Evaluation Report - Evaluation of the effectiveness of human rights monitoring, reporting and follow-up in the United Nations multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations 8 March 2019 Assignment No: IED-19-004 Inspection and Evaluation Division Evaluation and Inspection INSPECTION AND EVALUATION DIVISION Function “The Office shall evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of the programmes and legislative mandates of the Organization. It shall conduct programme evaluations with the purpose of establishing analytical and critical evaluations of the implementation of programmes and legislative mandates, examining whether changes therein require review of the methods of delivery, the continued relevance of administrative procedures and whether the activities correspond to the mandates as they may be reflected in the approved budgets and the medium-term plan of the Organization;” (General Assembly Resolution 48/218 B). Project team members: RAHUL SUR, Chief of Section RAKIB HOSSAIN, Team Leader NABINA PANDAY, Team Member PETER DIXON, Team Member FAZLIDDIN SAMANDAROV, Team Member Contact Information OIOS-IED Contact Information: phone: +1 212-963-8148; fax: +1 212-963-1211; email: [email protected] Rahul Sur, Chief of Section Tel: +1 212-963-0495, e-mail: [email protected] Yee Woo Guo, Director Tel: +1 917-367-3674, e-mail: [email protected] 1 Summary The Office of Internal Oversight Services assessed the effectiveness of human rights monitoring, reporting and follow-up in eight United Nations multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations (PKOs), including in-depth assessments focused on the missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), Mali (MINUSMA) and Darfur (UNAMID). It covered the period 2014-2017. Overall, stakeholders’ perspectives on the effectiveness of human rights monitoring were positive. However, human rights monitoring varied greatly across missions with each human rights component (HRC) across the eight PKOs verifying and reporting about 77 human rights violations (HRVs) per month, with a range of 373 in MONUSCO and three in MINUSTAH per month. Various factors limited human rights monitoring, including, inter alia, access constraints, attitude of Host Governments, mission capacity, and senior leadership support. Specifically, for UNAMID, the mission’s human rights work was impeded by the consistent and pervasive access restrictions imposed by the Government, including through denial of visas, which created an atmosphere of fear within the HRC, impeded its effective functioning, and affected mission integration. While other mission components were involved in various ways in human rights monitoring, several factors limited this cooperation. Engagement with civil society and non-governmental organizations (CSOs/NGOs) was also largely positive with specific areas for improvement identified. Additionally, essential operational guidance was lacking with the OHCHR 2011 revised manual on human rights monitoring without content in 16 out of 33 chapters. The Security Council mandates and Organisational policy require PKOs to periodically publish human rights reports, but this requirement was not consistently met across PKOs. The OHCHR human rights case database – the sole authorised system for storing information collected for human rights investigation and verification – was poorly used and supervised with largely undocumented follow-up. When used, information in the database was insufficient to conclude that reported violations had occurred or could be considered as verified in accordance with the OHCHR methodology for 96 out of 98 cases (98 percent) reviewed. Senior mission leaders were generally supportive of human rights work but differed considerably in the extent to which they raised human rights issues to the Security Council. The senior managers’ compacts with the Secretary-General did not include any specific performance indicator on human rights. Despite the difficult operating environment and inextricably political context, HRCs achieved notable results although the human rights situation was deteriorating in two out of the three countries. Human rights monitoring contributed to informing missions of impending crises in some cases. Their work positively influenced government structures, laws and processes, contributed to some improvement in accountability for violations, increased protection for victims, witnesses and human rights defenders, and enhanced awareness among rights-holders and duty-bearers. It also helped sensitise internal and external stakeholders on human rights issues. Finally, human rights reports were regularly used by the Security Council and other stakeholders, with more frequent reporting resulting in greater use. OIOS made four critical and five important recommendations: (i) Develop mission-specific action plans to improve human rights monitoring; (ii) Complete the manual on human rights monitoring; (iii) Ensure regular public reports, with failure to publish reported to the Secretary-General; 2 (iv) Urgently address the weaknesses regarding the human rights database; (v) Develop information sharing protocols among mission components; (vi) Further strengthen engagements with CSOs/NGOs; (vii) Ensure uniformity in the results and outputs indicators of HRCs; (viii) Incorporate human rights performance indicators in the Secretary-General’s compacts; and (ix) Finalize guidance materials on improving human rights contribution in early warning. 3 Contents Paragraph Page I. Introduction 1-4 6 II. Background 5-10 6-7 III. Scope and Methodology 11-13 7-8 IV. Results A. Peacekeeping operations undertook human rights monitoring to 14-51 8-17 varying degrees within mission-specific contexts and challenges B. Despite unequivocal Security Council mandates and 52-58 17-18 Organisational policy requirement, public reporting on human rights was inconsistent across peacekeeping operations C. The OHCHR case database was significantly under-utilized, with 59-75 18-22 its records seriously deficient, which raised concerns about the credibility and reliability of reported violations if based solely on information therein for the cases reviewed D. While senior mission leadership was generally supportive of 76-85 23-24 human rights work, the extent to which they raised human rights issues before the Security Council varied, and there was no specific human rights performance indicator in the senior managers’ compacts with the Secretary-General E. Human rights monitoring contributed to informing missions of 86-93 24-25 impending crises in some cases, but nevertheless were seen as largely reactive F. The human rights components achieved notable results despite 94-113 26-29 the backdrop of a deteriorating human rights situation in two out of the three countries V. Conclusion 114-121 29-30 VI. Recommendations 30-31 Annex I: OHCHR management response and recommendation action plan 32-37 Annex II: DPO management response and recommendation action plan 38-43 Annex III: DMSPC management response 44-45 4 Acronyms ACLED Armed Conflict Location and Event Data CAR Central African Republic CLAs Community Liaison Assistants CSOs Civil Society Organizations DDR(R) Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (and resettlement) DFS Department of Field Support DOS Department of Operational Support DPA Department of Political Affairs DPKO Department of Peacekeeping Operations DPO Department of Peace Operations DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DSRSGs Deputy Special Representatives of the Secretary-General RC/HC Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator HOM Head of Mission HQ Headquarters HRAs Human rights abuses HRC Human rights component HRDB Human Rights Case Database HRDDP Human Rights Due Diligence Policy on UN Support to non-UN Security Forces HRuF Human Rights up Front initiative of the Secretary-General HRVs Human rights violations IDP Internally displaced persons IED Inspection and Evaluation Division JMAC Joint mission analysis cell JOC Joint operations centre M&R Monitoring and reporting MINUSCA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic MINUSMA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali MINUSTAH United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti MONUSCO United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo NGOs Non-government Organisations NHRIs National Human Rights Institutions Non-HRC Non-human rights components OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services PKOs Peacekeeping Operations POC Protection of civilians SRSGs Special Representatives of the Secretary-General TJRC Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission UN United Nations UNAMID African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur UNCT UN Country Team UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan UNOCI United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire UNPOL UN Police 5 I. Introduction and objective 1. The Inspection and Evaluation Division of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS-IED) conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of human rights monitoring, reporting and follow-up in United Nations (UN) multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations (PKOs). The topic was selected based on a risk assessment to identify OIOS peacekeeping evaluation priorities for 2017/18. 2. The general frame of reference for OIOS is in General Assembly resolutions 48/218B, 54/244, 59/272, as well as ST/SGB/273, which authorize