Lebanon in the spotlight: Toward an Effective UPR Process

Transcription

1 Name of project: Lebanon in the spotlight: Toward an Effective UPR Process Project (contract): Number Project manager: Overall objectives Project purpose Raneem Baassiri a) To highlight the human rights situation in Lebanon for the past 4 years and the duties of the Lebanese government in relation to the Resolution 60/251 b) To promote human rights awareness and to advocate for a better respect of Human Rights in the Lebanese society c) To ensure the effectiveness and transparency of the UPR process by the government, stakeholders and civil society This project aims to contribute to the implementation of an adequate human rights policy within the Lebanese society. The strategy to adopt is divided into three stages: 1- preparing for the UPR submission, 2- national advocacy, 3- attending the review session in Geneva and launch international advocacy work. Project results Anticipated direct results /outputs a) A UPR submission of 10 pages (report) assessing the human rights situation in Lebanon submitted to the human rights council b) A network for national as well as international human rights NGOs, the Lebanese government and active journalists for future collaboration 11. Anticipated longerterm results / outcomes: a) An alteration of the Lebanese government approach to human rights subjects b) Updated UPR reports studying the human rights situation and its evolvement in Lebanon c) An improved human rights situation and approach in Lebanon a) ALEF, IKV and PAX Christi international submitted a joint UPR report to the Human Rights council on April 12 th b) ALEF coordinated meetings in Lebanon between Lebanese and international NGOs working on the UPR in particular and Human Rights issues in general. Many press releases and coordinated steps followed meetings. ALEF is also part of a coalition of over 50 NGOs working on the UPR in Lebanon and the Arab world. c) ALEF coordinated advocacy both on an international and national level. ALEF's delegation to Geneva coordinated with other NGOs on a side event and laid grounds for future follow-up activities and collaboration d) 41 recommendations were accepted by the government of Lebanon on 12 November 2010 before the HRC. These 41 commitments should pave the way for a change in the human rights situation in Lebanon, provided that civil society and the public hold the governmet accountable. e) Key human rights issues were brought before an international forum on 10 November 2010, which sets a precedent for the open discussion of issues such as torture and other sensitive civil and political rights.

2 Assessment activities Lessons learned Proposed amendments of See section II See section III. See section IV. I. Completed Activities (January December 2010) 1. Recruitment and establishment of the UPR unit: January 2 March 15 (2010) ALEF screened and interviewed several applicants for the researcher position. Once hired, the researcher worked alongside ALEF's advocacy officer starting March 15. Prior to the recruitment of the researcher, the advocacy officer had been screening all background documents and guidelines related to the UPR mechanism, especially the reporting component. In addition, ALEF accepted the internship of two graduate students with research qualifications. The UPR reporting team was formed of these four individuals and an operational plan with clear task division that would be managed by the advocacy officer was put into practice. 2. The stakeholder report: 2.1. Information gathering January 15 March 20 (2010) The team working on the UPR worked on gathering accurate information (whenever possible with numbers, cases...) on all human rights issues in Lebanon and particularly in the past four years. The research process involved three main phases: the first was an assessment of ALEF's previously compiled data; the second was an update of ALEF's existing data through a literature and press review; finally gaps in compiled information where identified for the primary data collection phase which involved interviews with key informants. ALEF s previous reports and research papers constituted a solid base for the compilation of the UPR submission. ALEF already has in place a system for continuously monitoring, documenting, and archiving cases of violations in Lebanon. ALEF used its unpublished information and analysis on the state of civil and political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as women's and children's rights over the past four years. ALEF also had conducted press reviews on major security incidents since the July War of For the purpose of the UPR report, ALEF's researchers analysed the press reviews that had been gathered as part of the program's regular tasks. ALEF also conducted interviews for the verification and cross-checking of data compiled during the desk review, mainly with journalists and legal specialists for recent updates of death penalty cases, judicial rulings, and updates in outstanding criminal investigations. The research team also produced a comprehensive review of the Human Rights Council, its institution, mandate, and mechanisms. The team produced several internal documents on best

3 practices and guidelines with regards to reporting, advocacy, and national consultations. (See Annex 1 and 2) For this purpose, ALEF met with selected stakeholders who have experience in the UPR in order to solicit their experience and recommendations for the approach to take in Lebanon. The project officer met with an international human rights and legal consultant (please see annex 23) as well as a previous OHCHR reporter who was responsible for compiling stakeholder reports during previous UPR sessions. Other meetings that were held in this preparation phase was with local and international NGOs to establish contacts and inquire into possible ways of cooperation; this fits into the project's objective of coalition building through civil society mobilization. ALEF's executive director also met with a representative of OHCHR's Beirut Office, Ms. Lana Baydas. During this meeting Ms. Baydas was informed of ALEF's upcoming activities and a communication channel was opened for future correspondence. OHCHR is a valuable stakeholder which ALEF seeks to collaborate with on a consistent basis in advocacy activities (especially on the issue of delays in reporting to the UN) 2.2. Report Development February 20 April 1 (2010) Based on the gathered information, ALEF's research team prepared/ contributed in total to three UPR stakeholder submissions: a- ALEF contributed a brief on violations of children's rights in Lebanon to a joint submission by a coalition of about 50 Lebanese NGOs working on the UPR b- ALEF contributed a brief on torture and related issues to a joint submission specifically dealing with human rights violations in detention, led by a group of four national NGOs. c- ALEF compiled its joint submissionwith IKV and Pax Christi through regular consultations and information sharing amongst the partner organizations Report verification and Sending April 1 April 12 (2010) A report co-signed by ALEF, IKV,Pax Christi International was sent to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The report was prepared based on the requirements and guidelines provided by the Human Rights Council. IKV Pax Christi verified the quality and observance of specified standards and writing guidelines. 3. Awareness campaign: 3.1. Civil society mobilization April 12 (2010) December ALEF took part in consecutive NGO meetings held for the purpose of coordinating reporting, advocacy, and awareness raising activities of NGOs participating in the UPR process. The preliminary meeting that was held for NGOs to discuss joint submissions was held in February 2010 in Monroe Suites Hotel, Beirut, organized by national NGO, Frontiers, and which was attended by representatives of the OHCHR office in Beirut. This meeting formed the basis for the "national coalition of Lebanese NGOs" formed of 50 organizations. ALEF's key objective through participating in this coalition was information-sharing, dialogue, and networking for advocacy and awareness raising purposes. Thereafter, consecutive meetings were held throughout this reporting period, most of the time in the office of Friedrich Ebert in Beirut and other times at the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) offices. NGOs shared information amongst themselves regarding the progress of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in preparing the state report and holding national consultations.

4 It is worthy to note that the early period of the UPR involved a great deal of awareness raising within the civil society forum itself. ALEF's background research on the UPR mechanism allowed it to contribute technically and raise the awareness of partner NGOs on many steps of the UPR process. Also, ALEF raised the awareness of partner organizations that were not participating in the coalition on the UPR. In particular, Nabaa LNGO working for Palestinian s children and with whom ALEF is a partner on a project for children s rights; ALEF had submitted a joint report with the sponsorship of Save the Children Sweden. For the purpose of public outreach, the national coalition of NGOs held a launching event for the report of the coalition's submission in July ALEF attended this event, which was covered by the press and among the attendees were representatives from the troika, numerous European delegations and some Lebanese public figures and MPs Media mobilization April 12 (2010) December During this period, ALEF mapped and contacted national journalists informing them of ALEF's work in the UPR and on the key events that were coming up in the process. These journalists were eager to receive updated information on the process and inquired into the technicalities of the review session in November. (See Annex 3) ALEF appeared on a television feature (social episode) were one of the topics was dedicated to the UPR process in Lebanon. In the interview ALEF highlighted the importance of the UPR process for Lebanon, the role ALEF is playing in the UPR process, its partners (IKV and Pax Christi), and the role and its stand on the actions being taken by the state of Lebanon (in particular the Ministry of Foerign Affairs). The objective was to disseminate key awareness raising messages to the general public. In preparation for the working group session on 10 November 2010, ALEF re-launched close contact with previously mapped journalists via phone and this contact was strengthened further during a training that ALEF conducted training within the scope of its torture project. ALEF reminded them of the upcoming review session and informed them that it will issue a press release on the national level on the day of the session and did so accordingly. The Daily Star, a Lebanese daily newspaper, covered the event and quoted ALEF's press release. (See Annex 4). 4. National Advocacy ALEF led a coordination initiative among NGOs for advocacy purposes. A meeting for selected NGOs that shared mandates similar to ALEF and who cooperated in drafting a joint submission on detention issues was held in ALEF on July 5 th 2010 (See Annex 5) Following this meeting, ALEF in coordination with the selected NGOs prepared and sent an open letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice (see Annex 6, 7), urging the government to do the following: to hold an effective and transparent national consultation process to submit overdue reports to treaty bodies through inter-ministerial cooperation to establish a National Preventive Mechanism as per the state's obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. These issues emerged and were reflected in the UPR report submitted by ALEF, IKV Pax Christi to the Human Rights Council in April 2010.

5 Moreover, ALEF has also reflected its stand on the above mentioned points during the side event in Geneva on November 10 th. 4.1 Government Consulting April 12 November 31 (2010) ALEF in collaboration with national NGOs prepared and presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 30 th 2010 an open letter urging the government to hold broad national consultations whilst preparing the state report and to raise awareness of the public on the UPR in a transparent manner. ALEF and its partners have not received a reply to this date. On August the 8 th 2010, ALEF through its network of collaborating NGOs was informed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had called on short notice for a meeting with few selected NGOs to discuss the government's draft of the UPR report. The draft was sent on short notice to these few NGOs. ALEF obtained a copy of the report and attended the meeting in order to advocate for the content of the open letter that was previously sent. It was discovered that the objective of the meeting was to hold the "national consultations for the UPR". ALEF lobbied during the meeting that was held on the 11th for a broader consultation and a higher degree of transparency. ALEF analysed the draft of the state report which at the date of writing has become accessible to the public. ALEF will use its comments on the report in lobbying and advocacy activities in Geneva. (See Annex 8) 4.2 National Advocacy (continued) April 12- November 31 (2010) ALEF prepared an advocacy kit for all visits and lobbying activities that were occurring during the reporting period. This advocacy kits includes three one-page briefings on the main human rights issues detected in ALEF and IKV Pax Christi's joint submission, the UPR joint submission itself, as well as CD containing all relevant ALEF publications. (Please See Annexes 9, 10, 11) These briefings tailored key messages and coupled with recommendations for easy use and exchange with permanent missions in Geneva, governmental stakeholders in Lebanon, and media. ALEF has prepared a national advocacy action plan, with guidelines of key messages to be disseminated to each targeted stakeholder. (See Annex 12) ALEF also recruited in this period a consultant who has extensive experience in international advocacy, UN mechanisms, and who also served as representative of the EU delegation to the Human Rights Council during the passing of the Human Rights council institution-building package. This consultancy had two topics to focus on: Torture Prevention and Monitoring in Lebanon and the UPR process. Thus, the consultancy was co charged on two Donors (including IKV PAX Christi and the Dutch Embassy). The UPR team met in the week of 1 November 2010 with the consultant to receive an intensive training on international advocacy and to come up with an advocacy action plan that makes use of the UPR. The team together with the consultant listed all the priorities ALEF has identified in the period and narrowed them down in order to come up with clear, achievable, and measurable advocacy objectives. For each objective, activities were elaborated (please see annex 24) and contacts were mapped. ALEF's delegate to Geneva then took these contacts and objectives with her to Geneva in order to be reflected in the international lobbying that was planned for.

6 Following advocacy planning principles, ALEF's UPR team decided to focus the scope of their advocacy on few key issues that could be followed up on even after the end of the project. After a series of brainstorming meetings key advocacy objecives were identified as follows: 1) Criminalization of torture in compliance with the UN CAT 2) submission of overdue reports to Treaty Bodies (as explained in our delays in reporting position paper) during the session, we want the government to explain how they are currently preparing the overdue reports and how they plan on putting a mechanism to prepare reports and consult civil society in the future 3) Other issues ALEF has worked on (military tribunal; independence of judiciary and proper administration of justice; death penalty, trafficking, child rights) A plan was elaborated that included activities that begin during the final phase of the project implementation and continue past it througout (See Annex 13) While ALEF's delegation was in Geneva for the review session, the UPR team worked on implementing the agreed upon advocacy plan. The team decided that after discussion points and recommendations are elicited during the session in Geneva, ALEF would send follow up letters to the related Ministries noting key recommendations that were adopted/not adopted and requesting a follow up meeting to discuss implementatation of these recommendations. (See Annex 14) 5. International Advocacy NGO partnership November 22 December ALEF's team in collaboration with IKV Pax Christi mapped out delegations and their interests for international advocacy. ALEF researched previous trends in voting from delegations in order to know which delegation is most interested in which subject. (See Annex 15) Based on this mapping, a series of meetings with selected embassies were requested and some them took place. ALEF contacted 15 Embassies mapped and selected based on their background and history in various UPR sessions conducted in the past. However, only 11 embassies had responded to our request for appointments; the French, German, Nigerian and Swedish delegations were the ones who did not respond (Sample letter to request meetings in annex 23). Through these meetings, ALEF presented the advocacy kit including all information that can be sent to permanent missions in Geneva and to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in respective countries. Also, ALEF complemented the documents with oral transmission of the key issues and messages and responded to questions that the embassy representatives had regarding events, violations or data. ALEF urged all embassy representatives to communicate the recommendations presented to their delegations in Geneva in order to guarantee that important issues are debated during the review session in November. Many embassies have asked us in follow up exchanges for further information and specifications. ALEF also presented in partnership with a Lebanese NGO working among Palestinian communities a one-page summary on the main findings on child rights violations in Lebanon along with recommendations, to Save the Children's office in Geneva, in order to collaborate on advocacy related to child rights. (See Annex 16)

7 It is to note that for the awareness raising and advocacy activities ALEF had produced some materials, including: The Human Rights snapshots: summarizing the UPR report ALEF brochure, reflecting ALEF current projects including the UPR A CD including all of ALEF publications on the various human rights advocated for in ALEF main UPR advocacy Agenda 6. Geneva visit International organizations consulting November 22 December 6 (2010) ALEF co-organized a side-event in Geneva, that was held on 9 November 2010, the day before Lebanon's review session. All Human Rights Council members were invited to this event, alongside international NGOs, the Lebanese governemnt delegation and an MP who was invited by IKV Pax Chrisi to Geneva. The event was divided into two parts: - Briefing on economic and social rights followed by discussion - Thematic issues followed by discussion ALEF spoke about : death penalty, military tribunals, delays in reporting, torture, and breaches of International Humanitarian Law. ALEF presented two recommendations for every thematic issue tackled. In addition ALEF spoke about the national consultation being not inclusive and the government representatives acknowledged that fact and apologised for it. The event was covered by the media. (See Annex 17) Furthermore in Geneva ALEF has visited the following delegations advocating for the same above points discussed during the side events: Belgium (November 4 th ), Swedish (November 5 th ), United Kingdom (November 4 th ), Canadian (November 4 th ), Vatican (November 5 th ), Chili (November 9 th ). In each encounter, ALEF presented its organization, the partnership with IKV PAX Christi on the UPR and the contribution to the various coalitions in Lebanon on UPR. Also, it has been brought up the failure in the national consultation during the UPR process that was lead by the Lebanese government. (See Annex 18) Furthermore, ALEF had decided to also visit the European Commission (EC) in Brussels during its stay in Europe based on a request from the EC representative during a conference in Alexandria on Death Penalty. ALEF deemed that such a visit would be useful for the following reasons: to explore further on how the EU functions as en entity during the UPR processes to strengthen further necessary relations with the EC in Brussels given the changes in employees since ALEF last visit in 2008 for future advocacy to tackle specifically the Death Penalty issues (ALEF main advocacy topics) with the relevant focal person at the EC It is worth noting that one of ALEF staff had been financed a one day stay in France to make necessary arrangement from there in terms of: contacting the Human Rights Council on some logistics: for the side event cross checking information given by IKV PAX Christi with a staff working in OHCHR on the related information on the present delegations there

8 This was necessary as at this stage different information sometimes contradictive has been received in this regard Media mobilization and other stakeholders: During Geneva trip, ALEF has also decided to consolidate its international efforts with its national deployed for the Media mobilizations to ensure further visibility. Some invitations for dinner had to be made in this regard to strengthen the relations among those journalists. It is also worth noting that during two of those dinners the following key people(that came with the Lebanese official delegations) were present: representative from the Ministry of Labor, representative from the Human rights unit at the Lebanese Internal security forces, the judge Marlein el jurr. They journalists who were present there had eventually published the work of the NGOs working on the UPR on their advocacy activities in Geneva Plenary intervention November 22 December 6 (2010) The Plenary intervention will be conducted in March session in 2011.ALEF intends to formulate key messages during this session if resources are available. However, the civil society interventions are very important at this stage as it was recommended by all delegations visited. In this line, ALEF will develop an advocacy strategy, involving media as well during the coming phase and before March 2011 for the following reasons: 1- To advocate for the recommendations that are still under examinations by the Lebanese government 2- To strengthen further the visibility aspect of this process and of ALEF and IKV PAX Christi 7. Additional Activities Implemented (not within original project plan) Public Awareness Raising Activities April 12 (2010) December The UPR team at ALEF brainstormed several options for an awareness-raising activity and decided on university students as the primary target group. The target group was narrowed down to being students of political science, law, international law and related disciplines who in their classes cover international organizations and UN mechanisms. ALEF would provide these students with an intervention that is more practical than academic, in order to be an added value to their taught curricula. Accordingly, ALEF contacted four main universities that have legal departments and with whom ALEF already had existing channels of communication These five universities were the Beirut Arab University (BAU) through the Human Rights Center, Sagesse University, University of Notre Dame (NDU), and St. Joseph University (USJ) and the American University of Beirut (AUB). ALEF had to visit the focal persons in each of these universities to establish the contacts and explain further on the purpose of the UPR presentation. The proposed session on the UPR was received positively by focal persons in each university. The sessions in each of these universities included a detailed presentation on the Human Rights Council and the UPR process and then went on to hold with the students a discussion on the UPR process as it was implemented in Lebanon. Students asked questions about ALEF's activities and roles in the process. (See Annex 19)

9 NDU students, with encouragement by ALEF, organized a live screening of the UPR session on 10 November 2010 open for all students of the university. II. Activities Assessment Based on the UPR team along with the feedback of the Executive Director and Board member feedback following the Geneva trip, ALEF has identified the following strengths and weaknesses during this process, some could be related to external factors and some to internal ones. They include: A Strenghs: A good quality of a UPR report was produced compared to other NGOs submission in Lebanon (based on several stakeholders feedback and plus on contributions request from various coalitions ) /thus good research and reporting skills within ALEF team The joint submission was quoted 7 times in the summary of stakeholder submissions compiled by OHCHR 1 Well structured visits to stakeholders including brief / friendly snapshots summarizing the main points in the UPR report and recommendations A good knowledge (on the technical and practical level) of the UPR process that had also been highly appreciated by other NGOs working on the UPR: ALEF was asked several times for technical assistance on some aspects. Provision of argumentations and comments on the government URP report and submitted later on to the various stakeholders visited B- Weaknesses: Lack of high number of documented cases on various human rights violations in Lebanon: it is something that ALEF is trying to work for by enhancing its presence on the field level in particular in remote areas The need to also have a prepared analysis on the political situation from a human rights perspective prior to visiting the various foreign embassies in Lebanon as they tend to ask about these issues. Also the need to have an overview on each countries similarities in human rights situation to Lebanon (especially countries into development) In general the advocacy visits in Lebanon were timely (average one month before the UPR session), however, it would have been even better to start them earlier as some tend to send their recommendation to their representatives in Geneva earlier. The argumentation related to the Government report was not timely due to the delay on behalf of the government to submit their report officially. Nevertheless, a remedy could have been to prepare argumentation on the initial draft with general recommendations and sent them to stakeholders. The stay in Geneva could have been shorter especially there was no need to arrive 7 days before the UPR session. The contacts established by then were mainly useful for relational purposes and not advocacy as the majority of those who have been visited mentioned that they have formulated their recommendations and that no changes could be introduced unless there are major issues to be pushed for. The stakeholders visited in Geneva were not the same visited in Lebanon: some of the same delegations have been visited and some had not responded. Both national and International advocacy should have been more in line. 1 In footnotes 8, 10, 12, 25,29, 30, 35,

10 More efforts should have been put into capitalizing on the Media presence in Geneva for visibility issues: efforts in this regard have been made however the journalists preferred covering the event in relation to the label of NGO s working on the UPR and pushing ALEF and IKV PAX Christi to the front required a different strategy to be thought over ahead of time. The need to have at least three staff from ALEF: one operational and two other higher in levels. The event needed both efforts in establishing relations with various stakeholders and also documentations and detailed technical input in some occasions III. Lessons Learned The purpose of the UPR: ALEF in implementing this project gained expansive skills and knowledge on the workings of the Human Rights Council and the UPR mechanism. This experience was transferrd to partner NGOs and journalists. In the process, ALEF reinforced its view that UN mechanisms, if properly utilized, can be excellent national advocacy tools. However, the tendency during this UPR process was to regard the UPR as a check-list exercise, and very few, including involved government officials, embraced the UPR as a national process with a long-term vision. Interaction with the government: This project proved once again that consultation of civil society by the government is incredibly weak in Lebanon. Although ALEF actively lobbied the government to hold wide and transparent national consultations, we were not successful mainly because the Ministry of Foreigns Affairs is not technically capable of leading such a process. ALEF learned through the implementation of this project that capacity building and technical assistance to the Minsitry in matters relating to interaction with the UN could be infused in future advocacy approached with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and related stakeholders. Networking: ALEF was able to further strengthen its relations wih several stakeholders: Universities, other NGOs, Key persons interviewed during the preparation period. There is a tendency among the International Community (in particular the OHCHR) and MP Ghassan Moukeiber to push for the maintenance of the coalition of the 50 NGOs who has worked on the UPR and of the other NGOs who joined this coalition. However, when asked, ALEF has clearly explained that such a coalition is welcomed, yet it would be doubtful that it could be maintained for future advocacy purposes, mainly because of the following: a. Resources, b. Not all values could be shared and c. Not all strategies / tactics could be agreed upon. Nevetheless, ALEF will is called and will continue liaising with the national coalition and other partner organization on thematic advocacy issues. Technically: the UPR process was a very interesting one as it was not completely in line with what is mentioned in guides and books. ALEF is planning to have a more of an depth assessment on this level, within which several lessons learnt will be included on the practical level in relation to the Lebanese context (please refer to section IV). IV. Proposed Amendments

11 ALEF learned through the implementation of this project that several NGOs involved in the process are planning to compile a publication similar to the guidebook that this project plans for. Furthermore, a regional network known as Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) has compiled a UPR "step-by-step" publication intended to be reference for NGOs working on the UPR. This document was published in the period of implementation of this project. In light of this, and in order to avoid duplication, ALEF proposes to transform the nature of the guidebook; to make it less technical and more of an assessment of Lebanon's experience in the UPR. This publication would be more analytical and would take into perspective NGOs' experiences as well as the experience of the Minsitries that were involved. This publication would generate recommendations that could be used for the next round of revision that Lebanon will undergo in the Human Rights Council four years from now and it could be utilized for other mechanisms such as reporting to treaty bodies. This publication could also be a follow-up to a previous position paper that ALEF prepared with funding by IKV, "delays in reporting to the UN treaty bodies by the state of Lebanon" (2009). These two publications together could greatly complement follow-up advocacy activities targetting the Minsitry of Foreign Affairs and related stakeholders. Planned Activities (November December 2010) Re-design our internal advocacy strategy (international and National one) Continue the follow up and coordination with various stakeholders (particularly liaising with the various NGOs who ahd worked on the UPR) Plan for another media coverage by a TV show in Lebanon en-me-HR