Protecting Survivors and Witnesses

               This post is a summary of the article published in 2016 with the title above at   https://www.newtactics.org/conversation/protecting-survivors-and-witnesses

               Protecting survivors and witnesses of human rights violations is crucial to effective human rights work. Protection is important because when victims and witnesses fear further persecution, they are unlikely to report their experiences, making redress and accountability much more difficult. The state is formally responsible for providing protection, but it is the state that is often the greatest source of perceived risk amongst witnesses and survivors. Under Article 13 of the U.N.Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), the State have an obligation to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected against "all ill treatment and intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given." On Article 14 of UNCAT states that the States have the obligation to ensure victims obtain rehabilitation through a State-run facility. Civil society has an important role to play in ensuring protection of survivors and victims through civil society groups. As victims are inclined to approach NGOs for protection, NGOs ought to be equipped with good protection practice. At times, NGOs who work directly with the victims of human rights violations become themselves witnesses and victims and need protection. One way of protecting witnesses and victims is by recognizing the suffering of these victims and educating civil society to understand the value of these efforts on society. The media plays a significant role in this. The international community can play a vital role in applying pressure on governments to provide adequate protection. Broader alliances need to be built between different sectors of civil society.  Sometimes networks are crucial in terms of providing victims a safe house or to flee to another location within the country or to another country. Communication between human rights defenders and victims is equally important to give an assurance of protection. The importance of documentation of human rights abuses is essential. Documentation would assist in analyzing the 'trend of cases' to prepare wider 'advocacy strategy' to deal with the security concerns of victims and witnesses. The importance of support from international NGOs to human rights defenders, victims and witnesses is also essential. The types of risk can be categorized broadly into three types of risk, physical, phychological and digital. Economic risk could also be added. It is important to ensure that victims and witnesses have as much information as possible so that they are in the best position to assess their own risk. Hope, honor and dignity must put forward as a way to manage risk and to empower victims. The risk of vicarious trauma and the importance of self care must also be discussed. The role of international organizations such as U.N. and the E.U. in protecting victims were raised. But the State has the ultimate responsibility in providing protection but often it is the primary source of threat. This is where the role of civil society organizations play an important bridging role between the State and the victims by advocacy when States fail to meet their obligations. Recommendations that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights provide to their Human Rights Office (HROs) when they travel to different countries to investigate violations provide useful suggestions. Protective measures by HROs can include: 1) Strengthening the cooperation person's capacity for self-protection; 2) Supporting or establishing community-level protection networks; 3) Using visibility strategies with a deterrent effect; 4) Seeking the support of international mechanisms, such as NGOs, diplomatic missions, U.N. agencies; 5) Mobilizing efforts to directly or indirectly provide physical protection to the person at risk, including through relocation; 6) Limiting the capacity of the source of the threat to carry out an attack by reducing the vulnerability factors of the person at risk; 7) Intervening to influence or requesting an influential person to intervene with the source of the threat; 8) Increasing the political and social costs to the source carrying out the threat through, for instance, public advocacy in partnership with national and international networks. The costs of carrying out the threat should outweigh the benefits; 9) Advocacy and engagement with national authorities, stressing their human rights obligations, including their duty to protect those at risk and to prosecute offenders; 10) Capacity-building and technical cooperation directed at developing or improving national witness protection capacities, as well as accountability mechanisms.       When weighing the pros and cons of the different protective measures, HROs should consider the following: 1) the effectiveness of such measures in guaranteeing protection; 2) Their promptness in responding to the security needs of the person at risk, including emergencies; 3) Their sustainability, particularly for protective measures that envisage long-term changes; 4) Their adaptability to new circumstances, such as deteriorating security conditions; 5) Their reversibility when the risk disappears (for example, in case of relocation, the person being able to return home).

International Day of Democracy - 2021

             Last Wednesday, 15th September, all over the world was celebrated the democracy. Democracy and human rights are closed related. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://nationaltoday.com/international-day-of-democracy/. The second was published at https://www.un.org/en/observances/democracy-day. The third was published at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/international-day-of-democracy-2021-why-is-it-observed-2540655

                    International Day of Democracy allows the opportunity to celebrate and appreciate our democratic society. It is very easy for people who live in a free society to take their freedom for granted. Yet, when freedom is absent, life includes unimaginable challenges that are often incomprehensible. Today, let's reflect on the history of democracy around the world, thank those who influenced the development, and look for opportunities to promote and protect our own nation's democracy. From democracy's birth in ancient Greece to today, the foundation of a democratic society is the ability of its people to participate in the decision-making process of their nation. Democratic activities include: 1) Get involved in politics.  2) Learn about political candidates.  3) Exercise your rights, thanks to digital advancements, it's now easier than ever to advocate for causes and make a difference. Why we love democracy: 1) It gives power to the people, leading to a world of innovation and improvement.  2) It's based on change. A cornerstone of democratic societies is that they have the power to make change when necessary.  3) It's based on equality, equal rights under the law are central to democratic governments.                                                                                                                                                                                    The theme this year, "Strengthening Democratic resilience in the Face of Future Crises." The unprecedented COVID-19 crisis has resulted in major social, political and legal challenges globally. As states around the world adopt emergency measures to address the crisis, it is critical that they continue to uphold the rule of law, protect and respect international standands and basic principles of legality, and the right to access justice, remedies and due process. The crisis raises the question how best to counter harmful speech while protecting freedom of expression. Sweeping efforts to el iminate misinformation or disinformation can result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. The most effective response is accurate, clear and evidence-based information from sources people trust. Around the world civil society organizations have answered the U.N.'s call to action to address and counteract the wide range of ways the COVID-19 crisis may impair democracy and increase authoritarianism, by: 1) developing media literacy and digital safety, more critical than ever as activism is forced online, so as to address the risk of suppression, interference and closing of civic space.  2) fighting misinformation and hate speech, which have mushroomed in the crisis.  3) training journalists remotely to report on the impact of the pandemic with in-depth, fact-checked coverage.  4) empowering women against gender-based violence, which has surged amid lockdowns, quarantines, and economic pressures.  5) helping to highlight the challenges of inequality and weak service delivery made worse by the crisis, with specific focus on the needs and rights of the population, so as to help hold governments to account.  The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding period and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties underpinning meaningful democracies.                                                        The U.N. General Assembly celebrates the Day of Democracy on September 15 to encourage governments around the world to strengthen and consolidate democracy. This day marks an opportunity to review the state of democracy around the world. It is also an opportunity to raise awareness and educate the public about their democratic rights, to highlight the important role of parliaments, their capacity and mandate to deliver justice, peace, development, and human rights. Many organisations hold debates and conferences and launch public campaigns to mobilise political will and public support for reinforcing democratic values. The Inter-Parliamentary Union ((IPU), the global organisation of national parliaments, says its support for this day stems from the core belief that democracy requires the participation of all citizens.

Paths to Inclusive Political Institutions

                       This post is a summary of the essay with the title above published in 2016 at   https://economics.mit.edu/files/19640

              In this paper we present a thinking about the circumstances under which inclusive political institutions, consisting of a state with a capacity and a broad distribution of political power, emerge. What makes a society economically successful? Most social scientists would argue that the critical factor are the economic institutions, the rules that create patterns of incentives and opportunities in the economic sphere and which shape saving, investment and innovation. We argued that economic institutions have to be thought of as an outcome of political choices which are shaped by political institutions which influences are aggregated by those who exercise power. In this case, lying behind economic institutions are political institutions. Two very successful historical instances of inclusive institution building, Classical Athens, and Early Modern England. In both cases, the historical evidence suggests that popular pressure and involvement was absolutely critical in the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Elite interests were at play too, but they had to find an equilibrium with those of society. In terms of democratization there is currently a great deal of consensus that democratization comes as a result of pressure from below rather than something that is willingly created by elites. Other arguments in the literature suggest that democracy emerges when elites give away power either because autocratic elites split, or because democracy can be a way of resolving conflicts between differents factions of elites, or because democracy solves a commitment problem that elites can not otherwise solve. These arguments may certainly apply in some cases. For example, many Latin America countries adopted democratic political institutions and held elections in the 19th century. Yet these were typically riven with fraud and malpractices and far from representing the broad distribution of power. Modern democracy emerged only in the 20th century and typically in the context of mass mobilization and demands for the excluded for political rights. The issue of where political pluralism comes from has been much less studied. Putnam (1993) is perhaps the most important empirical study of pluralism which is closely connected to his characterization of Northern Italian society having high levels of social capital or a very dense 'associational life'. Putnam traces the roots of this to the medieval organization of Northern Italy with its free communes, city states and mercantile political dominance. We argued that pluralism emerges from contestation with civil society playing an active role in demanding political change but only in the context where a 'broad coalition' makes these demands. In this essay we have advanced the hypothesis that the broad coalition is itself part of a co-evolution of state and society. In this essay we have argued that under some circumstances there is a basin of attraction where the two dimensions of inclusive political institutions are highly complementary. Indeed, they feed on each other to create a particular dynamic which leads to inclusive political institutions with a pattern of mutually reinforcing feedback. We argue that understanding this basin of attraction is a key to understanding the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Though in general the parameter space is multi-dimensional in this essay we have focused on one type of distinction which we believe is critical for determining the potential of different societies to move inside the basin of attraction: the strength and nature of social norms and informal institutions. The sequencing view we critique is similar to the one argued against by Tocqueville in "The Old Regime and the French Revolution", when he claimed that the French reformers of the 18th century, such as the Physiocrats, were mistaken when they sought reforms before political liberties. Rather political liberties are a critical complement to reforms and building the state, and one can not rely on automatic processes such as modernization to subsequently bring liberty. The Physiocrats, like many modern scholars, proposed that one should rely on education to make sure that state promoted social interests. The ideas proposed in this paper help to clarify just where the broad coalition comes from. In the classical Athenian and Early Modern English case, the answer presented here is that it came from social norms and informal institutions which facilitated not just the formation of the state, but also led to a distinct strengthening of civil society. Such argument may be though unsatisfying in the sense that it pushes the explanation for differences in political and economic development paths further back in time. Nevertheless, as we argued, divergent development historically is the result of institutional differences which start out small but acumulate over time. England did not experience the industrial revolution because of some huge shock to the society in the 18th century. It did so because of a long process of institutional change in which both the state and the society coevolved and entered into a virtuous circle ultimately leading to the broad coalition. England did not get onto this path because it was a radically different society from other Western European societies, but small differences mattered and it was inside a basin of attraction which turned out to have profound consequences.