guided by the information supplied by
international bodies and/or institutions charges with the task of monitoring respect for human
rights.’64 The Human Rights Regulations authorise technical and financial assistance aimed at
‘supporting action to monitor human rights, including the training of monitors.’65

• Activities and target groups

The Commission has supported monitoring by international NGOs specialised in,
for
example, children’s rights, in areas such as Bangladesh, the Palestinian territories, Croatia and
Russia. Funding has also been provided to UN monitoring operations and field missions in
Rwanda, Angola and Colombia.

• Allocation of funds

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 7,723,711 3,274,424 308,612

850,545

1996 : 7,723,711

1997 : 3,274,424

1998 : 308,612

1999 : 850,545

TOTAL: 12,157,292

63

64

65

Alston, P. & Weiler, J.H.H. An EU Human Rights Policy in Alston, P. ‘The EU and Human Rights’,
Oxford 1999, at 55
European Parliament Resolution A4-0381:97, ibid, op 10
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999, Article 2.1 (h) and No 976/1999, Article 3.1 (h)

36

• Regional distribution

MEDA
13%

Worldwide
1%

ACP
74%

Latin
America
9%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
3%

• Example: The Office of the High Commissioner in Colombia

In light of a deteriorating human rights situation in Colombia, the UN Commission on Human
Rights expressed deep concern about endemic violence, torture, impunity and violations of
the right to life.66 The Statement of the Chair concluded that, upon the initiative of the
Government of Colombia and ‘the identification of adequate sources of financing’, the High
Commissioner for Human Rights should establish a permanent office in Colombia with the
mandate to assist the Colombian authorities in developing policies for the promotion and
protection of human rights. ‘Adequate sources of financing’ were not immediately apparent
however. The High Commissioner’s Office was subject to serious financial restrictions and
could not have financed such a field operation other than through voluntary contributions,
which would have taken an unfeasible length of time given the urgency of the situation. This
was an ideal opportunity, therefore, for the European Union to target assistance to a concrete
project for the protection of human rights.

The provision of highly
qualified experts to
implement the mandate of
the High Commissioner’s
Office

The objectives of the Commission were to assist the
High Commissioner in bringing about much needed
change to the human rights situation, specifically by
the provision of highly-qualified experts to implement
the mandate of the Bogota office and evaluate its
work. In addition, the Commission envisaged a useful

‘exchange of experience, information and documentation’ between the experts and other Latin
American organisations receiving Community support. Following intensive negotiations
between the High Commissioner’s Office, the Government of Colombia and the Commission,
an Agreement on the establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner was concluded
and signed on 26 November 1996. The Community thus facilitated the operation of the office
for three years since 1996 by financing five human rights monitors, with a contribution of
approximately 1.3 million Euros.67

The 5 human rights monitors were chosen for their experience in UN field operations and
knowledge of international human rights and humanitarian law. Their tasks included advising
the Colombian authorities on formulating and implementing human rights policies and

66

67

53rd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Statement of the Chair under Item 9, 23 April
1996
B7-703, Project Nos. DEM/COL/96/57 & DEM/COL/97/39, ICJ ‘High Commissioner for Human
Rights Office in Bogota: 5 Human Rights Officers’

37

programmes in the context of endemic violence,
in conjunction with the Government,
Colombian NGOs and the ICRC. They were also mandated to receive complaints about
alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law, to provide an analysis of these
allegations and transmit them to competent national, regional and international bodies (for
example UN Treaty Bodies, Working Groups and Special Rapporteurs). The High
Commissioner’s Office has enhanced the awareness of the international community of the
human rights situation in Colombia, and without the assistance of the Commission, the Office
could not have opened. Human rights monitoring is a in many circumstances a difficult
in such projects should be
exercise, and careful appraisal for Community involvement
emphasised.

1.4.

INITIATIVES FOR TARGET GROUPS

25000000

20000000

15000000

10000000

5000000

0

Children and Young People: 8,454,492

Indigenous people: 3,548,396

Journalists and media professionals: 498,537

Magistrates, lawyers and court and prison staff: 2,489,823

National Minorities: 4,658,500

Prisoners: 2,848,138

Refugees, displaced persons and asylum seekers: 3,912,335

Military, police and security forces: 1,343,186

Victims of Torture: 24,388,010

The empowerment of women: 10,046,330

Rather than simply ‘viewing the individual in isolation’, the Commission has developed the
approach of focussing on the most vulnerable social groups.68 This has involved targeting
those who are discriminated against or deprived of their fundamental rights, with a view to
developing their protection as individuals. These groups include women, children, national
minorities, indigenous peoples, refugees and displaced persons, prisoners and victims of
torture. This approach is complemented by initiatives targeting professional groups who have
an impact on the human rights situation, such as journalists, lawyers and judges, and the
military, police and security forces.

68

COM (95) 567 final, ibid

38

1.4.1. Groups requiring special protection

(a)

The empowerment of women

• Background

The UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and the Platform for Action of the Beijing Fourth World Conference of Women
have received wide ratification and acclaim. The rights they enshrine, however, are frequently
unimplemented and women and girls around the world are increasingly the victims of serious
discrimination and violence.

The European Union attaches the highest importance to addressing women’s rights as part of
the human rights agenda and has, at all levels, reiterated the strong message of the Beijing
Platform for Action that ‘women’s rights are human rights’. The Amsterdam Treaty
substantially strengthens the legal basis for Community action in favour of gender equality.
Articles 2, 3 and 13 formalise the Union’s commitment to gender mainstreaming. The EU
supported the initiative to supplement CEDAW with an Optional Protocol creating the
possibility of individual complaints against States, and it has developed since 1996 a
European-wide policy in the fights against trafficking in women. The Tampere Council
conclusions on the area of freedom, security and justice make specific reference to the fight
against this phenomenon.

Respect for women’s human rights has been identified as the major priority for the 21st
Century by the Parliament in their first Annual Report on Human Rights, which declared that
‘the European Union has a great responsibility to promote women’s rights all over the world.69
The Parliament focussed on the prevention of violence against women, and ending social and
the
economic discrimination against
Parliament concluded, close cooperation is needed between international bodies such as the
UN and the EU on one hand, and national governments and NGOs on the other.

them. In order to stop violence against women,

The Human Rights Regulations also authorise the treatment of women as priority groups for
Community support. The new Commission is determined to make full use of the new powers
conferred to it by the Treaty. The ‘gender mainstreaming’ strategy identified by Beijing has
become central to the Commission’s equality policy. The Commission has been actively
involved in the five-year review of the Beijing Platform for Action and it declared 1999 as the
year against violence against women. The Commission declared 1999 as the year against
violence against women and it has lead the European Community delegation to the Special
Session of the UN General Assembly on ‘Beijing + 5’ in June 2000.

• Activities and target groups

Worldwide, the Commission provided support to enhance the status of women and to protect
them from discrimination and violence. Projects in the Middle East have included those
supporting the economic and political empowerment of women, including the promotion of
equal access to elections, and help for the victims of sexual abuse. In Latin America, legal aid
programmes and training courses for the police on gender-based violence has been funded. In
Asia, the reintegration of sex workers and other forms of assistance to victims of trafficking

69

European Parliament Annual Report on International Human Rights and European Union Human
Rights Policy, 1999, PR\387649EN.doc, at 13

39

has been a theme, and in the Mediterranean, support has gone to legal aid assistance and
projects which promote women’s rights in conflict situations.

Action in Africa has included assistance to women’s self-help groups, for the participation of
women in democracy, and for legal advice centres and summer schools on women’s rights. In
Europe, supported areas included capacity building for women’s associations, rape trauma
counselling and therapy for female victims of war. Training for lawyers, NGOs and local
government officials and the prevention of trafficking in women were also key areas of
assistance.

• Allocation of funds

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996 : 3,067,811

1997 : 3,880,405

1998 : 2,512,648

1999 : 585,466

Euro 3,067,811 3,880,405 2,512,648 585,466

TOTAL: 10,046,330

• Regional distribution

Worldwide

5%

MEDA
27%

Latin
America
6%

ACP
18%

Asia
2%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
42%

• Example: ‘La Strada’: Prevention of trafficking of women in Central and

Eastern Europe

The Dutch Foundation against Traffic in Women (STV) help develop policies against
trafficking in women and provide victim support. Their programme ‘La Strada’ (The Street),
which concentrates on the Czech Republic, Poland and the Ukraine has received 400,000
Euros from the Commission since 1996.70 The forced supply of women as prostitutes from
Central and Eastern European and Newly Independent countries is almost certainly on the
increase. The economic situation in these countries and the false promises of traffickers
induce women to seek a better life in another country, where they are exposed to serious
violations of their human rights. Having entered the new country illegally and been stripped

70

PHARE D. Project Nos. 97-0111p & 97-0226T and PHARE D. & TACIS D. 98-3049 STV ‘La Strada
programme: prevention of trafficking in women in Central and Eastern Europe’

40

of their passports, burdened with fraudulent debt or threatened with exposure to the
authorities, traffickers keep these women in constant fear.

Developing specialist
NGOs in the region to
combat trafficking and
provide victim support

La Strada aims to bring this problem to the attention of
the public and the authorities, to provide support to the
victims and warn women of
this
phenomenon. STV cooperates closely with local NGOs

the dangers of

and seeks to develop specialist NGOs in the region to combat trafficking. Three main
activities are developed: press and lobby campaigns, prevention/education campaigns and
victim support campaigns. In Poland, the ‘youth media’ has been the principle target of a
campaign to establish contacts and facilitate exchanges with colleagues from other partner
countries. Considerable interest was generated, with a national TV documentary and an
audience with the Polish President. The prevention/education campaign targeted young girls
and women by distributing leaflets through churches, schools and by opening a telephone
help-line. A team of volunteers provided legal, medical and emotional support to victims.

In the Czech Republic, a ‘Czech-Slovak-Dutch’ training seminar on traffic in women raised
awareness of the subject with social workers already working with prostitutes, from which an
action plan emerged to prevent
trafficking and help victims. Building on the expertise
developed by La Strada, the International Organisation for Migrations (IOM) is developing
two campaigns to fight against the trafficking of women in Hungary and Bulgaria, in the
framework of the EU/US Transatlantic Dialogue.

(b)

Children

• Background

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has the highest number of ratifications of any
human rights convention, with only two UN Member States yet to sign. However, the
situation of these most vulnerable members of society remains precarious throughout the
world. An estimated 2 million children have been killed and 6 million injured in armed
conflict since 1990; at least 250 million children between the age of 5 and 14 are obliged to
work for a living, often in appalling conditions.71 Trafficking of children and their sexual
exploitation is a matter of serious concern. The Parliament has called on the Commission to
integrate the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into its work, and to
pay particular attention to child labour, and trafficking in children and their sexual
exploitation. 72

The EU, in conjunction with Latin American countries, introduces a resolution on the rights
of the child at the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly every
year. As the EU explained at the 55th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights:

“All aspects of human rights are related to children: the state of children’s rights in a
country is an indication of the human rights situation in general”73

71

72

73

EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 51 & 52
European Parliament Resolution A4-0486/98 op. 63
55th Session, 1999, on Res. 1999/80. EU statement on ‘The rights of the child’

41

The Amsterdam Treaty specifically calls for action on offences against children and the
Council has emphasised that the rights of the child are a clear priority for the EU.74 It has
highlighted several areas of primary importance, namely: the girl child, children in armed
conflict, sexual exploitation of children and child labour. The Human Rights Regulations state
that Community action should focus on those discriminated against or suffering from poverty
or disadvantage, including children.75

• Activities and target groups

Community support has been targeted in six main areas between 1996 and 1999. Firstly on
the general promotion of the rights of the child, training programmes, conferences and
monitoring exercises on international standards, particularly the Convention on the Rights of
the Child were funded. Other main areas of support have been projects which protect and
reintegrate street children and combat child labour; initiatives to protect the legal rights of
imprisoned minors; projects for the medical and physiological treatment and rehabilitation of
child war victims and refugees; programmes to prevent violence and sexual abuse against
children; and finally, enterprises which seek to empower children through interactive
education.
Implementing organisations have included children’s charities, universities,
national government ministries, broadcasters, workers associations and local youth centres.

• Allocation of funds

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 2,596,903 2,227,382 1,089,261 2,540,946

• Regional distribution

1996 : 2,596,903

1997 : 2,227,382

1998 : 1,089,261

1999 : 2,540,946

TOTAL: 8,454,492

MEDA
6%

Worldwide

6%

Latin
America
15%

ACP
26%

Asia
3%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
44%

74

75

EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, at 50
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 perambular para.14 and No 976/1999 perambular para.14

42

• Example: International Network on Juvenile Justice

Defence for Children International (DCI) have established a worldwide network for
organisations working for the development and improvement of juvenile justice systems in
accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The project was supported by the
Commission, to the amount of 75,780 Euros in 1997.76 The objectives of this network were to
strengthen and coordinate efforts of organisations working directly or indirectly with juvenile
justice, and to maintain a forum for organisations and experts working at the national,
international and regional levels. There is a need for better coordination between such
organisations, and to avoid duplication of work. DCI, a Swiss-based international NGO, has
consultative status with ECOSOC, UNESCO, UNICEF and the Council of Europe. It is
experienced in issues relating to the Convention, and on the training of social workers, etc on
the application of legal instruments related to the rights of the child. Their action in the field is
carried out by national sections and associated organisations in over 60 countries. The
Network has functioned as a focal point for these organisations, and is open to any group
active in the field.

A worldwide network
working for the
development and
improvement of
juvenile justice

The network provided an information and documentation
centre, a database on children’s rights organisations and
of
production
international
specialised publications, monitoring the implementation of
the Convention,
to State parties on relevant
legislation, and technical support to network members.

distribution

services

events,

and

The Information centre collected relevant national and international legislation and guidelines,
and researched ‘best practices’ in the field of juvenile justice. The database contains
information on organisations active in the field, and activities aimed at
implementing
technical assistance or advisory services, classified according to regions and counties.
Publications produced focus on national experience in implementing juvenile justice; the first
volume concentrated on children in conflict in Africa. The Network Secretariat analyses State
party reports submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the
complimentary information provide by NGOs. In terms of technical assistance, the Network
provided support for NGO training programmes and fundraising efforts necessary for the
Implementation of such initiatives. The network also cooperated with international, regional
intergovernmental organisations, including the UN Centre for Human Rights, UNICEF and
the UN Division for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

(c)

National minorities

• Background

Article 27 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that ‘minorities shall not be
denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own
culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.’ The 1992
UN Declaration on Minorities added specific reference to persons belonging to national
minorities. The UN Committee on Human Rights adopted a General Comment in 1994, which
made it clear that positive measures of protection are required against the denial or violation
of this right.77 The Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National

76

77

B7-7040, Project No. 97/247 Defence for Children International ‘International Network on Juvenile
Justice’
General Comment 23 on Article 27 of the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add,5. of 26 April 1994

43

Minorities and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages have also been
important contributions to international standards in this area. The OSCE has also been at the
forefront of standard setting for the protection of minorities; the creation of an OSCE High
Commissioner on National Minorities highlighted the significance of this issue as part of the
international human rights agenda. At the 55th Session of the UN Commission on Human
Rights, Austria, introduced a resolution on the rights of persons belonging to minorities,
which was co-sponsored by the other EU members of CHR.78 It expresses concern about the
‘victimisation or marginalisation of minorities’ and the tragic consequences of the growing
frequency and severity of conflicts regarding minorities in many countries.

The Copenhagen criteria, adopted by the Council in 1993 requires that candidate countries for
membership to the EU have ‘established respect for and protection of minorities’ and The
Human Rights Regulations authorise Community support for minorities and ethnic groups.79
The Commission has underlined the priority accorded to the protection of minorities in its
Communication of June 1999 on ‘Countering racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism in the
candidate countries’.80 The Parliament has also expressed itself on this issue, calling for a
religious,
‘redoubling of international efforts to end large-scale discrimination against
national, linguistic or ethnic minorities.’81

• Activities and target groups

Projects supported by the Commission have included the provision of education and technical
services for persons belonging to minority groups including Roma, projects of cultural
inter-community
preservation,
reconciliation initiatives, and capacity-building schemes for minority community associations.
Partner organisations included established minority rights organisations, community forums
and documentation centres.

training programmes,

local government

and judicial

• Allocation of funds

3.000.000

2.500.000

2.000.000

1.500.000

1.000.000

500.000

0

1996 : 1,374,318

1997 : 660,893

1998 : 2,542,602

1999 : 80,687

1996

1997

1998

1999

TOTAL: 4,658,500

Euros 1.374.318 660.893 2.542.602 80.687

78

79

80

81

UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1999/48 ‘Rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities’
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 Article 2.1 (d) and No 976/1999 Article 3.1 (d)
Commission Communication on Countering Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism in the Candidate
Countries COM (1999) 256 final of 26 May 1999
European Parliament Resolution A4-0410/98

44

• Regional distribution

Worldwide
10%

ACP
3%

MEDA
8%

Latin
America
8%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
71%

• Example: Minorities in Estonia and Latvia

The status of large numbers of Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, both of whom are
candidate countries to join the EU, has been a controversial matter since the break-up of the
Soviet Union. Problems of minority rights and cultural diversity are compounded by disputes
over political rights, as many Russians in the Baltic States were not granted automatic
citizenship.

Pressing for the adoption
of a more inclusive public
policy and respect for
minorities

Activists from the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and
Ethnic Studies, the United Nations Association of Latvia,
the Estonian Human Rights Institute, Citizen’s Watch in
St. Petersburg and the International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights have exchanged information and

engaged in dialogue, in an attempt to find common solutions to these problems, based on
international human rights standards. The Latvian Centre is a respected source of information
and analysis on human rights and ethnic relations, and a forceful advocate for minority rights
and inter-ethnic dialogue. The partner organisations are widely experienced, and together,
represented an impressive pool of expertise.

The Commission has supported the initiative ‘Integration through reconciliation: a Baltic-
Russian-Scandinavian co-operation project’, providing 83,642 Euros in 1997.82 The objectives
of the project were to promote understanding of ethnic issues to a broad audience and press
for the adoption of a more inclusive public policy, and respect for minorities in conformity
with international standards. The project involves research on the status of minorities and
non-citizens, and a series of working group meetings culminating in seminars held outside the
capital cities. Provincial cities in Estonia and Latvia with large Russian speaking communities
were chosen. Other activities included drafting policy guidelines for legislation on citizenship,
language policy, minority education and civil rights, for central and local governments and
international organisations. The project has strengthened channels of communication between
Governments and NGOs and laid the groundwork for increased cooperation throughout this
region.

82

PHARE D. and TACIS D. Project Nos. 97-0323P & 97-0244T, Latvian Centre for Human Rights and
Ethnic Studies ‘Integration through reconciliation: a Baltic-Russian-Scandinavian co-operation project’

45

(d)

Indigenous people

• Background

Despite similarities between the categories of ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples,
indigenous peoples are not covered by Article 27 of ICCPR. ILO Convention No. 169
concerning indigenous and tribal peoples, adopted in 1991, is a legally binding instrument
which imposes duties of consultation on governments on matters which will effect indigenous
peoples. In 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights set up an open-ended working group
with the purpose of elaborating a draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. The
Parliament has called for ‘greater recognition and protection…in particular of the rights of
indigenous peoples.’83 In November 1998, a Council resolution on indigenous people was
adopted, which underlined that cooperation with indigenous peoples is ‘essential for the
objectives of poverty elimination…the observance of human rights and the development of
democracy’.84 The Council acknowledged the importance that indigenous people attach to the
affirmation of their 'self-development'; the shaping of their own social, economic and cultural
development and their own cultural identities, and it noted in particular that indigenous
peoples have the right
to choose their own development paths. The Human Rights
Regulations provide for Community support to indigenous peoples.85

In 1998, the Commission adopted a working document which set out a general policy
framework on support for indigenous peoples.86 It defined priority areas as: assistance in
national efforts of recognising indigenous people’s rights, training and education, capacity-
building, development of long term economic strategies and encouraging the participation of
indigenous peoples in international negotiations. At this time, numerous discussions and
contacts were established with different actors in the indigenous world, and their proposals
and recommendations taken into account to maximise the eventual impact of Commission
interventions.

The above exercises have been integrated into the guidelines for selecting programmes of
action, which prioritise projects that reinforce capacity-building, so as to provide methods for
indigenous people’s associations to make their voice heard and to be partners throughout the
entire development process. The guidelines aim also for the exchange of information between
the effective
indigenous groups, development agencies and the Commission, and for
for
tools
implementation of
communication and public information.

‘micro-projects’, which are in themselves very useful

• Activities and target groups

Activities included enhancing the capacity of indigenous peoples' organisations, for example
of the International Alliance of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests a platform
of organisations covering 49 countries, based in London. Projects were also coordinated by
the experienced NGO IWGIA, which carries out micro-projects with indigenous peoples’
organisations. The experienced indigenous peoples’ organisation the Saami Council carried
regional studies managed by indigenous experts with the aim of disseminating
out

83

84

85

86

European Parliament Resolution A4-0410/98, para. 23
Council Resolution of 30 November 1998
Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 Article 2.1 (d) and No 976/1999 Article 3.1 (d)
Working document of the Commission of May 1998 on Support for Indigenous Peoples in the
Development Cooperation of the Community and the Member States, SEC (98) 773 final

46

information and recommendations on the ground and to donors, in the spirit of the Council
Resolution which underlined the ‘right to choose their own developments paths’.

representatives of

Training programmes for
indigenous communities on international
developments in the field of human rights and indigenous politics have also been supported. It
to promote coordination between the major NGOs and indigenous
has been important
peoples’ organisations supported by the European Commission to ensure the optimal impact
for the indigenous peoples and Community funding. Partner organisations have also included
centres of research and resources for indigenous communities and the documentation and
dissemination of information such as the projects financed through two European NGOs,
FERN and Rainforest foundation.

• Allocation of funds

3.000.000

2.500.000

2.000.000

1.500.000

1.000.000

500.000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

560.500

220.752 2.500.371 266.773

• Regional distribution

1996 : 560,500

1997 : 220,752

1998 : 2,500,371

1999 : 266,773

TOTAL: 3,548,396

Latin
America
10%

Worldwide

4%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
5%

ACP
81%

• Example: L’auraveti an indigenous information centre

The Moscow-based organisation Severnye Prostory received 180,752 Euros from the
Commission in 1997 for an innovative project to improve the situation of indigenous peoples
in Russia.87 The initiative trained 48 individuals from indigenous communities on how to use
international human rights instruments, with the aim of transferring these skills to members of
their communities.

87

TACIS D. Project No. 98-4008, Severnye Prostory ‘L’auraveti an indigenous information centre’

47

Training indigenous
communities how to use
international human rights
instruments

the

The training involved individuals from six regions of
Indigenous
cooperation
Russia with
Information Centre in Moscow. The Centre established a
data bank of information on international experts in law,
finance, management, health care and education involved

the

of

in assisting indigenous communities. A juridical database of legal texts relevant to indigenous
matters was also created. Other activities included two seminars for Parliamentarians,
officials from the Russian Ministry for Nationalities, human rights bodies and the media. The
objectives of these events was to demonstrate the need for active participation by indigenous
communities in the decision-making process, to inform them of applicable instruments, to
discuss international events concerning indigenous rights and to organise future cooperation.

(e)

Refugees and displaced persons

• Background

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’. This fundamental standard has
been supplemented by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1954
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, intended to establish a safeguard for
the protection of the human rights of refugees.

The 55th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution introduced by
Austria, expressed deep concern at
the ‘alarmingly high numbers of displaced persons
throughout the world who receive inadequate protection and assistance.’88 The Parliament has
identified the issue of refugees and asylum seekers as a global theme of EU human rights
policy.89 There are an estimated 25 million refugees in the world today,
including the
internally displaced, many of whom live in desperate conditions. In the Parliament’s Annual
Report, the plight of women and children refugees is highlighted; they are often the first
victims in many refugee communities. Sexual violence against women and girls in refugee
camps is frequently reported, and children constitute 52% of the global refugee population.
The Council confirmed this as a priority area in its Regulations which outline that Community
operations should focus on inter alia refugees.90

• Activities and target groups

World-wide assistance to refugees, displaced persons and asylum seekers is targeted towards
the defence of their legal rights, and on providing medical treatment and psychological
support, as they will frequently have been victims of additional abuse. Projects for the return
or reintegration of refugees, monitoring and fact-finding missions, and the production of
handbooks for refugee organisations have also been supported. Organisations involved
included regional human rights NGOs, refugee councils, and support groups for the victims of
violence.

88

89

90

UN Commission on Human Rights 55th Session Resolution 1999/47. ‘Internally displaced persons’
European Parliament Annual Report on Human Rights 1999 at 31
Council Regulations (EC) No. 975/1999, perambular para. 14 and No. 976/1999, perambular para. 14

48

• Allocation of funds

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 1,320,988 269,784 1,067,068 1,254,495

• Regional distribution

1996 : 1,320,988

1997 : 269,784

1998 : 1,067,068

1999 : 1,254,495

TOTAL: 3,912,335

Worldwide

48%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
42%

ACP
1%

MEDA
9%

• Example: Displaced women and children in Tuzla, Bosnia

In 1999, the Commission provided 1,030,000 Euros to HMD International (Humanitarian
Medical and Development Aid) for a programme providing psychological counselling and
medical assistance to internally displaced women and children in the Tuzla canton of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.91

Monitoring and improving
the health of displaced
persons and refugees

The objectives of this project included monitoring and
improving the psychological needs and health of
displaced persons and refugees, stimulating the social
interaction of isolated individuals, targeting the most

marginalised group. HMD cooperate with the activities of the organisation Physicians for
Human Rights in offering therapy to the target group of traumatised and raped women, and
those suffering trauma from the identification of exhumed bodies. The project aims to develop
training techniques and programmes to address these needs. Medical examinations and
counselling are provided on a regular basis, through the HMD’s Women Centre in Tuzla. In
addition, two mobile teams composed of a doctor and social workers provide services to
remote and inaccessible communities throughout the Canton. Support is provided to families
involved in the identification process of missing relatives, from the first moment of the

91

B7-704, Project No.99/0015 HMD International ‘Medical assistance and psychological services for
displaced women and children in Tuzla, Bosnia’

49

process until after burial. Workers are also trained to identify and provide counselling for
victims of rape and torture.

Assistance is also required for families with members suffering from mental health and
disability problems. A psychiatrist works with a wide range of mental health illnesses, by
providing individual counselling and, where appropriate, drug therapy, and, in conjunction
with social workers, to promote a better understanding and tolerance of mentally ill people
within the family and the wider community. A special education teacher works alongside a
physiotherapist with handicapped children and their families. Their role is to make an initial
assessment of each child and develop a programme of care catering to their individual needs.
They also contribute to developing the parent’s ability to cope with their child’s disability and
to combating the stigma, which the handicapped and those with learning disabilities often
suffer from.

An additional benefit of the project has been the strengthening of the capacity of local
associations and organisations to offer support to displaced persons and refugees, and the
development of more highly skilled counsellors and medical staff in this region.

(f)

Prisoners

• Background

According to Human Rights Watch, conditions in many prisons are so deficient as to
constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, violating Article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Specific failings can also be enumerated under the
more detailed provisions of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
which, although integrated into the prison laws of many countries, ‘few if any prison systems
have observed all of their prescriptions in practice.’92

The Parliament has expressed its ‘deep shock at the continuing use, in most countries in the
world, and even in democracies of reprehensible practices such as…torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment in places of imprisonment’93, and has called for special attention to be
devoted to particularly vulnerable groups of prisoners. The Parliament stresses the social
rehabilitative function of prison; what is sought is the ‘human and social reintegration of the
prisoner.’94

The EU supports efforts under way to adopt a draft optional protocol to the Convention
Against Torture, which would provide access to monitoring bodies to places of detention.
Standard-setting work is done in this area by the Council of Europe Committee for the
Prevention of Torture, which has wide authority to inspect prisons and detention centres
throughout Europe. The Human Rights Regulations identify prisoners as a priority group on
which Community support should be focused.95

• Activities and target groups

Throughout the world, the Commission has supported the protection of detained minors and
the production and distribution of reports on prison conditions. Legal aid was provided for

92

93

94

95

Human Rights Watch World Report 2000 (November 1998-October 1999) at 488
European Parliament Resolution A4-0400/96, pp J.
European Parliament Resolution A4-0468/98, para 78.
Council Regulations (EC) No. 975/1999, perambular para. 14 and No. 976/1999, perambular para. 14

50

prisoners in Asia, and projects in Europe concentrated on prison monitoring and training for
prison staff. In Latin America, ‘alert mechanisms’ for detainees and medical care for abused
prisoners were funded. Workshops and training courses on prisoner’s rights were supported in
Africa. Special categories of prisoners were assisted in the Middle East through advocacy
projects for prisoners detained without trial, and in the Caribbean for prisoners under the
sentence of death. Implementing partners included penal reform organisations, national
ministries of justice and medical human rights groups.

• Allocation of funds

2.000.000

1.500.000

1.000.000

500.000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

441.000

461.414

280.000

1.665.724

• Regional distribution

1996 : 441,000

1997 : 461,414

1998 : 280,000

1999 : 1,665,724

TOTAL: 2,848,138

Worldwide

29%

MEDA
19%

ACP
30%

Latin
America
22%

• Example: Prisoners in Egypt detained without trial

The Human Rights Centre for the Assistance of Prisoners is a Cairo-based NGO whose
general objective is to improve the criminal system and the laws and regulations which
govern prisons in Egypt. The Centre monitors prison conditions, brings legal cases on behalf
of detainees, publish reports and hold seminars on prison conditions.

Monitoring prison
conditions and
investigating violations of
the rights of detainees

The project on human rights advocacy for prisoners was
funded by the Commission in 1998 to the amount of
160,000 Euros.96 It’s objectives are to improve prison
laws and regulations in conformity with the UN Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the

96

B7-705, Project No. 98Mas24, Human Rights Centre for the Assistance of Prisoners ‘Human rights
advocacy project for prisoners in Egypt detained without trial’

51

Convention against Torture; to encourage the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into
society; to ameliorate living, social and health conditions of prisoners; to defend the rights of
prisoners and provide them with legal assistance; and to promote awareness of human rights
standards among prison staff as well as prisoners. The project comprised of: monitoring
prison conditions and investigating violations of the rights of detainees in prisons or police
stations through on-site inspections and bringing legal cases on behalf of the victims of such
violations, for compensation or against the non-execution of court rulings for the release of
detainees. The project provided lawyers to attend interrogations of detainees particularly in
cases related to freedom of opinion and expression. Seminars and conferences on prisoners’
rights were organised with leading academics and penologists; and periodical reports on
prison conditions and legal cases, and educational booklets for the general public were
published. The Centre was founded in 1997 by members of the People’s Assembly, lawyers,
academics, psychiatrists and human rights activists, and it also receives funding from the
Canadian Government.

(g)

Victims of torture

• Background

Torture is prohibited by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and by the
UN Convention against Torture (CAT). It is an absolute prohibition: under no circumstances
is the use of torture permissible. Article 1 of CAT defines torture as ‘any act by which severe
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.’ Europe
has been a standard bearer in the prevention of torture; the Council of Europe’s Convention
against Torture provides for a Committee which can conduct on-site inspections in any place
of detention, without the prior permission of member States. Discussions are under way in the
UN to provide for a similar mechanism for CAT, a development which the EU supports.

The EU is very concerned by the continuing widespread use of torture and by the pain and
suffering caused to the victims. At the 55th Commission on Human Rights, the EU drew
attention to the fact that 73 UN member States have not committed themselves to CAT, and
among those who have, it noted with regret that some Governments have failed to respond to
requests by the UN Special Rapporteur for visits.97 Similarly, at the Third Committee of the
54th General Assembly, the EU recognised that
it ‘itself is not free from incidents of
detention which violate international standards.’98

The Parliament has created a special budget line B7-7070 to provide assistance to victims of
torture and support for their physical, social and psychological rehabilitation and torture was
theme by the Parliament’s Annual Report on human rights. It
identified as a global
emphasised that ‘victims of torture are especially vulnerable, since the act is committed by a
state agent and they lack any real chance of legal redress’. Rehabilitation of victims of torture
must be an integral part of peacemaking and democratisation.99 The Human Rights
Regulations explicitly state that Community support should go to support for rehabilitation
centres for torture victims and for organisations offering concrete help to victims of human
rights abuses or to help prevent torture or ill-treatment.100 The Commission’s approach in
assisting victims of torture is to ‘work with the specialised bodies which help local bodies

97

98

99

100

UN Commission on Human Rights 55th Session, EU Statement on civil and political rights, April 1999
UN General Assembly 54th Session Third Committee, EU Statement on civil and political rights,
November 1999
ibid, at 32
Council Regulations (EC) No 975, Article 2.1 (f) and No 976, Article 3.1 (f)

52

during the preparatory and initial stages of implementation, and which generate awareness,
research and documentation initiatives.’ 101

• Activities and target groups

The Commission has provided substantial support for the treatment and care of torture
victims; it is in fact the largest provider of such assistance in the world. In Europe, emphasis
has been placed on the rehabilitation of war and torture survivors from the former Yugoslavia.
Funds have supported the treatment and care of special categories of war victims: women and
children, refugees and asylum seekers, and victims of sexual violence, including special
programmes on male victims. Additional activities in Europe have included research and
development of new forms of therapy, such as non-verbal and culturally specific, and medico-
legal casework. In the MEDA region, assistance has focussed on countering the abuse of
prisoners and detainees, empowering survivors of torture and developing capacity in the area
of forensic medicine. Women and children victims were targeted in the ACP region, in
projects which included transporting victims from war zones. Emphasis here was also placed
on preventative strategies. In Latin America, projects addressed adolescent victims, victims of
state-sponsored terrorism and organised political violence, and on specialist
training
programmes. The training of doctors, lawyers and other professionals was a theme in Asia,
where rehabilitation centres for survivors of torture were also supported.

• Allocation of funds

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros 4,682,000 5,290,478 8,436,350 5,979,182

• Regional distribution

1996 : 4,682,000

1997 : 5,290,478

1998 : 8,436,350

1999 : 5,979,182

TOTAL: 24,388,010

Worldwide

46%

ACP
4%

Asia
8%

MEDA
8%

Latin
America
8%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
26%

101

COM (95) 567 final, ibid.

53

• Example: Treatment and rehabilitation centres in Turkey

In 1998, only a few days after public inauguration of a fifth rehabilitation centre of the
Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) in Diyarbarkir, at which the Commission
Delegation was represented, the centre was closed by police. This is part of a pattern of
harassment and intimidation of the staff and patients of these centres. Between 1996 and
1998, HRFT was granted 630,000 Euros for its Rehabilitation Centres for Torture Victims.102
The HRFT has been funded by the Commission since 1994, and receives the full support of
the Commission Delegation in Ankara.

Free medical and
psychological services to
torture survivors and their
relatives

The centres provide free medical and psychological
services in Adana, Ankara, Diyarbarjir, Istanbul and Izir
train health
to torture survivors and their
personnel on the subject of torture and its consequences,
conduct research into the problems of torture survivors,

relatives,

and provide social assistance to survivors and their families. Torture survivors who apply to
the centres are interviewed and medically examined by the professional team at the centre.
Medico-legal reports taken at this time serve as an accurate record of human rights abuse, and
the taking of testimonies is itself a crucial first step towards recovery. Applicants apply at
their own initiative or are referred by medical associations and bar associations. Those who
need further examination are referred to specialists working outside the HRFT; all expenses
regarding torture related problems of the applicants are paid by the Foundation.

The following services have also been provided: psychotherapy and counselling, clinical
psychology, specialist medical care for those who have been sexually tortured and raped,
psychiatric care and physical therapy. The HRFT provides a considerable amount of training
training course was arranged in Stockholm
of health professionals. An international
concerning training for care-givers. HRFT is the only organisation carrying out
torture
rehabilitation work in Turkey, and its work is recognised by experts such as International
Rehabilitation Council (IRCT-Copenhagen) and the Swedish Red Cross with whom it
collaborates. The organisation also receives support from the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims
of Torture and the Swedish Support Committee for Human Rights.

1.4.2.

Priority groups for protection and awareness-raising

(a)

Journalists and media professionals

• Background

The right to freedom of expression and the media was highlighted in part 1.3.1. Journalists
and media professionals are uniquely placed to promote human rights and democratic values
and are at the forefront of the fight to protect these rights. They are often, as a result,
particularly vulnerable to abuse, and deserving of protection. The Parliament has highlighted
that in several States journalists are sentenced to jail by the governments as a means to silence
criticism.

102

B7-7070, Project No. 96/149 & B7-7040, Project No. 98/002, Human Rights Foundation of Turkey
‘Treatment and rehabilitation centres for the survivors of torture’

54

In 1999, at least 28 journalists were killed.103 The Parliament also stressed the importance of
providing proper access for the media to new technologies, such as the Internet. The
Commission has emphasised that journalists are particular target groups. 104

• Activities and target groups

The division between activities in support of freedom of expression and those protecting
journalists is somewhat artificial, however, actions which address media professions as
individuals have been included in this part. In the MEDA region, the particular problems of
the access of journalists to new
journalists in war zones were addressed,
technologies and the role of journalist associations in South Eastern Europe received
attention.

in Europe,

• Allocation of funds

350.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

301.785

196.752

0

0

• Regional distribution

1996 : 301,785

1997 : 196,752

1998 : 0

1999 : 0

TOTAL: 498,537

MEDA
1%

Asia
1%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
98%

103

104

European Parliament Annual Report on Human Rights 1999, ibid, at 30
COM (95) 567 final, ibid.

55

• Example: Training journalists in new technology

The acquisition of
knowledge and techniques
about democratic
principles and the rule of
law

The Association for Democracy in the Balkans trains
journalists in new technologies and on the role of
journalist associations in South-Eastern Europe. This
project was supported by the Commission in 1997, to the
amount of 196,752 Euros.105
Its objective was the
acquisition of knowledge and techniques about

democratic principles and the rule of law by media professionals. It aimed to provide means
of securing a responsible free press for journalists in the Balkans. Specific activities included
training journalists from Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria and FYROM in modern mass media
techniques, publishing reports and seminars on the comparative experience of European
journalists’ associations.

(b)

Magistrates, lawyers and court and prison staff

• Background

Bolstering the rule of law is an essential element of promoting democratisation and respect for
human rights. For countries in a state of transition, special assistance is required for legal and
penal professionals, not just in human rights matters as touched on in part 1.2.2, but to
strengthen their professional skills. The Human Rights Regulations provide for support to
uphold the independence of the judiciary and for a humane prison service106 and the
Commission has identified magistrates and the judiciary in general as priority target groups. 107

• Activities and target groups

Programmes in support of legal and penal professionals in Europe concentrated on the
organisational structures of the legal profession, training of judges in asylum procedures and
justice monitoring programmes.
training was provided to judges,
In Latin America,
prosecutors and defence lawyers on the penal process, and regional courses organised to
promote judicial consistency. Training for prison guards constituted a priority in Asia and in
the MEDA region, university legal training and campaigns for the independence of the
Implementing partners included judges’ organisations, bar
judiciary were supported.
associations, international NGOs such as Penal Reform International, universities and legal
centres.

105

106

107

PHARE D. & TACIS D. Project Nos. 98-3034P & 98-4024T, The Association for Democracy in the
Balkans ‘Journalists training on new technologies and the role of journalists associations in South
Eastern Europe’
Council Regulations (EC) No. 975, Article 2.2 (a) and No. 976, Article 3.2 (a)
COM (95) 567 final, ibid.

56

• Allocation of funds

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euro

630,697

937,900

921,226

0

• Regional distribution

1996 : 630,697

1997 : 937,900

1998 : 921,226

1999 : 0

TOTAL: 2,489,823

Worldwide

14%

ACP
5%

MEDA
22%

Latin
America
25%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
34%

• Example: Legal Training in the West Bank and Gaza

Following the Oslo peace accords, lawyers were nominated as advisors to the ministries and
agencies of the new Palestine authority. The lack of experience of legal personnel could
therefore have been detrimental to the protection of fundamental rights for Palestinian
citizens. There was a clear need to ensure that new lawyers have the proper skills and values
to serve the public and restore the rule of law in Palestine. With this in mind, the Commission
the Birzeit
provided 409,000 Euros in 1997 and 1998 for the Legal Training Unit at
University Law Centre.108

Comprehensive, high-
quality legal training to
create stability and
restore confidence in
the rule of law

The objectives of the Unit were to create a tradition of
quality legal training, to restore high professional standards
for Palestinian lawyers and judges, and to assist
in the
development of a unified system of law in Palestine. The
project was particularly relevant given the complicated legal
framework of the region, which is influenced by Jordanian,

Egyptian, Ottoman and Israeli
in
implementation of this project include legal training courses focusing on information, skills
and values for lawyers, judges and prosecutors, leading to a certificate in legal practice;
seminars and ‘legal encounter’ groups; and legal education and orientation workshops for

tenets. The specific activities of

the Unit

legal

108

B7-705, Project Nos. 97-Mas53 & 98Mas102, Birzeit University Law Centre ‘Legal Training Unit’

57

lawyers and judges on substantive areas of law, new legal developments and the procedural
aspects of the legal process in the West Bank and Gaza.

Additionally, the Unit provided a training course for trainers in which innovative educational
methods were taught. The Unit’s methodology is based on active and participatory learning
focussing on legal writing and drafting, and mock trials including human rights and criminal
procedure cases. The Unit has also used video-conferencing technology to overcome the
problems of travelling between the West Bank and Gaza, and make joint sessions between the
two centres possible. In addition, the legal unit has access to the Internet and the ‘Lexis-
Nexis’ legal database.

(c)

Military, police and security forces

• Background

Abuses by military, police and security forces have been well-documented in many countries,
and are almost always symptomatic of wider human rights problems. Just as corrupt, ill-
disciplined officers can be a major cause of the serious disregard of human rights; so can
highly trained, professionalised and accountable personnel be at the vanguard of human rights
protection. As post-conflict experience has shown, local security forces have a pivotal role to
play in the reconstruction of peace and confidence-building. The Council cites an objective of
Community funding as ‘supporting national efforts to separate civilian and military functions,
training civilian and military personnel and raising their awareness of human rights’.109

• Activities and target groups

Many of the activities of the Commission in this area are cross-cutting concerns with the
fields of human rights education and the subordination of the armed forces to civilian
authorities. Other actions include the encouragement of cooperation between different police
forces in Central and Eastern Europe, highlighting the role of police with regard to elections
in Latin America and providing training to the new security services of the Palestinian
international human rights research
authority. Beneficiaries included anti-torture groups,
centres and an association of soldier’s mothers.

• Allocation of funds

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

Euros

746,384

0

596,802

0

1996 : 746,384

1997 : 0

1998 : 596,802

1999 : 0

TOTAL: 1,343,186

109

Council Regulations (EC) No 975, Article 2.2 (g) and No 976, Article 3.2 (g)

58

• Regional distribution

MEDA
23%

Latin
America
18%

CEEC, SEE
and NIS
59%

• Example: Military Watch – Consultation centre and task force for assuring

the human rights of soldiers and conscripts

Military torture cases of the 1970s demonstrated that soldiers who are the victims of human
rights abuse are more likely themselves to become abusers. The aim of this project was to
address the conditions of young recruits in the Ukrainian military by conducting a continuous
public relations campaign on ‘Armed Forces and Human Rights’ and to carry out civilian
monitoring of security structures. It was organised by the Association of Soldier’s Mothers in
the town of Spilka and featured workshops and consultations with the target groups of the
project: military staff, draftees, lawyers, the media and members of commissions responsible
for the appraisal of conscientious objectors, for all of whom training courses were also
arranged. The Commission provided 200,000 Euros to the project in 1996.110

Monitoring court cases
involving draftees and
soldiers

Individual and collective consultations were provided to
young people of draft age, draftees, soldiers and their
families on their
In addition,
relevant Ukrainian legislation was analysed and amended

rights and obligations.

versions, which would enhance the protection of young soldiers, drafted and promoted,
including by lobbying MPs. Court cases involving draftees and soldiers were monitored and a
small legal aid fund established.

110

TACIS D. Project No. 97-0240, Association of Soldiers’ Mothers ‘Military Watch- consultation centre
and task force for assuring the human rights of soldiers and conscripts’

59

PART 2

2.

2.1.

GEOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY

ACP countries, including South Africa and Nigeria

• Background

The European Union has, since 1996 reinforced its position as a major actor in the
ACP countries. The fourth Lomé Convention, revised in 1995, stated that respect for
human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law underpins the relationship of
the EU with ACP States. This Convention, moreover, suggested specific financial
means for concrete action in the promotion of human rights and for institutional
reform, in the context of democratisation and the rule of law.

Against this background, in 1998 the Commission set out to clarify the relationship of
the EU with ACP states, highlighting: the increasing focus of the EU of preventing
conflict and consolidation of peace in Africa; the development of national capacity to
settle disputes; the legitimacy of Governments and their ability to implement policies
which respect human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. 111 In this
respect it suggested ‘stepping up’ action in certain key areas, including:

1.

2.

3.

Institutional and administrative reforms connected with democratisation and
the rule of law, including constitutional reforms, judicial reform, assistance
to local democracy, support
to legislative power and the parliamentary
system and support for regional systems to protect and monitor human rights.

Human rights education

Strengthening civil society and women’s participation in the democratisation
and development process, including an emphasis on free and independent
media, action against the exploitation and abuse of women, and the rights of
ethnic, religious and cultural minorities.

These themes received positive support from both the Council112, and the Parliament,
which in a
its
resolution specifically on the Communication,
recommendations, while emphasising the importance of the participation of civil
society.113 The Human Rights Regulations reinforce the operational capacity of the
Community in respect of development cooperation with ACP nations in the field of
democracy, human rights and the rule of law.114

approved

111

112

113

114

COM (1998) 146 final, ibid.
Common position on human rights, democratic principles,
governance in Africa, of 25 May 1998, 98/350/CFSP, OJ L 158
European Parliament Resolution A4-0411/98 OJ C 104
Council Regulation 976/1999 of 29 April 1999

the rule of law and good

60

• Use of the budget

Democratisation and the rule of law

Sum of Grant (EUR)

14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0

Legal assistance
aimed at
protecting civil
and political
freedoms

Strengthening
the legal system
and its
independence

Support for
democratic
transition
process,
including the
holding of free
and regular
elections

Support for
government
bodies for the
defense and
promotion of
human rights

ACP

Part 2 geogr Section

Support for
parliamentary
activities

Transparency of
public
administration

Pluralist civil society

Sum of Grant (EUR)

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0

Human rights education
and public awareness

Promoting equal
opportunities and non-
discriminatory practices

Promoting the
independence, pluralism
and responsability of the
media, support for the
freedom of expression
and the press

Strengthening non-
governmental
organisations,
associations and local
groups

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

ACP

Part 2 geogr Section

61

Confidence building to restore peace

S um of G rant (E UR )

120 00000

100 00000

80 00000

60 00000

40 00000

20 00000

0

Conflic t Prev ention and Res olution

Human rights monitoring

Support for m easures to bring to
jus tice the perpetrators of s erious
v iolations of humanitarian law and
human rights

ACP

P art 2 g eogr S ec tion

Target groups

Sum of Grant (EUR)

3500000

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0

B ud get year

199 9

199 8

199 7

199 6

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

Children and
Young
People

Indigenous
people

Magistrates,
lawyers and
court and
prison staff

National
Minorities

Prisoners

Refugees,
displaced
persons and
asylum
seekers

Victims of
Torture

Women

ACP

Part 2 geogr Section

2.2.

Latin America

• Background

Financial assistance for the promotion of democracy and human rights activities is
provided under the budget line B7-7030, ‘Democratisation process in Latin America'.
The line was established on the initiative of the Parliament in 1990 to support the
democratisation process in Central America and Chile, but was extended after 1992 to
all Latin American countries.

In the initial stages of the implementation of this budget line, it responded to the
diverse needs of Latin American countries in different stages of the democratisation
process. Pilot projects and preparatory activities were developed, and in many cases

62

this budgetary line played a catalysing role as an initiator of other financial and
technical assistance. This was the case notably in action concerning street children,
the judicial and penal system, the electoral and parliamentary process and human
rights defenders.115

the Commission outlined the priorities for its relationship with Latin
In 1995,
American countries for the years 1996-2000.116 These guidelines state that
the
to make the democratic process
consolidation of the rule of law is ‘essential
irreversible at the institutional level’, and that the reinforcement of human rights civil
society facilitates sustainable economic and social development. The main strategic
objectives were set out as:

1.

2.

3.

the exercise of public power

strengthening and development of a responsible civil society

support of vulnerable groups (children, women, indigenous and displaced
persons)

In 1998, based on the advice of experts and member states, a new strategy was
designed with the objective of developing high impact programmes of a multi-annual
nature.117 To concentrate the effectiveness of
the limited budgetary resources
available, it was decided to devote the budget of 1998 to Central America, and that of
1999 was destined for countries of
the Andean Pact. The first multi-annual
programme for 1998 was designed in collaboration with Commission Delegations and
offices in Central America, civil society organisations and representatives of member
States, but due to administrative delays, the programme did not become operational In
1999, in addition to the programme for the Andean Pact, four independent actions
were also approved, for Colombia and Mexico and for two regional projects in Latin
America.

115

116

117

European Commission Information note of 9 July 1999, ‘The approach of DG 1B concerning
cooperation in the field of democratisation and human rights’ DG 1B
COM (95) 495 final
Note of 9 July 1999, ibid.

63

• Use of the budget

Democratisation and the rule of law

Sum of Grant (EUR)

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

0

Strengthening the
legal system and its
independence

Support for
democratic transition
process, including
the holding of free
and regular elections

Support for
government bodies
for the defense and
promotion of human
rights

Support for
parliamentary
activities

Transparency of
public administration

Latin America

Part 2 geogr Section

Pluralist civil society

Sum of Grant (EUR)

18000000

16000000

14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0

Human rights education and public
awareness

Promoting the independence,
pluralism and responsability of the
media, support for the freedom of
expression and the press

Strengthening non-governmental
organisations, associations and
local groups

Latin America

Part 2 geogr Section

Budget year

1997

1996

Budget year

1999

1997

1996

64

Confidence building to restore peace

Sum of G ra nt (E UR)

180 0000

160 0000

140 0000

120 0000

100 0000

80 0000

60 0000

40 0000

20 0000

0

C onflict Prevention and R esolution

Hum an rights monitoring

Latin Am eric a

Part 2 geogr Sec tion

Target groups

Sum of Grant (EUR)

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0

Bud get year

199 9

199 7

199 6

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

Children and
Young People

Indigenous
people

Magistrates,
lawyers and
court and
prison staff

National
Minorities

Prisoners

Victims of
Torture

Women

Latin America

Part 2 geogr Section

65

2.3.

Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of
Yugoslavia, the New Independent States and Mongolia

the Former

• Background

The PHARE / TACIS Democracy Programme (PTDP) was launched by the European
Union in 1992 to help promote democratic societies in the countries of Central and
the New Independent States and Mongolia.118 In 1992 a pilot
Eastern Europe,
programme was launched for PHARE countries only. The European Parliament and
the European Commission decided to continue the programme in 1993, including also
the TACIS countries. The programme now forms part of budget line B7-70. The
PHARE Democracy programme covered Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, Estonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM),
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The TACIS
Democracy programme covered Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The programme complemented mainstream PHARE and
TACIS programmes providing a transfer of economic know how and skills related to
the private sector and privatisation.

One of the main characteristics of the programmes was the ‘bottom-up’ approach in
the selection of macro- and micro-projects, on the assumption that potential applicants
are likely to have a better understanding of their own society than outsiders. In
contrast with other Community programmes these projects do not have to be approved
by the recipient governments. In PHARE countries the impact of PTDP has been
greater than in the TACIS countries. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, more
resources have been allocated in the PHARE countries. Secondly, because indigenous
NGO capacities are greater in the PHARE countries,
the multiplier effect of
democracy assistance is also greater. Thirdly, the approach to PHARE countries has
put greater emphasis on the bottom-up-approach. The Commission has identified
three areas of support for PHARE and TACIS Democracy Programme:

1.

2.

3.

The promotion of knowledge of democratic practices at local and national
levels;

The work of NGOs which promote pluralist democratic societies;

The transfer of specific expertise and technical skills concerning democracy
and the rule of law to professional groups and associations.

Three kinds of instruments were used between 1993 and 1997.

1.

118

Macro projects: operated through West-East partnerships between non-
governmental and non-profit making organisations;

PHARE and TACIS Regualtion Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 18 December 1989 (OJ L 375,
23.12.1989), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC)No 753/96 of 22 April 1996 (OJ L 103, 26.4.1996. Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2053/93 of 19 July 1993 (OJ L 187, 29.7.1993);Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/96 of
25 June 1996 (OJ L 165, 4.7.1996).

66

2.

3.

Micro-projects: small sized projects run by the Commission Delegations
which promote local action and develop the capabilities of the local civic
society;

Ad-hoc projects: an important tool for the Commission, through which it has
proposed projects on the basis of perceived political requirements or in
response to the evolving needs of civil society in specific regions. Ad-hoc
projects represented an effective tool to complement the actions undertaken
by both macro- and micro- projects. Ad-hoc projects acted horizontally,
covering more than one country, and met specific needs such as supporting
and monitoring electoral processes or the independence and pluralism of the
media.

In 1997 a specific budget
line B7-7001 was created to address specifically
“Community measures to help democracy and support the peace process in the
Republics of the former Yugoslavia”. The main objectives of this budget line were:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Support to civil society development and civic dialogue (including minority
issues)

Strengthening local capacities for human rights protection and advocacy

Involvement of young people

Confidence-building measures

Cross-party support to democratic initiatives

Measures aiming at ensuring free and fair elections

Given the non-eligibility for PHARE programmes of Croatia and FRY during
previous years budget line B7-7001 focused its support particularly on these two
countries. From 1998 on, due to a general reorganisation of the budget lines dealing
with human rights, two budget lines have inherited the former PHARE and TACIS
Democracy Programme and budget line B7-7001. Budget line B7-7000 (now B7-700)
aims at “Support for democracy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe,
including the Republics formerly part of Yugoslavia”. Therefore it has incorporated
the objectives of former PHARE Democracy Programme and budget line B7-7001.
Budget line B7-700 covers the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
the Former Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the
Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. The specific objectives for budget line B7-700 are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The development of democracy, the rule of law and civil society;

Supporting the peace process, appeasing tensions and developing democracy,
including the promotion of free and independent media in the Republics of
former Yugoslavia;

Promoting freedom of press and the media;

Encouraging interethnic dialogue;

67

5.

6.

7.

Supporting organisations involved in re-establishing democracy in civil
society (including regional NGOs, trade unions and women’s organisations);

Promoting equal participation of women in the decision-making processes;

The protection of vulnerable groups.

Budget line B7-7010 (now B7-701) aims at “Support for Democracy in the NIS and
Mongolia”.Budget line B7-7010 cover the following countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Moldova,
the Russian Federation,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Mongolia. The specific objectives
of budget line B7-701 are:

1.

2.

3.

The promotion of democracy, the rule of law, the implementation of human
rights, the protection of minorities, and the development of civil society in
the countries;

The establishment of infrastructure necessary for public and democratic life,
with the widest participation of NGOs;

Supporting awareness-raising measures with a view to strengthening civil
society, including through civic education and the independent media.

• Use of the budget

Democratisation and the rule of law

7 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

d
e
m
a

i

e
c
n
a

i

t
s
s
s
a

l

a
g
e
L

d
n
a

l
i

i

v
c

g
n

i
t
c
e

t

o
r
p

t

a

s
m
o
d
e
e
r
f

l

a
c
i
t
i
l

o
p

I

S
N
d
n
a
E
E
S

,

C
E
E
C

l

a
g
e

l

e
h

t

i

g
n
n
e
h

t

g
n
e
r
t

S

s
t
i

d
n
a
m
e

t
s
y
s

e
c
n
e
d
n
e
p
e
d
n

i

c
i
t

a
r
c
o
m
e
d
r
o

f

t
r
o
p
p
u
S

,
s
s
e
c
o
r
p

n
o

i
t
i
s
n
a
r
t

f

o

i

g
n
d
o
h

l

e
h

t

i

g
n
d
u
c
n

l

i

l

r
a
u
g
e
r

d
n
a

e
e
r
f

s
n
o

i
t
c
e
e

l

t

n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
g
r
o

f

t
r
o
p
p
u
S

e
s
n
e

f

e
d

e
h

t

r
o

f

i

s
e
d
o
b

f

o

n
o

i
t

o
m
o
r
p

d
n
a

s
t

h
g
i
r

n
a
m
u
h

r
o

f

t
r
o
p
p
u
S

s
e

i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

y
r
a

t

n
e
m
a

i
l
r
a
p

c

i
l

b
u
p

f

o

y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

68

1 9 9 9

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 6

n
o

i
t

i

a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

Pluralist civil society

1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

H u m a n r i g h t s e d u c a t i o n
a n d p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s
C E E C , S E E a n d N I S

P r o m o t i n g e q u a l
o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d n o n -
d is c r i m in a t o r y p r a c t i c e s

P r o m o t i n g t h e
i n d e p e n d e n c e , p l u r a l i s m
a n d r e s p o n s a b i l it y o f
t h e m e d ia , s u p p o r t
t h e f r e e d o m o f
e x p r e s s i o n a n d t h e
p r e s s

f o r

S t r e n g t h e n i n g n o n -
g o v e r n m e n t a l
o r g a n i s a t i o n s ,
a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d l o c a l
g r o u p s

Confidence building to restore peace

Sum of Grant (EUR)

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

0

Conflict Prevention and
Resolution

Human rights monitoring

Support for measures to
bring to justice the
perpetrators of serious
violations of humanitarian
law and human rights

Support for national efforts
to encourage
subordination of the
armed forces to the civil
authorities

CEEC, SEE and NIS

Part 2 geogr Section

1 9 9 9

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 6

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

69

Target groups

7 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

l

e
p
o
e
p

s
u
o
n
e
g
d
n

i

I

I

S
N
d
n
a
E
E
S

,

C
E
E
C

l

e
p
o
e
P
g
n
u
o
Y
d
n
a
n
e
r
d

l
i

h
C

i

a
d
e
m

t

r
e
h
o
d
n
a

s
t
s

i
l

a
n
r
u
o
J

l

i

s
a
n
o
s
s
e
o
r
p

f

d
n
a

t
r
u
o
c
d
n
a

s
r
e
y
w
a

l

t

,
s
e
a
r
t
s
g
a
M

i

f
f

a

t
s
n
o
s
i
r
p

1 9 9 9

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 6

e
r
u

t
r
o
T

f

o

n
e
m
o
W

s
m

i
t
c
V

i

d
n
a

s
n
o
s
r
e
p
d
e
c
a
p
s
d

i

l

,
s
e
e
g
u
e
R

f

s
r
e
k
e
e
s
m
u
y
s
a

l

s
e
c
r
o

f

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
s
d
n
a
e
c

i
l

o
p

,
y
m
r
a
e
h
T

s
e

i
t
i
r
o
n
M

i

l

a
n
o

i
t

a
N

2.4.

Meda countries and Turkey

• Background

The Barcelona Conference in 1995 redefined the relationship of the EU with the
twelve ‘MEDA’ countries: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and
Gaza, Lebanon, Malta Morocco, Syria, Turkey and Tunisia. The Barcelona
Declaration adopted by the Council, defined a ‘political and security partnership’ and
a ‘social, cultural and human affairs partnership’ which establishes that human rights
are to be considered a subject of mutual concern between the EU and these countries.

This partnership is given effect through bilateral association agreements and MEDA
Framework Conventions, which include a clause defining human rights as an
‘essential element’ of
the agreement, constituting therefore a binding legal
commitment by each MEDA country to respect human rights. The Framework
Conventions explicitly state that not only States, but also NGOs are entitled to receive
funding.

The ‘MEDA Regulation’ provides the legal basis for Community support to human
rights and democracy activities in these countries, stating that ‘this Regulation is
based on respect for democratic principles and the rule of law and also for human
rights and fundamental freedoms…and…in particular strengthening democracy and
respect for human rights.’119

In implementation of this mandate, the MEDA Democracy Programme (MDP) was
established in 1996, under the umbrella of the European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights, as Budget line B7-705. Funding is granted to NGOs, universities,

119

Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to
accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-
Mediterranean partnership, OJ L 189

70

research centres and public bodies. The Commission has elaborated the objectives of
the MDP as supporting:

the transition to democracy;

consolidating the rule of law;

independent and free media;

freedom of assembly and freedom of association;

pluralist civil society;

protection of vulnerable groups (women, children, refugees, minorities);

human rights education, training and awareness campaigns;

confidence-building measures.120

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Turkey

Despite the significant steps made by Turkey since 1995 to improve the application of
the rule of law, the European Union remained concerned that insufficient practical
measures were being taken to protect basic human rights. At the 53rd Session of the
UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU expressed its concern about the practice of
torture, involuntary disappearances, and extra-judicial executions. 121 It was in this
context that, with the agreement of the Turkish authorities, a programme of support
was established for national efforts aiming to reinforce the rule of law and respect for
fundamental rights, which could have a direct impact in the country and establish a
partnership between the public authorities and NGOs.

Human rights projects for Turkey are therefore financed through budget line B7-7040,
the MEDA programme for Turkey and the MEDA Democracy Programme. It should
be noted however that no formal criteria have been laid down regarding which source
should be used to fund which specific kind of human rights projects. Activities have
underlined the synergies between governmental action and those at the level of civil
society. Decentralised initiatives, which support networks of local actors and delivers
concrete aid to the promotion of the values of democracy and human rights are
favoured. Actions supported combined general technical assistance programmes in
different governmental contexts with specific projects of training, judicial support,
awareness-building and education.

120

121

Commission document ‘MEDA Democracy Programme, Budget Line B7-705N – Criteria and
Conditions of Eligibility’ of 17 July 1996, DG1B.A1.1
UN Commission on Human Rights 53rd Session, EU Statement under Item 10 ‘Question of
human rights in any part of the world’

71

• Use of the budget

Democratisation and the rule of law

Sum of Grant (EUR)

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0

Legal assistance
aimed at protecting
civil and political
freedoms

Strengthening the
legal system and its
independence

Support for
democratic transition
process, including
the holding of free
and regular elections

MEDA

Part 2 geogr Section

Support for
parliamentary
activities

Transparency of
public administration

Pluralist civil society

Sum of Grant (EUR)

10000000

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

0

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

Human rights education
and public awareness

Promoting equal
opportunities and non-
discriminatory practices

Promoting the
independence, pluralism
and responsability of the
media, support for the
freedom of expression
and the press

Strengthening non-
governmental
organisations,
associations and local
groups

MEDA

Part 2 geogr Section

72

Confidence building to restore peace

300 0000

S um of G ra nt (E UR)

250 0000

200 0000

150 0000

100 0000

50 0000

0

C onflict Prevention and R esolution

Hum an rights monitoring

MED A

P art 2 geogr S ec tion

Target groups

Sum of Grant (EUR)

4000000

3500000

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0

B ud get year

199 8

199 7

199 6

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

d
n
a
n
e
r
d

l
i

h
C

g
n
u
o
Y

l

e
p
o
e
P

s
t
s

i
l

a
n
r
u
o
J

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

a
d
e
m

l

i

s
a
n
o
s
s
e
f
o
r
p

,
s
e
t
a
r
t
s
g
a
M

i

d
n
a
s
r
e
y
w
a

l

d
n
a
t
r
u
o
c

f
f
a
t
s

n
o
s
i
r
p

l

a
n
o

i
t
a
N

s
e
i
t
i
r
o
n
M

i

s
r
e
n
o
s

i
r

P

,
s
e
e
g
u
f
e
R

MEDA

Part 2 geogr Section

d
e
c
a
p
s
d

l

i

d
n
a
s
n
o
s
r
e
p

m
u

l

y
s
a

,
y
m
r
a

e
h
T

s
r
e
k
e
e
s

d
n
a
e
c

i
l

o
p

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
s

s
e
c
r
o
f

f
o
s
m
i
t
c
V

i

e
r
u
t
r
o
T

n
e
m
o
W

2.5.

Asia

• Background

The relationship between Asia and the EU must be understood against the background
of the partnership developed through the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM), through the
EU-ASEAN dialogue, and through bi-lateral relations established between the EU and
individual Asian countries.

73

The inaugural ASEM meeting was held in Bangkok in 1996 between EU heads of
State, those of ten Asian nations122 and the President of the Commission. The Meeting
discussed the need to strive for a common goal of maintaining peace and stability, as
well as creating conditions for economic and social development. This process
fundamental
includes fostering political dialogue,
rights’.123 The second ASEM meeting, in London in 1998, reinforced the notion of
political dialogue with a commitment to cooperate and promote UN reform in order to
strengthen the UN’s capacity to ‘fulfil its mandate on peace, security and sustainable
development’ and a commitment to reject all forms of racism and xenophobia.124

including ‘the promotion of

A 1996 Communication from the Commission on ‘Creating a new dynamic in EU-
ASEAN relations’ further explored the nature of this political dialogue, emphasising
that the ‘development and consolidation of democracy and the respect for human
rights must be important elements of the dialogue between the EU and ASEAN
countries’.125 It also underlined that in this relationship, the Union gave a high priority
to a ‘positive approach’ and ‘open and constructive dialogue’.

An important dialogue for the EU has been conducted with the Government of China.
Since 1997, the EU Troika and the Chinese Government have met twice a year during
which human rights concerns have routinely been discussed. Areas of particular
concern for the EU have included freedom of opinion, expression and assembly, the
ratification process of the UN Covenants, the treatment of dissidents and religious
minorities, gender issues, arbitrary detention and the use of labour camps, and the
situation in Tibet. The excessive use of the death penalty is a matter of particular
concern to the EU. The academic community and civil society have also been actively
engaged in dialogue with activities such as seminars on women’s rights and the
administration of justice.

Under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, the EU has sought
to strengthen civil society in China, through projects aimed at promoting among
others the rights of women.

122

123

124

125

Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, China, Japan, Malaysia,

Thailand, Brunei Darussalam,
Singapore, Vietnam
Chairman’s statement of the Asia-Europe meeting, Bangkok, 2 March 1996, para. 5
Chairman’s statement of the Asia-Europe meeting, London 4 April 1998, para. 9
Commission communication on ‘Creating a new dynamic in EU-Asean relations’
COM(96) 314 final, at 11

74

• Use of the budget

Democratisation and the rule of law

Sum of Grant (EUR)

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

Legal assistance aimed at protecting civil and political
freedoms

Strengthening the legal system and its independence

Asia

Part 2 geogr Section

1999

Pluralist civil society

Sum of Grant (EUR)

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

Budget year

1999

1998

Budget year

1999

Human rights education and public awareness

Asia

Part 2 geogr Section

75

Target groups

Sum of Grant (EUR)

2000000

1800000

1600000

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

Children and Young
People

Journalists and other
media professionals

Victims of Torture

Women

Asia

Part 2 geogr Section

Budget year

1999

1998

1997

1996

76

PART 3

3.

PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

• Background

In its review of the predecessor of this report, the Parliament emphasised that the
Commission, the Council and itself all share the objective of improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of EU action in the field of human rights and of enhancing the
coordination and transparency of such operations.126
It stressed the need for
institutional cooperation, including the coordination of human rights activities by
different Commission DG’s, a strengthening of
relevant departments and the
provision of clear guidelines for the acknowledgement of Community subsidies in this
area. The report of Vice-President Imbeni on the same subject (the ‘Imbeni report’)
also
geographical
a
compartmentalisation and administrative barriers to greater efficiency.127 Imbeni
recommended a genuine and thorough exchange of expertise between services, in
order to ‘encourage a management culture which favours openness and cooperation.’

transparency,

highlighted

problems

lack

the

of

of

This chapter therefore concentrates on developments which have impacted on
administrative effectiveness, and it presents an overview of the procedural and
managerial arrangements which have guided the allocation of Community funds.

• Challenges and reorganisation

These issues, concerning the period under review, should be understood with
reference to the challenging events of 1998, when the Commission experienced grave
difficulties in implementing the human rights budget lines. The European Court of
Justice’s ruling of 12 May 1998 in Case C-106/96 determined that Community action
in the field of human rights and democracy could no longer be carried out in the
absence of a proper legal base. This led to doubts about how to proceed with a
the Commission’s
considerable number of projects and, as a consequence,
programmes in this area were seriously disrupted. As the Final Project Report of the
Comité des Sages concluded,

“Chapter B7-70 was one of those most heavily affected by the ruling…and
the subsequent
large-scale freeze on many disbursements and new
initiatives.”

The adoption of new Human Rights Regulations laying down the requirements for
implementing Community operations, in April 1999, following an inter-institutional
agreement was, therefore, of the highest importance.

The second major development
the management of human rights and
democracy activities has been the administrative reform instituted by the new

to effect

126

127

European Parliament Resolution A4-0381/97, ibid, paras 1, 2 and 4
‘Imbeni report’ ibid at 9

77

Commission in 1999. For the first time a new Commissioner for External Relations
has sole responsibility for the promotion of human rights. In addition, the reform
brought together the various units, described below, dealing with human rights and
democratisation in the Commission’s external relations. The new unit covers the
whole world and all budget lines of the European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights, thereby ending and geographic ‘compartmentalisation’ of human
rights issues. It works together with the human rights unit of the Common Relex
Service (SCR), which is responsible for harmonising procedures and working with
partners to implement projects worldwide. It will also liaise with the responsible
geographical services to ensure the necessary coordination and coherence between the
cooperation and human rights instruments.

• Consistency, coordination and effectiveness

The decision of the Parliament in 1994 to bring previously separate human rights
budget lines into one, all-inclusive heading B7-70, provided the platform for a more
coherent and coordinated approach to the management of external action. Setting out
its human rights strategy in 1995,
the various
Commission departments involved will ‘harmonise procedures for the use of these
resources’.128 Given the diversity of problems encountered and the multitude of
players and instruments involved, the Commission has attempted to be consistent, to
rationalise the management and maximise the impact of action in favour of human
rights and democracy. The following summary represents arrangements in place
between 1996 and 1999.

the Commission promised that

a)

Inter-departmental coordination

The Imbeni report emphasised that the Human Rights Inter-Service Group had an
important role in the ‘horizontal coordination’ of the EU’s activities. This group,
composed of representatives of all services in the Commission involved in human
rights activities inside the EU and in external relations, has facilitated internal
coordination and the exchange of information on the work of international and
regional organisations, and on initiatives concerning the implementation of
the
Community action. In addition, a Steering Committee brought
departments dealing with human rights issues in the field of external action, with the
aim of improving the overall consistency of Community operations. In July 1999, a
Human Rights and Democracy Committee was established, under Council Regulation
975 and 976, Articles 13 and 14, composed of representatives of Member States and
chaired by the Commission. The Committee has a dual purpose: to review the
implementation of Budget Chapter B7-70 and approve projects of over 1 million
Euros, and to enhance the coherence of human rights activities.

together all

b)

Organisation of Commission departments

This outline summarises the responsibility of Commission departments involved in
activities under Chapter B7-70. It reflects the position until 1999 under the previous
Commission, which was in charge when the guidelines were introduced.

128

COM (95) 567 final, ibid.

78

Former DGIA “External relations: Europe and the New Independent
States, common foreign and security policy and external missions”

DGIA Human Rights Unit was in charge of coordinating all human rights activities at
the Commission. Policy was coordinated by the Steering Committee and day-to-day
coordination was handled by an inter-departmental working group, which was also
responsible for consistency between external and internal action. The unit was
responsible for identifying operations and raising awareness of human rights issues.
Financially, it administered five of Chapter B7-70’s eleven budget headings. By
virtue of this fact, it also acted as an interface between DGIA’s desk officers and the
Commission Delegations. The unit also represented the Commission in international
human rights forums in the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the UN, and in
‘COHOM’ the Council working group on human rights.

Former DGI “Commercial policy and relations with North America, the
far East, Australia and New Zealand”

Coordination of human rights activities in DGI was handled by the ‘Analysis and
Policy Planning Unit’, which liased between the desk officers and DGIA. The desk
officer for China was responsible for all bilateral dealings on human rights,
in
particular for monitoring and promoting EU-China dialogue on human rights and
implementing heading B7-707.

Former DGIB “External relations: Southern Mediterranean, Middle
East, Latin America, South and South-East Asia and North-South
Cooperation”

The human rights situation in particular countries was monitored by the responsible
desk officer. Each geographical directorate (Latin America, South and South-east
Asia, the Mediterranean) had a human rights coordinator. The coordinators for Latin
America and the Mediterranean coordinated projects in consultation and cooperation
with the desk officers concerned, whereas projects in Asia were assigned to the desk
officers themselves. One official was assigned to coordinate human rights activities
both inside the DG (reporting to the Deputy Director-General) and with the other
external relations DGs.

Former DGVIII: “External relations and development cooperation with
Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific – Lomé Convention”

In close cooperation with Commission Delegations, desk officers were responsible for
monitoring the human rights situation in their countries. In every Commission
Delegation, the person responsible for human rights issues was in direct contact with
DGVIII’s Human Rights Unit, which was also consulted at various stages in the
drafting of strategy papers, national
indicative programmes (NIPs) and regional
indicative programmes (RIPs), mid-term reviews and decisions to allocate incentive
amounts for institutional reforms. Although the Human Rights Unit was responsible
for managing projects, the political dimension of projects and consistency with other
Commission and Member States projects and cooperation instruments were
supervised by the Commission Delegation and desk officers responsible. The Unit
was also responsible for integrating the various cross-sectoral issues into operations,
It was
projects and programs and handling interdepartmental communications.

79

involved in relations with international organisations, Community
likewise
institutions and Member State representatives, negotiations for the Lomé Convention
and efforts to prevent or settle conflicts.

The workload of the unit was divided between eight staff on a geographical and
thematic basis, one being responsible for coordinating the budget headings and
incentive amounts. Coordination with the other external relations DGs was the
responsibility of the head of unit.

European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO)

In ECHO, the desk officer responsible monitored the general situation in a country or
region, including the human rights situation, which is often directly linked to an
emergency afflicting the country. The emphasis, however, was on humanitarian needs
and the immediate response thereto. Humanitarian aid projects may nevertheless have
a human rights dimension and a direct impact on the human rights situation on the
ground. In addition to the desk officers ECHO has assigned a coordinator to act as an
interface between humanitarian aid and human rights. This member of staff is
responsible for coordination with other Commission departments and for determining,
with the desk officers, how ECHO’s humanitarian aid can best serve the protection of
human rights.

SCR “Common Service for External relations”

Established in October 1997, the SCR has grown increasingly operational. It
is
responsible for all aspects of implementation of Community aid to non-member
countries: technical and operational, financial and accounting, contractual and legal,
auditing and evaluating.

Unit SCR/A5 (CFSP, Human Rights and Democracy, Drugs) is in charge of the
implementation and financial monitoring of human rights measures under Chapter
B7-70. It coordinates human rights activities within the SCR (in particular with the
units responsible for contracts and financing). In May 1999, the Commission decided
that a one-year contract should be concluded by direct agreement between DG1A and
the European Human Rights Foundation. Technical assistance staff helped the former
DG1A select and prepare projects for financing under chapters B7-700, 701, 704, 706,
709. They also assisted the SCR in the monitoring of ongoing projects and provided
Commission Delegations with back up for micro-projects.

Several methods and instruments are available for implementing the thematic and
geographic priorities elaborated above. None has proven sufficient in itself; in the
pursuit of effectiveness, Community action has involved a combination of methods
determined by the operational objectives pursued. The different mechanisms
employed since 1996 have been as follows.

80

c)

Call for proposals

In July 1998, the Commission’s Vade-mecum on Grant Management stipulated that
the preferred method for project selection was the call for proposals.129 The ‘call for
proposals’ is published to mobilise a wide range of actors of civil society in support of
Community priorities. This mechanism is particularly appropriate for cooperation
with NGOs and enables the Commission to ensure that its strategic priorities are
echoed by civil society. Projects are selected on the basis of common principles and
identical criteria and priority given to proposals of at least 500,000 Euros. Before
1999,
the minimum Community contribution was much lower, but Directorate
Generals without the benefit of technical assistance found it difficult to cope with the
large volume of projects.

However, up to 30% of the total budget for the 1999 call for proposals may be used to
finance a limited number of proposals for small (50,000-150,000 Euros) or medium
sized (150,000-500,000 Euros). It provided for a common approach by the former
DGIA, DGVIII, and DGI to the selection and management of projects. The formula
chosen for the minimum of size of projects does not exclude small priority activities
from being supported, but will nonetheless allocate the major proportion of funds to
larger proposals.

Following the adoption of the Human Rights Regulations providing a legal basis for
external action in this area, at the end of August 1999 a call for large proposals was
made (minimum Community contribution of 50.000 Euros) involving 3 of the 4 DGs
managing EIDHR funds (DG1, 1A, VIII) but not DG1B – MEDA, Latin America and
Asia. The recommendations for projects to be funded was to be reviewed the Human
Rights and Democracy Committee, which, as outlined above had to approve any
project with an EC contribution of over 1 million Euros. The overall objective was to
award grants for no more than 125 operations, covering an implementation period of
up to 36 months. Quality projects which, while meeting all the eligibility criteria,
cannot be financed under the 1999 budget, could be put on a reserve list for funding in
2000.

The system of selecting projects must take account of the diversity of needs and
situations in the field of human rights. It is for this reason that different methods such
as the call for proposals, micro projects and targeted projects are used, but in a
complementary way. Further discussion of the call for proposals can be found in the
section on assessments in Part 4.

d)

Ad-hoc projects (targeted projects)

The political importance and urgency of particular measures, and the requirement that
the Union be visible when implementing certain political decisions, dictate that some
activities be carried out outside the scope of the call for proposals. Given the residual
uncertainty related to the timing of the call for proposals, and the acute urgency and
political importance of some projects, certain issues need to be funded directly in

129

The Vade-Mecum on Grant Management
Commission, November
available
general/sgc/info-subv-common/shortvad-en.pdf

1998,

(for applicants and beneficiaries), European
http:/europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat-

at

81

advance or in parallel with the call for proposals. They are treated in the same way as
programmes with international organisations. Such activities are obviously politically
sensitive and address strategic priorities, including for example the development of
the European Human Rights Masters Programme and projects in Kosovo.

e)

Micro-projects

Micro projects were designed as small scale activities to promote democracy to be
identified and managed by the Commission Delegations, especially in the central and
eastern European countries, former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and China.
They provide an opportunity for the partner States to have a direct stake in the
programme.

f)

Co-operation with International Organisations

Between 1996 and 1999, the EU collaborated extensively with other international
organisations including the Council of Europe, OSCE, and the UN through Chapter
B7-7. Community funds destined for such collaboration are not subsidies or grants to
the organisations in question. With regard to the Council of Europe, such funds are
jointly financed and coordinated by the
contributions to Joint Programmes,
Commission and Council of Europe. Cooperation with international organisations is
not implemented through calls for proposals; activities of interest to the Commission
and its partner organisations are identified and implemented with due regard for the
Community’s visibility.

g)

Multi-annual programming

Having learned from the experience of projects for democratisation and human rights
in Latin America, the Commission adopted in July 1998 a coherent and integrated
multi-annual programming approach to maximise the impact and visibility of
Community action in the region. This approach, initiated in Latin America (Budget
line B7-703), has now been extended to South and South-East Asia (Budget line B7-
707) and the Mediterranean (Budget line B7-705).

The establishment of multi-annual programming stems from the orientations
contained in the new Human Rights Regulations, which provide for close
coordination with member States' representatives and dialogue with organisations of
civil society in the regions concerned. The approach also guarantees the consistency
and complementarity of human rights operations with the Community's development
aid strategies. It reaffirms, on the one hand,
the indivisibility, universality and
interdependence of human rights and, on the other, the link between human rights,
democracy and development; basic principles of Community co-operation with third
countries.

The first multiannual programme was elaborated for Central America in 1998 and was
scheduled to last for four years (1999-2002). This programme was designed in
conjunction with the Commission Delegations and offices in Central America,
specialist organisations of civil society in the region and the representatives of the
Member States, which took part in a series of meetings to determine the priorities for
individual countries and the region. More detail on the priorities in this area can be
found in Part 2.2.

82

The methodology followed involves:

1.

2.

3.

analysing a country’s ratification of international instruments with a view to
establishing a standard profile;

assessing the current human rights situation in a country, encompassing any
bilateral or regional dialogue it may be involved in;

designing a multi-annual programme for each country setting, out the priority
measures to be taken into account on the basis of the above-mentioned
analysis and assessment, the experience acquired from past projects and any
ongoing dialogue.

h)

Incentive amounts

Some more general or multi-sectoral headings and instruments can also be used to
implement measures in support of human rights and democracy. Incentive amounts
are an important instrument used by budget lines B7-7020, B7-7021, B7-7022. The
incentives offered by the budget headings are particularly important when
implementing the human rights provisions of the Lomé Convention. These amounts
are intended to finance institutional and administrative reforms in pursuit of
democratisation and the rule of law. In practice, the pilot projects financed by the
budget headings back up more substantial projects funded by the national indicative
programme (NIP) and the incentive amounts.

i)

Technical assistance

technical and administrative assistance both for

The budget provides for
the
Commission and recipients. Technical assistance includes both assessment of the
proposals and the management or monitoring of the projects. Budget lines dealt in
different ways with this priority. A number of organisations and consultants have
been contracted for this purpose. The PHARE and TACIS programmes had their own
monitoring units each of which conducted reviews of the projects funded under
budget headings B7-700 & 701. In 1997, responsibility for B7-700 and B-701 were
transferred from PHARE and TACIS to the Human Rights Unit of DGIA. As a result
of the European Court of Justice’s ruling C-106/96 of 12 May 1998, no monitoring or
other assessments of projects were undertaken between June 1998 and July 1999. In
July 1999, the EHRF was again contracted to supply technical assistance for 12
months to assist with the call for proposals, the implementation of projects and the
organisation of the micro-projects in CEEC/NIS.

83

PART 4

ASSESSEMENT

The Parliament has explicitly requested that this report include an assessment of the
effectiveness of funded projects.130 Vice-President Imbeni also suggested that such
reports should be an opportunity for an ‘assessment of human rights-related activities
funded by the European Commission’.131 In light of these comments, some important
developments and evaluations completed since the last report should be highlighted.

• Evaluations

When the Common Service for External Relations (SCR) was set up in October 1997,
one of the responsibilities it assumed was for the evaluation of Community assistance
to third countries. It defines evaluation as an assessment ‘as systematic and objective
as possible’ with regard to the design, implementation and results of projects. The
objectives of such evaluation are to improve external action, and provide transparency
and accountability.

Evaluations assess the implementation of projects and proposals by analysing their
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and sustainability. These reports are
public documents and available on the Internet, on the following site:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/scr/evaluation/index.htm

The work programme of the Evaluation Unit of SCR is built around a ‘rolling’ 1-2
year programme covering several dozen multiproject and multicountry evaluations.
There follows a summary of some evaluations of programmes supported through the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

In April 1999, the MEDA Democracy Programme was appraised.132 The evaluation
concluded that the programme for the most part effectively and coherently addressed
the issues most relevant to human rights and democracy needs in MEDA countries,
and that the project mix was largely appropriate. It found projects were well designed
and coherent with other programmes. Institutional sustainability was described as
generally good, except in the case of single-event conferences, which have little
impact beyond the immediate participants. Regional projects were less effective for
targeting key groups such as women, refugees and minorities, but were suitable for
training and professional capacity building. Donor coordination was found to be
inadequate and the procedures for application, selection and reporting were not well
understood.

In 1997, in response to a resolution of the Parliament, an interim evaluation of the
PHARE Programme was completed.133 It concluded that its objectives and activities
have been very relevant in addressing important issues of the transition process in the

130

131

132

133

European Parliament resolution A4-0381/97, ibid, op 13
‘Imbeni report’, ibid, at 9
Evaluation of the MEDA Democracy Programme 1996-1998, ref. 951460
PHARE interim evaluation, ref. 951466

84

target countries, such as the development of democracy and civil society. However,
the evaluation found that the Programme had realised less than its full potential, with
its effectiveness and impact diluted by lack of leverage to ensure good programme
performance, by deficiencies in project cycle management and by a preoccupation
with financial and procedural control.

An interim evaluation was conducted for the TACIS Programme in 1998.134 The
Programme was credited with a positive record on project effectiveness in achieving
its intended objectives; a ‘decisive factor for the positive final assessment of the
programme’. Its relevance was limited, however, by shortcomings in terms of
management efficiency,
transparency and an over-emphasis on financial and
administrative procedures. The evaluation also found that the demand-driven principle
underlying the programme had weakened the impact of TACIS.

The PHARE and TACIS Democracy Programme (PTDP) was also evaluated in
1997.135 The evaluation found that PTDP has contributed to the growth and
legitimacy of the NGO sector in beneficiary countries, and that it had facilitated the
transfer of know-how and partnerships between Eastern and Western civil societies
the ‘bottom-up’
and has provided great visibility for the EU. It concluded that
approach in the selection of projects is very important for accurately reflecting the
needs of countries. The evaluation suggested however, that the impact and efficiency
of implementation of the programme seemed to have been greater in PHARE
countries than in TACIS countries. It cited more funds spent in the PHARE region,
the stronger capacity of indigenous NGOs there, and constraints on civil society in
TACIS countries as explanations for this discrepancy.

In addition, a number of evaluations have been completed on individual projects.
These include projects concerning refugees and displaced persons in Ethiopia,
Malawi, Mozambique and Angola136, and that for the EU contingent to the UN human
rights field operation in Rwanda.137 Forthcoming evaluations include those on
activities in support of uprooted peoples in Asian and Latin American States, and
positive actions in the field of democracy and human rights in ACP States.

• The views of civil society

In the process of evaluating the EU’s promotion of human rights and democracy, and
of setting priorities for its improvement, a key role must be accorded to the opinion of
those representatives of civil society who help implement EU action and witness its
operation on the ground. External Relations Commissioner Patten underlined this
point at
the EU human rights discussion forum in November 1999, when he
recognised that the Commission has been criticised for lacking a coherent strategy for
its human rights activities. 138 The knowledge and experience of the human rights
NGO community is essential in the process of redefining priorities and learning from

134

135

136

137

138

TACIS interim evaluation, ref. 951415
Evaluation of the PHARE and TACIS Democracy Programme, ref. 951432
Evaluation of EU actions under § 255, VII EDF – Assistance to refugees, returnees and
displaced persons – Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique and Angola, ref. 951178
Evaluation of the European Union contingent to the UN human rights field operation in
Rwanda, ref. 951458
Human Rights Discussion Forum, ibid.

85

experience; it would be ‘intellectual vandalism’ to ignore their views. Parliament
Vice-President Imbeni stated that the purpose of the Forum was to move towards
greater coherence in the human rights policy of the EU, and to bring civil society into
external relations activities, so that EU institutions can benefit from the wide range of
experience that such participants can contribute in examining how effective the EU’s
activities have been.

The Discussion Forum provided a valuable opportunity for the Commission to listen
and respond to the appraisal of NGO representatives. The working group on EC
cooperation in the field of human rights outlined several key areas of concern. The
World Organisation against Torture argued that ‘people busy fighting for human
rights are having to waste their time with over complicated procedures.’ Clear
information on the programme guidelines and application procedures should be
readily available and funding should be allocated in a transparent manner, in line with
the Commission’s Vade-mecum on grant management. Many NGOs had received
little information about the 1999 call for proposals, especially those outside the EU.
The Commission responded that
these were years of transition for it, and that
significant changes in the management structure have made coherence difficult.

Two important problems were identified in the managerial culture related to human
rights programmes; firstly, delays in Commission payments and secondly,
the
Commission’s insistence on audit control for even small items of expenditure. The
Commission, however, emphasised that it is obliged to practice ‘sound financial
management’. With regard to the size of grants, the policy of giving priority to
projects with a Community contribution of at least 500,000 Euros was criticised as
being beyond the capacity of most NGOs, favouring larger Western groups. The
Commission accepted these arguments, but given the ‘severe lack of staff in the
competent services of the Commission’, the allocation of fewer, larger funds seemed
the only current solution. Furthermore 30% of projects funded from the 1999 budget
were smaller than 500,000 Euros, reserved for micro-projects of less than 50,000
Euros.

field needed improvement. Communication should also

Concerning consultation, cooperation and discussion, several NGOs suggested that
more ‘vertical’ consultation with NGOs should be carried out when developing
policies and priorities in the field of human rights, and that consultation with NGOs in
the
improved
‘horizontally’, between the Commission and other donors in the field. In this way,
duplication of work could be avoided and international funding strategies could
compliment one another. The Commission pointed out that measures were being
taken to improve the coherence of the human rights strategy; the creation of a single
Directorate General for external relations being one example of this. It was agreed
that the Human Rights Discussion Forum should become a regular event.

be

• Academic analysis

During the period under review, a number of significant academic studies critically
examined the Commission’s performance in the field of human rights. A significant
contribution to Commission thinking is represented by the report of the Comité des
Sages, consisting of Judge Antonio Cassesse, Mme Catherine Lalumière, Professor

86

Peter Leuprecht, and Mrs Mary Robinson.139 The report, ‘Leading by example: a
human rights agenda for the year 2000’, presented in 1998, argued for an informed,
consistent, credible and effective human rights policy for the EU. The attached project
report lamented the lack of appropriate political, financial and administrative support,
necessary to underpin such a policy. With regard to the role of the Commission in the
field of external relations, the report found that in relation to ‘a very large number of
countries, the Commission has played a vital, constructive and often innovative role in
supporting human rights and democracy initiatives, providing funds for election
support and observation.’ 140 It welcomed that the budget for the European Initiative
for democracy and human rights had almost doubled between 1994 and 1998.

that

the role,

impact and effectiveness of the
The report suggested, however,
Commission’s activities would be considerably enhanced if measures were taken to
address three major problems. Firstly, it cited the absence of a proper legal base in the
implementation of Community action, as highlighted by the European Court of
Justice’s ruling C-106/96 of 12 May 1998. The urgent need to propose a solution was
emphasised. Secondly, the report criticised ‘internal administrative fragmentation’
within the Commission, with unduly divided responsibility for human rights matters
and a general lack of transparency. Thirdly, it discussed the ‘lack of staff, expertise
and bureaucratic clout’ in that the fragmentation of responsibility means that none of
the bureaucratic entities responsible for human rights policy is large enough to
develop the range of staff and the development of a ‘consistent, transparent, efficient,
credible and conspicuous human rights policy.’141

In light of these concerns, the report proposed that human rights become the subject
of a ‘central and separate portfolio’ within the Commission, specifically that a
separate Commissioner and Directorate-General for human rights be established,
having no major additional portfolio responsibilities. The Directorate-General would
have a mainstreaming function for human rights throughout the Commission and
would be responsible for ‘developing policies and initiatives designed to make the
protection of existing human rights more effective in the long run’,
through
coordination with member states, support for and consultation with human rights
NGOs, and cooperation and consultation with the other parts of the Commission. 142

Since 1998, these issues have been addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, the
question of a legal basis for the human rights activities of the Commission was settled
when the Council adopted Regulations 975 and 976 on 29 April 1999. These
regulations, specific provisions of which are referred to throughout the thematic part
of this document, provide the clarity and authority necessary for the human rights and
democracy activities of the Community. Secondly, administrative reorganisations,
following the appointment of the new Commission in 1999, have provided for a new
Directorate and Commissioner for External Relations. For the first time in the history
of the Commission, a single figure has responsibility for the promotion of human
rights. Thirdly, the human rights and democratisation unit within the Directorate has

139

140

141

142

Cassese.A, Lalumière.L, Leuprecht.P, Robinson.M ‘Leading by example: a human rights
agenda for the year 2000’ European University Institute, 1998
ibid, at 60
ibid, at 62
ibid, at 70

87

assumed worldwide responsibility for human rights, and for coordination within the
Commission. Further details of administrative changes which address transparency
and effectiveness are discussed in part three of this document.

In 1999, Professor Phillip Alston of the European University Institute, published ‘the
most wide-ranging survey yet to be undertaken of the role of the European Union in
relation to human rights’.143 Decaux, in the chapter on civil society suggests a further
expansion of the relationship of the EU with non-governmental organisations.144 It
argues for more structured institutional dialogue between the Community and the
organs of civil society, and draws attention to the role of specialist NGOs in the
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Decaux argues that, in
addition to closer cooperation and consultation with NGO, ‘inspiration could be
drawn from the experience of national organisations for the promotion and protection
of human rights’ as pluralistic centre-points for the active forces of civil society.

The Community is criticised for current arrangements of ‘bureaucratic management of
resources’, which can create a climate of uncertainty for NGOs. Cooperation with
NGOs, Decaux suggests, ‘would certainly make it possible to supply a better
definition of the objectives to be attained and jointly to try to find the best means of
attaining them’. Civil society should participate not only by means of the major
NGOs, but also through a targeted approach having regard to specific needs and
possibilities, and involving the media,
the legal profession, and training and
information on human rights. The entire European Union, the assessment concludes,
would gain in credibility and effectiveness.

The action undertaken through the human rights and democracy budget line, has only
been possible with the enormous commitment of civil society and NGOs as partners
of the Commission. Local, regional or international organisations implement the
projects in practically every area of Commission support. As outlined in others parts
of this report, such organisations do play a significant role in the development of
activity. Firstly, through mechanisms like the call for proposals, NGOs provide
specific project ideas to implement general policy objectives. The dialogue between
the Commission and NGOs therefore takes place not just at the formal level, such as
the Forum outlined above, but on a day-to-day basis of shaping projects and designing
the activities which put EU policy into action. As highlighted in some of the featured
project examples,
the Commission Delegations also play a role in supporting
implementing partners in civil society.

Decaux makes an important point about not restricting participation in this process to
large, established human rights NGOs, and the Parliament too has stressed the need to
involve grassroots and new organs of civil society. It is for this reason that a major
concern of the Community between 1996 and 1999 has been the strengthening of
NGOs throughout the world; projects designed to facilitate a pluralistic and effective
civil society account for almost a third of the total human rights and democracy
budget.

143

144

Alston, P. 1999, ibid.
Decaux, E. ‘Human Rights and Civil Society’ in Alston, ibid, at 899-917

88

the level of policy and coordination is also extremely
The input of NGOs at
important. Human rights NGOs and institutions represent an unparalleled source of
expertise, and, their views must be listened carefully to. Having regard to some of the
evaluations outlined in this report, it is clear that this is an area which must be further
developed. As the Commissioner for External Relations asked at the recent Human
Rights Forum, ‘how can we work better with NGOs to achieve all this?’

89

Albania
Angola
Armenia
Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Children
China
Colombia
Conflict prevention
Corruption
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Death penalty
Disabled rights
Discrimination
Education and training
Egypt
Elections
Estonia
Ethiopia
EU Human Rights
Discussion Forum
Former Yugoslavia
Genocide
Georgia
Hungary
International Criminal
Court
ICTR
ICTY
Indigenous peoples
Internet / new technology
Journalists
Judiciary
Kosovo
Latvia
Lawyers
Legal aid
Madagascar
Media
Medical treatment
Military
Minorities
Monitoring
NGOs
Ombudsmen
Palestine
Parliamentarians

Index

14
38,88
17,69
38
18,26,51,69,70
43
25,43-45,55
76
38,39,40,66
31-33
19-21
38,70
33,73
42,43,69
14,52,77
27-29
26-28,41,46
10,16,19,20,23,24-26,27,28,35,36,40,41,43,45,53,55,56,58,59,61
53,54
10-12,23,41,60,70,90
47,69,70
13,19,88

29,88,89
30,32,34,35,55,68,70,85
34
37,69,71
43,69,70
34

34,35
34,35
48-50
12,13,24,30,57,60
10,22,23,24,29,31,36,40,57,58
13-15,19,35,58,59
32,85
47,48,69,70
14,17,26,31,35,40,54,55,58,59,60,61
16-17,34,35,41,42,53,62
28,29
10,13,22-24,35,36,37,43,50,57,58,59,61,63,70,71,74,91
44,51-52,53,56
25,36,37,40,61,62
16,25,40,45-48
35-40,44,49,51,52,53,54,60,61,91
2,29-31,42,45,47,49,85,86,88,89,91,92
17,18,199
16,33,35,38,58,59
12,13,19-21,25,36,37,50,61

90

Police
Poland
Prisoners
Racism
Refugees
Roma
Rule of law
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Sexual violence
Terrorism
Torture
Trafficking
Turkey
Ukraine
West Bank and Gaza
Women
Zimbabwe

10,25,40,41,54,59,61
42,43,68,69
14,40,52-55
27,46
27,32,40,44,50,51,52,55,74,87,88
16,27,46
59
14,15,30,31,38,50
34,35,38,88
41-43,49,50,55,56
55
15,54-56,60,61,74
41-43
56,74
14,42,69,69,71
59,60,73
10,25,27,30,31,41-43,51,54,63,66,70,74,77,87
21

91