«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 ...»
seventh on the list of top donors of specific funds149 and in 2011 dropped to tenth place,150 in 2012 ascended to fifth place,151 in 2013 reached fourth place in the list152 and in 2014 dropped to seventh.153 In relation to the top donors, the financial contribution of the EU is considerably smaller. According to the 2013 report, the EU contribution represented 4.6% of the total contributions to specific funds, while OAS members USA and Canada contributed 39.4% and 19.1% respectively, and the Netherlands, as a permanent observer, accounted for 12.9% of the contributions.154 In 2014 the situation was similar, with the top three donors USA, Canada and the United Nations contributing 32.2%, 17.8% and 8.4% respectively and the EU’s contributions amounting to 3.3%.155 Finally, it should be noted that, apparently, this situation is different in the case of financial contributions from the EU to the IACHR. In that sense, according to reports on the last financial statements, financial contributions from the EU to the IACHR have been reduced.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2011 Report to the Permanent Council: Annual Audit of Accounts and Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010’, OEA/Ser.S/JAE/doc.42/12, 25 April 2012, p 38, table 4, http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2012/CP28579E.pdf.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2012 Report to the Permanent Council: Annual Audit of Accounts and Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011’, OEA/Ser.S/JAE/doc.43/13, 26 April 2013, p 34, table 4, http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2013/CP30929E.pdf.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2013 Report to the Permanent Council: Annual Audit of Accounts and Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012’, OEA/Ser.S/JAE/doc.44/14, 30 April 2014, p 24, table 4, www.oas.org/en/saf/accountability/docs/201405071900-Audit-Book-FY13-EN.pdf.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2014 Report to the Permanent Council: Annual Audit of Accounts and Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013’, OEA/Ser.S/JAE/doc.45/15, 30 April 2015, p 23, table 4, http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2015/CP34447EREPORT.pdf.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2013 Report to the Permanent Council’ (n 152) p 24, table 4.
OAS – Board of External Auditors, ‘2014 Report to the Permanent Council’ (n 153) p 23, table 4.
OAS, ‘Specific Funds Contributions to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’, www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2010eng/2010.Contributions.to.IACHR_certified.pdf, p 1.
IACHR, ‘Finance Sources and Execution of Resources 2011’, www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/finances/2011eng.pdf, p 2.
IACHR, ‘Source of Financing and Execution of Resources 2012’, www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/finances/Informe%20CIDH%202012_web_Eng_final.pdf, p 2.
IACHR, ‘Source of Financing and Execution of Resources 2013’, www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/finances/2013-recursos-financieros-en.pdf, p 2.
FRAME Deliverable No. 5.6 VI. Case studies A. Influence of the mutual cooperation on the development of the OAS human rights institutions: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights The influence of the EU on OAS human rights institutions needs to be analysed with regard to the political dialogue and with regard to the thematic approach. First, there is the existing political dialogue between EU and OAS representatives on key topics for the IASHR. The OAS-EU Policy Dialogue promotes the discussion on common standards on human rights and the strengthening of democracy. In addition, emphasis is placed on the need to improve Inter-American institutions to perform specific actions on these issues. Finally, these political dialogues create the possibility for the EU and the OAS to determine specific areas of cooperation, such as the destination of EU funds.
On the other hand, there is the influence of the EU thematic approach. This support is most visible in the case of the IACHR because it is possible to identify common themes among the EU Human Rights Guidelines and themes of the different rapporteurships. Although it is not possible to objectively identify a direct contribution of the EU’s expertise in the work performed by various rapporteurs, it is possible to identify financial contributions on issues such as freedom of speech, racial equality and vulnerable groups. These specific contributions highlight the importance of the different topics for the EU.
In this way, it may be inferred that part of the mutual influence between EU and OAS is to identify issues that are important to both organisations. The destination of the financial contribution of the EU depends on the identification of these central topics. An example of this is the EU’s contribution to publishing thematic rapporteurs’ reports, such as the ‘Report on the situation of African descent in the Americas’ of the IACHR. The work of the IACHR’s rapporteurs cannot be underestimated in the Inter-American context because their reports initiate or deepen the discussion of human rights at national and international levels. These reports allow national authorities to better tackle human rights challenges. As a result, it is possible to conclude that the financial contribution of the EU allows for the development of the rapporteurship and, therefore, influences the development of human rights in the region.
For the IACtHR, the influence is mainly economic. By providing financial contributions the EU strengthens the financial resources of the IACtHR and allows it to perform its duties better. One example is the funds granted between 1994 and 1999 in relation to the project ‘Support for the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights’ to implement the publication of IACtHR’s key documents (judgments, advisory opinions and provisional measures) and which equipped the IACtHR library to set up an electronic human rights data centre.160 In addition, there are contributions that allow the IACtHR to perform its functions in the region, such as funds that make it possible for the IACtHR to
hold sessions in various member states. For example, in 2011 the EU supported an IACtHR hearing in Colombia.
Finally, the influence of the EU at the multilateral level of cooperation with the OAS is complemented with bilateral cooperation with OAS member states, as in the case of Peru. At the multilateral level, the EU’s financial contribution to the IACHR and the IACtHR improves their capacity to monitor and report on the effectiveness of human rights protection in the Americas. At the bilateral level, the protection of human rights is promoted through political dialogue with national authorities and civil society associations. This relationship also involves provision of funds by the EU. Consequently, cooperation at both levels fosters better protection of human rights and democracy in the region – even if there are no study results yet.
B. Impact of the EU activities at the level of protection of human rights in Peru The EU develops two different strategic approaches for the protection of human rights in Peru. The first approach consists of high-level political dialogues between EU officials and Peruvian authorities.
The EU bilateral cooperation with Peru was enshrined in the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of a mechanism for bilateral consultations on 29 October 2009161 and then confirmed by the Free Trade Agreement signed by the EU with Peru and Colombia on 26 June 2012.162 The EU’s bilateral cooperation with Peru is channelled through the DCI, the geographical instrument that provides economic support to all EU bilateral cooperation actions in Latin America. This approach is different from others because it is based on previous agreements with foreign governments. Since this cooperation approach is the result of political negotiations and agreements, the DCI is oriented towards the promotion of inclusive development and sustainable trade. As a result, human rights cooperation is not directly related to this cooperation strategy.
The second approach consists of cooperation with civil society. This approach does not require previous political agreements since it is operated by thematic tools such as the EIDHR. As it was previously explained, the EU grants the majority of its financial resources to cooperation with civil society, especially with various civil society associations.
1. The influence of the EU political human rights cooperation strategy in Peru The EU provides support to human rights promotion in Peru on the basis of political dialogue and negotiations. This democracy-building effort has demonstrated positive results with the EU’s financial contribution to the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (PTRC),163 entailing also the EU’s Memorandum of Understanding Between the European Commission and the Republic of Peru on the Establishment of a Mechanism for Bilateral Consultations, 29 October 2009, http://eeas.europa.eu/peru/docs/mou_peru_en.pdf.
Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part  OJ L354/3.
Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, ‘Fondo Documental de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación Periodos: 2001 – 2003’, www.pcm.gob.pe/InformacionGral/archivo/cvr.htm.
FRAME Deliverable No. 5.6 contribution to the construction of Peru’s Place of Memory (PM).164 After the internal armed conflict that damaged Peru’s social cohesion and public institutions, the reconstruction efforts gathered support from the international community and from Peruvian organisations. This intractable statebuilding challenge synthesised by the PTRC and represented by the PM is very important in Peru since there is still a big misunderstanding about the facts that produced this violent context and about the lessons that should be taken from it.165 In addition to the memory and reconciliation efforts, the EU’s human rights support to Peru through political dialogue has also been crystallised in fighting the death penalty. According to the Peruvian Constitution, the death penalty is only accepted in cases of high treason in times of war and in cases of terrorism.166 The former President Garcia proposed the reinstatement of the death penalty in Peruvian criminal law as a means to fight severe cases of civil violence and rape. The debate was so intense that the government made a formal proposal. The EU increased its political dialogue in order to avoid the legalization of the death penalty and the proposal was eventually rejected.167 Another example of positive results of this political dialogue also took place during the administration of the former President Garcia. Before, multicultural dialogue at the political level was fragile and without formal organisation. In 2009, the Peruvian military intervention to quell indigenous protests in Bagua (Northern Peru) produced an international reaction.168 These intense protests were against the extractive companies in the region, in particular in areas where indigenous people were settled.169 From a human rights perspective, the EU strengthened multicultural dialogue between the government and indigenous representatives. This enhanced multicultural approach resulted in the adoption of the Law of the Right of Prior Consultation which was enacted during President Humala’s administration.170 As a consequence, it is possible to conclude that the EU’s political human rights dialogue with Peru has been very successful because solutions were conveyed to decision makers. It is also important to note that these contributions – even if they were designed for specific cases – fostered a systematic On 13 October 2011 the Cooperation agreement to support the implementation of the Place of Memory was signed by the EU, the Peruvian government and the UN.
Roxana Barrantes and Julio Berdegué, ‘Peru Case Study: Great Progress, Greater Challenges’ (2013) European Report on Development, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/erd-research-perufinalen.pdf. See also Sofia Macher, ¿Hemos Avanzado?: 10 años de las recomendaciones de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (Instituto de Estudios Peruanos 2014).
Constitution of the Republic of Peru art 140: ‘The death penalty may only be applied in cases of High Treason in war times and terrorism, in accordance with the law and international obligations by which Peru is bound’.
[translation by author].
Interview with EU officials in Lima.
See for instance ‘Indigenous leader among 53 defendants in trial over Bagua massacre’, Fox News (14 May
2014) www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/14/indigenous-leader-among-53-defendants-in-trial-over-baguamassacre; see also Chrystelle Barbier, ‘Pérou: un procès pour condamner les responsables du massacre de Bagua’, RFI (7 June 2014) www.rfi.fr/emission/20140607-perou-proces-condamner-responsables-massacrebagua.
See Lila Barrera-Hernandez, ‘Peruvian Indigenous Land Conflict Explained’, Americas Quarterly (12 June 2009), www.americasquarterly.org/peruvian-protests-explained.
The law was enacted by President Humala in 2011. Law N°29785, Law of the Right of Prior Consultation to Indigenous or Native People, recognised in the Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, www.minem.gob.pe/minem/archivos/Ley%2029785%20Consulta%20Previa%20pdf.pdf.
FRAME Deliverable No. 5.6 human rights approach with international influence. However, political dialogues are not the only strategy to develop human rights and democracy in the country.