UN Fact-Finding Logistical Support for UN Fact-Finding Missions 32
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provides logistical support for the fact-find- ing missions. However, there are many complaints that, due to a lack of financial and human resourc- es, this support is insufficient. There is no perma- nent budget for fact-finding missions, as a result of which each mission depends on the voluntary donations of states or other sources. While the number of missions has increased, the available budgets have not linearly grown with the number of missions. Most mandate-holders receive assis- tance from one or two UN employees, while they contend to need at least five to really make a differ- ence. Some mandate-holders manage to get ad- ditional assistance through other means, such as through the university where they are employed. In addition to missions being understaffed and un- der resourced, there is no computerized program for the collection and storage of data. However, it appears that efforts are being made to improve the digitalization of the missions, as all reports are now readily available online.
Working Methods and Procedural Standards
There is no standard procedure that explains how fact-finding should be conducted. Although several manuals and guidelines have been adopted that provide some instruction on the conduct of the mandate-holder and the methods to apply in fact- finding missions, these guidelines are non-binding and often lack detail. That means that every man- date-holder needs to decide on his/her own work- ing methods.
In addition, fact-finding reports tend to give very little explanation on the methodology applied. As a consequence, we do not know how the data was collected, how witnesses were treated and questioned, how the evidence was evaluated and if the evidence was corroborated and how, nor do we know what standard of proof and standard of credibility was applied on most missions. From the reports that include a description of the method-
ology, it can be derived that each mission applies different standards.
It has been argued that it is better to not have pro- cedural standards, because every situation of hu- man rights violations is different and every mission requires a distinct approach. However, the lack of procedural standards or working methods has also been strongly criticized for being inefficient and in- effective. Moreover, it would jeopardize the conti- nuity of these missions.
Additionally, fact-finding reports often form the basis for decisions on further action, such as the lifting or imposition of sanctions and the establish- ment of peacekeeping or other missions. It could be argued that a thorough decision-making pro- cess requires equally verifiable information that is gathered through comparable investigation tech- niques and methodological standards.
Impacts of Fact-Finding Missions and Government Responses
Human rights fact-finding missions and the result- ing reports have had significant impacts despite the alleged and obvious flaws regarding the ap- pointment of mandate-holders, the working meth- ods, the interpretation of mandates, the lack of resources, and the high dependency on state col- laboration. In fact, as mentioned, they are consid- ered to be one of the most effective mechanisms available to UN organs. Among the recognized results of fact-finding reports are the international distribution of information about human rights situ- ations; the application of findings by NGOs, judges and other actors with the potential to influence law and policy; and the compliance by governments with recommendations. Additionally, fact-finding reports contribute to standard-setting and agenda- setting.
In some cases results were obtained even before the report had been published. For instance, after the Special Rapporteur on torture had pressed for and received access to a prison in Azerbaijan, the Red Cross was also allowed, for the first time, to
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 3 » February 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112