«Fostering Human Rights among European Policies Large-Scale FP7 Collaborative Project GA No. 320000 1 May 2013-30 April 2017 Report on the EU’s ...»
Increasing numbers of human rights cases before the IACHR and the IACtHR compel these institutions to request contributions from member states and permanent observers in order to fulfil their mandate. The analysis of the contributions of the EU to the OAS and the IACHR made in section V.2.B shows that EU contributions to the OAS have been increasing in the past years, but that the specific contributions to the IACHR are shrinking. This indicates that while the EU works extensively with the OAS, this does not necessarily result either in a greater contribution in the field of human rights or in greater support to the IACHR and IACtHR.
With regard to the thematic approach, according to the information provided by the EU Permanent Mission to the OAS, the agreement signed on 19 March 2014 provides outstanding support to the promotion of the rights of the most vulnerable and excluded groups and communities in the Americas.
Currently the protection of the most vulnerable groups at the level of OAS member states is still far from the standard of protection achieved by the EU and its member states. The EU is aware of this challenge and seeks to expand the scope of the protection of these human rights using its financial support.
Through the OAS-EU agreement, the EU seeks to promote and protect human rights in the region with financial support to the IACHR and the IACtHR. The EU-OAS agreement is related to Programme 4 ‘Thematic Areas’ of IACHR Strategic Plan 2011-2015.202 In that sense, the aim of the agreement is to strengthen the protection of the rights of certain groups, communities and peoples, particularly vulnerable groups, such as women, children, indigenous peoples, afro-descendants and LGBTI. It also addresses issues of great concern for the IASHR, including impunity, inhumane treatment and conditions in prisons, and the security and protection of the rights of human rights defenders. In this regard, the agreement also appears to contribute to strengthening the work of nine rapporteurships and a thematic unit of the IACHR. The only rapporteurship excluded is the one related to freedom of expression, given that it is the only one with sufficient financial resources to discharge its mandate.203 In relation to the IACtHR, the EU-OAS agreement seeks to support ‘the Court’s awareness-raising and capacity-building activities that are aimed at enhancing the knowledge and understanding of its role and work by the general public, justice operators, authorities and other stakeholders’.204 Considering
this, it is possible to conclude that the EU fulfils its commitment to promote the protection of human rights in the OAS member states through the strengthening of the IACtHR capacities and its work.
In other words, the EU establishes political dialogues and sets up thematic cooperation programs in order to reinforce IASHR effectiveness. The EU seeks to promote human rights protection in the Americas by reinforcing OAS human rights institutions. There are indications that the EU works in coordination with the IASHR, especially for the thematic areas prioritised by the EU.
2. Assessments tools According to the information provided by DG DEVCO, the EU developed sophisticated and participative instruments in order to measure the progress and effectiveness of all EU grants agreements and contributions. They are applied for all grants to the OAS.
The EU monitors the implementation process of all grants allocated to the OAS through the EU Project Cycle Management.205 This instrument tracks the implementation by beneficiaries’ institutions. Part of this management framework is the ‘logical-frame’ tool.206 The logical-frame tool analyses the integral project as a whole and not divided as isolated units. In order to do so, and to respond appropriately to EU requirements, the EU provides beneficiary institutions with an official template for financial aspects and implementation narrative.
Transparency is ensured through external audits and through the participation of consultants whose tasks are to observe aspects of the implementation procedure of the grants. This long-term monitoring methodology is guided by the Results Oriented Monitoring Mechanism. In addition to this monitoring procedure, EU Project Managers also visit beneficiary institutions.207 Thereupon, according to the information received from DG DEVCO in Brussels, the money transferred by the EU to the OAS is technically considered a ‘grant’ and not a ‘contribution’ because the OAS failed to fulfil the control requirements for contributions, while grants have lesser requirements in terms of audits and controls.
European Commission, ‘Aid Delivery Methods: Volume 1 – Project Cycle Management Guidelines’, March 2004, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cyclemanagement-200403_en_2.pdf.
For more information see: Government of the Republic of Serbia, European Integration Office, ‘Guide to the Logical Framework Approach: A key tool for Project Cycle Management’, 2nd ed, 2011, www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/ShowDocument.aspx?Type=Home&Id=525.
According to the information provided by DG DEVCO, for the moment there are no results on the last cooperation projects with the OAS.
FRAME Deliverable No. 5.6 B. Influence of the EU’s bilateral human rights cooperation with Peru The EU’s influence on human rights issues in Peru cannot be underestimated. Until recently, Peru struggled with chronic poverty, weak public institutions and systemic violence,208 which resulted in the deterioration of the state’s ability to protect fundamental rights.209 Peru’s economic growth and increasing state-building efforts, through public policy210 and the judicial system211, are still far from guaranteeing effective human rights protection. In this context, the EU’s human rights contribution to Peru is extremely important. The EU reinforced social justice and memory efforts supporting, for example, the previously mentioned Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the construction of the ‘Lugar de la Memoria, la Tolerancia y la Inclusión Social’ (LUM, Place of Memory, Tolerance and Social Inclusion).212 The LUM is a project aiming to create a space for meeting, for commemorating and for discussing the facts of violence that occurred between 1980in Peru. Is important to note that the creation of the LUM was driven by Germany during the V Summit of Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union organized by Peru in 2008. On that occasion Germany offered a grant of EUR 2 million to finance the construction and maintenance of a Museum of Memory. Peru accepted the grant and created a high-level commission that proposed the LUM. Due to the positive economic developments, the nature of the cooperation with Peru is changing from classic development cooperation to a partnership association. According to the European Commission ‘[t]his may result in less or no EU development grant aid and the pursuit of a different development relationship based on loans, technical cooperation or support for trilateral cooperation’.213 Nevertheless, the EU’s financial assistance to Peru is still substantial. According to Commissioner Piebalgs, for the period 2014-2017 the cooperation with Peru will reach EUR 66 million in order to combat child malnutrition, better access to health and social services.214 From a human rights perspective, the EU’s main actions in Peru include its support for human rights and human rights defenders; financial contributions to civil society projects, as well as the support for democracy, for example, with the EU training provided to the Peruvian security forces on the awareness on the prevention of torture.215 The latter is also considered a landmark action due to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, ‘Final Report’, http://idehpucp.pucp.edu.pe/tipo/informe-final.
Human Rights Watch, ‘Annual Report, Peru’, 2014, www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/countrychapters/peru?page=1.
Alberto Castro (ed), Buen Gobierno y Derechos Humanos: Nuevas Perspectivas en el Derecho Público para Fortalecer la Legitimidad de la Democracia de la Administración Pública en el Perú (Instituto de Democracia y Derechos Humanos and Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 2014).
Francisco Macedo (ed), Los Caminos de la Justicia Penal y los Derechos Humanos (Instituto de Democracia y Derechos Humanos and Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 2007).
European Commission, ‘Memorandum to the Relevant Committee Concerning Annual Action Programme 2011 in favor of Peru covered by the Programming Document Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 for the Development Cooperation Instrument’, C-DEVCO.B (2011) 341366.
European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’, COM(2011) 637 final, 13 October 2011, p 10.
European Commission, ‘EU Commissioner announces significant new funding for Peru during visit’, press release, 21 July 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-853_en.htm.
EuropeAid, ‘Human rights and democracy: Torture prevention in Peru, Ecuador and Guatemala – Education, awareness raising and dissemination of practices of torture prevention for military and police authorities’, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/case-studies/latin-america_torture-prevention_en.pdf.
FRAME Deliverable No. 5.6 frequent human rights violations committed by public security forces or with the electoral observation missions. In addition, the EU supported key actors and processes, including international and regional mechanisms and instruments on human rights. For this last point, it is important to note the EU achievement in the implementation of the project to combat human trafficking.216 Recent data demonstrates that Peru is a major source of human trafficking.217 Since these crimes concern all Peruvian regions, the EU supported nine civil audits in 21 universities nation-wide. The activities were also oriented towards the strengthening of Peruvian authorities’ law enforcement measures against traffickers.
Finally, another important element of the EU human rights cooperation with Peru is the EU’s support for civil society. Indeed, the EU’s political dialogue with Peru, albeit very important, must reach a consensus between both parts and thus it may take a long time depending on the political will of the negotiating parties. The cooperation through civil society is based on different tools. It does not require previous political agreements, which allows for greater flexibility. As a result, the scope of the activities and areas enhanced by the EU have a more significant impact and improve the social activism. In other words, the EU’s strategy to influence the situation of human rights in Peru is a topdown and bottom-up strategy applying pressure to political actors while simultaneously boosting civil society awareness at the same time. As a result, the EU influenced the promotion of indigenous people’s rights, transitional justice and the fight against human trafficking.
VIII. Conclusions In light of the EU’s dual commitment to human rights and to effective multilateralism, this report sought to map the EU-OAS human rights cooperation, critically assessing this cooperation from a policy and institutional perspective, identifying specific and structural flaws in the EU’s approach and looking for creative ways to facilitate the relationship between the EU and the OAS. To that end, the report provided an overview of the legal and policy framework which guides EU-OAS relations and maps the major human rights stakeholders on both sides. It presented and examined the Union’s substantive human rights goals and objectives in its cooperation with the OAS and took a closer look at the tools and methods that are employed. Finally, two case studies contextualised the findings – both at the regional level (IACHR and IACtHR) and at the member state level (Peru).
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, human rights and effective multilateralism have been enshrined in EU primary law as two of the guiding principles of EU external action. A multitude of policy documents have since aimed to operationalise these principles by setting concrete priorities and defining implementation strategies. Both, the EU and the OAS seek to engage with other international and regional organisations which share their purposes. Consequently, the EU (then the European Community) was granted permanent observer status at the OAS in 1989. Cooperation between both organisations was additionally strengthened through the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding in 2009. It provides the framework for inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation and serves as the basis for a political dialogue, which includes topics concerning human rights and democracy.
The two main organs of the IASHR are the IACHR and the IACtHR. While the former contributes to the promotion and protection of human rights through the work of its rapporteurs, through reports, recommendations and precautionary measures, the latter can issue binding decisions and award reparations to victims, provided that its jurisdiction has been accepted by the respective state. In addition, the OAS has a multitude of specialised and other institutions with human rights relevance, ranging from the General Assembly of the OAS to the Inter-American Commission of Women. On the EU side, the Council of the EU is mandated with the development of human rights policies, which are then implemented by the HR/VP and the EEAS. In addition, the EUSR and the European Parliament have frequently engaged with the OAS on human rights issues.
Substantive human rights goals and objectives of the EU for its engagement with the OAS can be derived mainly from the Memorandum of Understanding, from the Strategic Framework and Action Plan and from the EU Human Rights Guidelines. They include among others freedom of expression, the promotion of ethnic and racial equality, the death penalty and the rights of the most vulnerable groups. Nevertheless, contrary to what can be seen at the example of relations between the EU and the UN, there are no specific policy documents identifying certain thematic human rights issues or methods of cooperation in the EU’s bilateral relations with the OAS.