AUTHOR : RFLD’s RESEARCH TEAM
Email: admin@rflgd.org
Summary
This blog analyzes and ensures that the work done by CSOs to support the implementation of human rights and raise awareness of the African human rights system and mechanisms will contribute to strengthening protection mechanisms for vulnerable groups, such as displaced persons, minorities, women and others. The African Commission’s special mechanisms have broad mandates to respond to human rights situations and thematic issues, which can then be brought to the attention of the full Commission at the session. Unfortunately, special mechanisms do not receive sufficient support and resources, as they are funded as part of the overall support to the African Commission. CSOs need to ensure that the Special Mechanisms are fully informed about the situation of vulnerable groups in the different countries and sub-regions, and that they have access to CSOs who can provide additional information.
Use of Regional Human Rights Instruments
Civil society organizations (CSOs) have played an essential role in the development and shaping of the African Union’s human rights system. Despite these early contributions, civil society’s operating space is threatened by various political decisions aimed at restricting, narrowing and undermining citizens’ ability to assert their rights against the state. States parties have abdicated their role in implementing and integrating the various provisions of human rights treaties. Vulnerable and marginalized groups continue to have little access to the protection of the law, despite the existence of regional instruments enshrining fundamental rights. Women, refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons (IDPs) continue to face structural, administrative and legal obstacles to the full enjoyment of their rights. The institutions responsible for protecting these rights at sub-regional level are also limited by a lack of coordination and restrictive individual access provisions, among other inhibiting factors.
Opportunities exist to activate the role of CSOs in the promotion and protection of human rights, notably the growing interest of CSOs in regional human rights mechanisms and how these can be used effectively. These mechanisms, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission) and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC), are open to civil society participation. However, civil society participation can be improved to ensure that these mechanisms have a greater impact at regional, sub-regional, national and local levels.
The role of civil society organizations
CSOs play an important role in advocating the implementation of human rights at national level. The AU’s human rights mechanisms are potentially powerful tools for better implementation, and CSOs contribute to the effectiveness of these mechanisms by making information available, drawing attention to areas of concern, advocating interventions, complaints, litigation and monitoring compliance and implementation at national level. Participation in civil society forums linked to African human rights mechanisms has steadily increased.
However, this participation is uneven, with a greater involvement of international NGOs and CSOs from sub-regions geographically close to the sessions. This is probably due to the high cost of participation and the inability of CSOs to justify their participation to donors when they are unable to clearly identify the benefits of their work at national or sub-regional level. The various regional mechanisms (African Court, African Commission, CAEDBE, AU political bodies, Conference of States Parties to the Kampala Convention) and their roles and procedures can also be confusing for CSOs, many of whom will be unable to decide on the most important strategy, approach to promoting their specific human rights issues – whether this involves public statements, formal submissions, participation in or organization of parallel events, submission of complaints, litigation, use of special mechanisms or other.
Restricted environment VS Open environment
Operating in an increasingly restrictive environment for civil society at national and sub-regional levels, interventions will require structured approaches designed to navigate the ever-changing terrain of political and technical discussions and decisions occurring at AU level (political organs) and within the AU Human Rights System.
National courts and processes are essential to the implementation of human rights instruments. There is therefore an urgent need to collaborate with judges and lawyers from identified jurisdictions to provide ongoing professional development focused on the AU’s human rights mechanisms and responses to emerging threats to human rights on the continent. The protection and enforcement of human rights as provided for in various AU instruments, decisions and declarations remains insufficient. The AU is aware of these limitations, hence the formation of the AGA (African Governance Architecture) platform to improve coordination and synergies. While the AGA is at AU level, there is a deliberate inclusion of civil society. This should be accompanied, on the civil society side, by initiatives to contribute to the awareness and implementation of AU commitments.
Opportunities for CSOs
It is important that CSOs use the opportunities created by these initiatives to promote and monitor the rights of young people and women. So, for example, the support provided for the production and submission of shadow reports and civil society submissions to the African Commission will include a focus on the level of implementation and compliance with the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, or the Maputo Protocol, as it is commonly known. Broader gender issues will require that as State Party reports are produced, groups should provide a gender analysis, including how the implementation or lack of implementation of AU standards affects women and young people differently.
Communications (complaints) are one of the mechanisms used by the African Commission to ensure that states respect the human rights enshrined in the Charter. The Commission can receive complaints from states against another state (inter-state complaints) or from individuals and NGOs against one or more states (individual complaints) on alleged human rights violations, in accordance with its mandate under articles 48, 49 and 55 of the African Charter.
Who can submit an individual communication?
Any individual or NGO may submit a communication to the Commission. The Charter is silent on the question of standing, and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure do not lay down any requirement for a victim.
Admissibility criteria
Before a communication is declared admissible by the Commission, it must comply with all the following requirements: – Communications must indicate their author(s) – The communication must be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the AU and the African Charter – The communication must not be written in derogatory or insulting language – The communication must not be based exclusively on media reports – Internal remedies must have been exhausted. Domestic remedies must have been exhausted unless the domestic proceedings have been unduly prolonged – The communication must be submitted within a reasonable time after domestic remedies have been exhausted – The issues raised in the communication have not been settled under other UN or AU procedures.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AFRICAN COURT AND THE AFRICAN COMMISSION
Relations between the Court and the Commission are governed by the Protocol establishing the Court. These instruments define the Court’s relationship with the Commission as follows:
The Court complements the Commission’s protection mandate.
The Court may refer a case to the Commission.
The Commission may, on its own initiative, submit a communication to the Court concerning massive violations of human rights.
The Commission may, at any stage of the examination of a communication, refer the examination of a communication to the Court.
The Commission may submit communications to the Court because of a State’s failure or unwillingness to comply with its decisions or interim measures.
The Court may request the opinion of the Commission when ruling on questions of admissibility.
The Court may give an advisory opinion at the request of the Commission.
When drawing up its own rules, the Court is obliged to consult the Commission, where appropriate.
