Using Shadow Reports for Advocacy
New Tactics's picture
Posted August 3rd, 2009 by New Tactics
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

Join New Tactics, co-moderator Jovana Vukovic of the Regional Centre for Minorities, and the featured resource practitioners for an online dialogue on 'Using Shadow Reports for Advocacy' from August 26 to September 1, 2009. This online dialogue will be a space for practitioners and scholars to share experiences, challenges, successes, resources and tool for the effective use of shadow reports to expose the reality of the human rights situation in their countries.

The Regional Centre for Minorities (RCM) is a Belgrade based non-governmental, non-partisan, non-profit organization that operates throughout the Western Balkans. RCM was established in 2006 with the support of the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. RCM strives to advance and protect minority rights through combating all forms of discrimination, exclusion and marginalization, and through promoting full participation of minorities in all spheres of society.

Shadow reports (often called 'alternative reports') are submitted to treaty monitoring bodies at the United Nations and other international institutions as an alternative to a government's official report regarding the human rights situation in its respective country. 

Our featured resource practitioners, leading the dialogue, include:

  • Lisa Myers, member of NGO group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Switzerland
  • Paul Mageean, Director of Studies of the Graduate School for Professional Legal Education, University of Ulster, UK (Author of New Tactics Tactical Notebook, International Monitoring Bodies)
  • Nicholas Opiyo, human rights advocate, Uganda
  • Tara Collins, board member of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, and as of September, Marie Curie Transfer of Knowledge Fellow in Childhood Research, School of Social Justice, University College Dublin, Ireland
  • Yves Niyiragira, fellow and co-editor for the AU Monitor Initiative at Fahamu, Kenya
  • Audrey, Wei San and Yasmin of IWRAW (International Women's Rights Action Watch) Asia Pacific
  • Mufuliat Fijabi, of BAOBAB for Women's Human Right, Nigeria
  • Gerard Horton, of the Defence for Children International - Palestine Section

Treaties on which these featured practitioners focus their work:

  • Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM)
  • UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
  • UN Convention against Torture (CAT)
  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Summary of the Dialogue

The New Tactics online dialogue “Using Shadow Reports for Advocacy” explored the various tactics in using shadow reports for supporting democracy and promoting government accountability in human rights. In the beginning of the dialogue, participants defined what constitutes a shadow/alternative report and identified the pros and cons of its use. After establishing a common understanding of shadow reports, the participants transitioned into discussing some of the deeper topics and challenges: issues of credibility, effective process of writing a report, using reports for advocacy, and addressing non-state actor torture by shadow reports.

Shadow reports are a method through which NGOs can supplement or provide an alternative point of view to governmental reports that states are required to submit under international treaties. In the beginning of this dialogue, the distinction was made between the shadow report and alternative report. “Alternative report” refers to a report that is submitted to the particular committee before the official governmental report has been made available. A “Shadow report” is then a report that has been published after or in response to the governmental report. For the purposes of this summary, the term “shadow report” will be used, but we acknowledge that some of the participating organizations have worked on alternative reports in the past. Shadow reports are a unique tool through which NGOs can present opinions of civil society on government action and present it to the United Nations’ Committees. One of the participants has described the role of civil society as the “monitor of monitors,” that illuminates what the government has done with respect to what it claims to have achieved.

In this section, participants have identified strengths and weaknesses of creating shadow reports:

Strengths:

  • Opportunity to review evidence on a topic and your own work over the past four years – possibility to reveal the “big picture.”
  • The process provides you with an international forum where you can raise your concerns; it is an opportunity for advocacy in an international legal environment.
  • It enables civil society - NGOs and others - to present another side of the story to the committee than the one presented by the State Party.
  • The shadow report can be used in other advocacy work, and with a little editing can be turned into an annual report for the NGO.
  • The resulting Concluding Observations issued by the committee can be very useful in subsequent advocacy work.
  • The process presents a good opportunity to work in coalition with other organizations.

Weaknesses:

  • Creating a shadow report is very labor intensive and requires a lot of resources.

In this initial portion of the dialogue, participants have shared powerful examples of how producing a shadow report has had an impact on the Concluding Observations and subsequently on state party behavior. Here are a few examples:

When discussing the process of creating a shadow report, four main areas have been discussed:

  1. Credibility and accountability
  2. How to effectively create a report?
  3. Shadow reports and advocacy
  4. Challenges in shadow reports: Non-state actors and non-recognized territories


Credibility and Accountability
As shadow reports aim to present an alternative view to that presented by the State Party, one of the primary challenges is its credibility. The dialogue raised the issue whether cooperation between the organization and the government can jeopardize the credibility of the report. Some of the recommendations included: possible re-wording of goals in order to be more effective with the state party, and communicating with former NGO workers that are now in government but be careful as to not to compromise their position. Furthermore, organizations ought to maintain transparency with civil society by creating awareness, for example by creating round table discussions such as the one in Albania. A crucial issue in maintaining credibility is the process of data collection. The dialogue emphasized the need for accuracy. Potential forms of reasonable proof included: the use of sworn affidavits, victims' testimonies, reference recent reports, and court cases. It is advised to  identify potential causes of why victims hesitate to provide sworn affidavits (e.g., fear of retaliation), and mention them in the report.

Effectiveness
While investing time and resources into collaborating with other organizations can contribute greatly to the report. Collaborating with larger NGOs can add an international dimension and foster legitimacy of the report, collaborating with local NGOs has the potential to strengthen the on-the-ground work related to the issue, as well as continue building awareness in civil society. BAOBAB, an organization in Nigeria, shared their story of how writing a shadow report in a colaition helped advance women's human rights.

Resources:

  • How to apply for observer status with the UN? You can look at the UN handbook here. 

Advocacy
The effort invested into shadow reports will pay off more, if it is a part of a long-term strategy. Shadow reports can be utilized as tools for education in civil society, ways to provide the media with a tangible document, as resources in collaboration with other organizations that work on similar goals - as shown by this example by Fahamu in Kenya.

Challenges in Shadow Reports: Non-State Actors and Non-Recognized Territories

Non-State Actor Torture: During the dialogue, the issue of Non-State Actor Torture (NSAT) has been given significant attention, for there is a lack of legal means to address NSAT, and it can be more difficult to present such shadow reports to the Committee. The Canadian example shows that shadow reports can break new ground and provide a case study for those who work on issues that are not well addressed by international law.

Non-Recognized Terriories: Another challenge comes with trying to write a report about a territory that is not officially recognized by the UN, and the applicability of certain human rights norms may not be legally recognized in those territories. DCI - Palestine shared their experience in one of their posts.

The productive conversations and learning that began during this dialogue continues - please visit this group for more discussion, information and resources. 

Related New Tactics Resources
Related Groups: 
Using Shadow Reports
Related Tactical Notebooks: 
International Monitoring Bodies: Powerful tools for leveraging local change
Gerard's picture

Collection of data

Submitted by Gerard on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 01:43.

Gerard Horton, of the Defence for Children International - Palestine Section

 Dear Yves, Nancy and All,

I shall try to respond to the issues you raise as best I can. Please let me know if I miss something.

I should preface what I am saying with the caveat that there is no one way to prepare a shadow report. How we present our reports will depend on our resources, objectives, and above all perhaps, the circumstances on the ground, which will vary from place to place.

  • First, I don't believe a shadow report needs to slavishly mirror the State Report - the benchmark is, after all, the relevant convention, not the State Report. This means that work on a shadow report can commence whether or not the State Party submits a report. In the case of CAT, this could mean going through each relevant article and reviewing what has occurred since the last State Report. What I have found to work quite well when drafting a shadow report is to review the evidence and other material relating to a particular article, read what the State Party has to say about it, and then draft my response accordingly. So for example, if the State Party has passed some legislation pursuant to Article 2 of CAT, the response might be to welcome the legislation, point out any shortcomings, and illustrate these shortcomings with particular reference to some evidence and make some recommendations.
  • When deciding what evidence to use, I would try to cover the entire four year period since the last State Report, but place far greater emphasis on recent cases. If all your cases were four years old, the State Party will probably turn around and say -'but that was four years ago, things have changed.'
  • In the environment that I work, the State Party does not actually legally recognise the applicability of any human rights convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The argument is that the relevant body of law is humanitarian law, not human rights law. Therefore, the State Report usually makes very little mention to what is occurring in the OPT. The shadow reports, on the other hand, predominently deal with the situation in the OPT and so in some cases (not all) there is very little correlation between the State Report and the shadow reports. The UN Committees do not accept the State Party's interpretation of the law and their Concluding Observations deal mostly with the situation in the OPT. This has forced the State Party during the review sessions to state that although they don't accept the applicability of the conventions to the OPT they will address the issues in order to cooperate. This approach puts the non-state actors at a distinct advantage.
  • As I mentioned earlier, it is very important to support serious allegations with hard evidence. Failure to do so leaves you open to the criticism that the claims are exagerated or just plain false. Sworn affidavits are great if you can get them, but in some situations this is simply not possible, as highlighted by Yves. There are ways around this problem:- 1) Reference the allegation to a credible report prepared by a respected organisation. 2) Clearly state what problems exist regarding the collection of evidence e.g. 'We have received 25 credible reports of rape in the last six months, however, none of the complainants were willing to provide sworn testimonies through fear of retaliation.'
  • DCI is currently preparing a submission to the UN Special Rapportuer on Torture and one issue is the lack of complaints using the domestic mechanisms. No one complains because they fear retaliation and they view the process as pointless. The way we have handled this is to get one of the organisation's lawyers to sign an affidavit explaining that in his 15 years of experience, this is why people don't complain. Included in the affidavit are a number of telephone conversations he has recently had with parents in which he asked them if they wanted to complain and their response, in direct speech e.g. I said: 'Would you like me to submit a complaint on your behalf to the military authorities?' Father said: 'Are you serious? I'm not going to submit a complaint to the army. It's pointless, and in any event, they may come back and arrest my son again.'. 3) Remember too, you can surpress the identity of the person swearing the affidavit - in the case of children, we usually initialise their names and sometimes remove the exact location by stating 'location removed'.
  • Ultimately, one of our key objectives at DCI is accountability. One day we may litigate and so we need good affidavits. The shadow reporting process is a good training exercise for us, it shows us our strengths and weaknesses. Another advantage of aiming to obtain affidavits is that whether or not you ever litigate, you can have greater confidence that what you are saying is true and can be supported. This will enhance your reputation and credibility. With a reputation for accuracy, you will gain greater access to the media and other outlets to spread your message.
  • Nancy mentioned falling into the trap of showing large numbers to demonstrate how bad a situation is. I agree, the focus should be on quality not quantity. It always depends on what you are trying to establish, but one way of handling a widespread violation is to list the number of credible reports received and annex a sample of affidavits (1-3) for illustrative purposes. In our recent submission to the HRC under the ICCPR we included a number of tables of cases for which we had affidavits, but included only some of the affidavits. If the Committee wants to see more, we would be happy to provide them. (See Table 9 on page 19 - http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1201&CategoryId=1)

Ultimately the report must be credible. Sworn affidavits are at or near the top of the evidentiary tree. However, if you can't obtain affidavits for whatever reason, you should:

  • Satisfy yourself that the evidence you are relying on is credible.
  • Set out in the report your methodology - how was the evidence obtained etc.
  • Set out in the report the difficulties you face in obtaining the evidence.

It may be that the best you can do is to say something like - "We have received xx number of reports of xx. We have been unable to verify these claims because xxx.' It is then up to the relevant committee to decide what weight can be given to these claims.

The more professional your report is, the more likely it is that your recommendations will be included in the Concluding Observations, which is one of the primary objectives of the process.

I hope that answers your questions - if anything is not clear, or you have further questions, please let me know.

Best

Gerard

 

Gerard Horton, of the Defence for Children International - Palestine Section