Implementation and compliance with human rights law: An exploration of the interplay between the international, regional and national levels

Lead Research Organisation: University of Bristol
Department Name: Law

Abstract

An 'implementation crisis' is widely acknowledged to be afflicting regional and international human rights mechanisms, including the European Convention system which historically enjoyed relatively high levels of compliance. This situation adds urgency to a debate which is long-established but remains unresolved: what does it mean to comply with international and regional human rights law and what factors influence whether states comply or not?

Moving beyond existing literature and research, this much-needed and innovative study will examine the factors which impact on the implementation by nine states (Colombia, Guatemala, Canada; Georgia, Czech Republic, Finland; Cameroon, Algeria and Tanzania) of (i) selected decisions deriving from individual complaints to UN treaty bodies; and (ii) selected judgments and decisions of the bodies in the three regional human rights systems (Europe, Americas and Africa).

This is a collaborative effort between the four leading academic human rights centres (Bristol, Essex, Middlesex and Pretoria) and the Open Society Justice Initiative. The PI, Co-Is and partner organisation bring individually and collectively unrivalled expertise, contacts and experience in implementation of human rights law. As practitioners they have litigated before these regional and UN bodies, organised influential seminars and other events and provide advice on implementation of decisions and judgments. As academics they have written extensively in the field. The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) has an enviable range of contacts across the three regions and at the UN and is considered one of the key civil society players in the human rights field. Together with Bristol coordinating the project and providing African expertise with Pretoria, Middlesex's European Human Rights Advocacy Centre inputting the European expertise and Essex's Human Rights Centre offering the Inter-American contribution, the project team are extremely well placed to combine the academic and practitioner background necessary to carry out this innovative and ambitious research.

Through semi-structured interviews, participant observation, workshops and a range of published outputs directed at policy and academic audiences, this research it will attempt to get to the heart of the utility and relevance of human rights law in the 21st century, an issue which is concern to state actors (governments, legislatures and judiciaries); civil society actors; human rights bodies; and victims (and potential) victims of human rights violations. The research also hopes to be able to impact on the actual compliance by the states with selected decisions and thereby resulting in greater justice for the individual victims.

Planned Impact

The intended beneficiaries: (a) victims of specific violations as identified in selected decisions; (b) users of the systems including litigators and NGOs; (c) Governments in each of the nine states under consideration, as well as governments elsewhere; (d) other stakeholders in each of the nine states under consideration, including: judiciary, parliamentarians, NHRIs and other relevant statutory and constitutional bodies, and academics. (e) UN human rights treaties bodies which have an individual communication procedure (e.g. Human Rights Committee, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) as well as other UN treaty bodies and special procedures; (f) the regional human rights bodies from Africa, the Americas and Europe (African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples' Rights; Inter-American Commission and Court on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights) and their respective organisations (AU, OAS and Council of Europe).

How will they benefit:
The research adopts a multi-layered approach both in terms of the type of individuals and organisations that will be engaged, as well as through a combination of qualitative research methods (desk-based research; semi-structured interviews; national workshops); and policy and academic outputs (e.g. guidance notes on compliance addressed to relevant stakeholders (including government officials, lawyers, victims, etc.), highlighting good practice; a briefing paper for each country outlining our findings with recommendations; and website dissemination from the four universities). They will benefit from the research in a number of ways: (1) cross-fertilization: exploring three regional systems and the UN enables opportunities for lessons and good practice to be shared. (2) Assistance to users: the research findings can assist litigators and complainants in the submission of cases to relevant treaty bodies, and in the strategies to adopt when drafting and following up decisions. More specifically, the litigants, victims and treaty bodies, involved in the cases under review, can benefit by the research identifying the extent of compliance in these cases. Information may be uncovered which would otherwise remain hidden. (3) For treaty bodies: identifying possible changes to the some of the working practices of the various UN and regional bodies to facilitate greater implementation by states (e.g. amending the way they draft remedies in decisions). This builds directly upon meetings following on from the Dublin Statement in 2009 and Dublin 2 (our recent conference for example feeds into this process: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/research/centres-themes/hric/events/2011/14.html). (4) Influencing governments: by engaging directly at the national level, the research can influence government approaches to implementation, open up debate and potentially change the domestic mechanisms used to implement human rights decisions.
The PI and Co-Is and their four human rights centres and the OSJI individually and collectively have extensive experience of impact. They have extensive experience of the range of conducting impact-related research, with effective results and their policy papers, publications and events have already resulted in changes to government and UN policy.
 
Description Our main research question was: Why and to what extent have these nine States implemented selected decisions of UN treaty monitoring bodies and judgments and decisions of regional courts and commissions?

We had the following sub-questions:
1. What does 'compliance' and 'implementation' mean in international human rights law?
2. How far does the specificity/prescriptiveness of the remedies and/or reasoning in the decisions/judgments affect the degree of compliance?
3. Does the nature of the body issuing the decision/judgment and its perceived reputation impact on compliance?
4. Do the types of violations or how they are framed by the relevant body affect levels of compliance?
5. How do the mechanisms which monitor implementation interact with the domestic systems of compliance? To what extent is a 'compliance coalition' necessary for the implementation of decisions?
6. What formal and informal processes exist in compliance?
7. How do international norms become appropriated and 'internalised' at the domestic level?
8. To what extent do the social and political contentiousness of decisions/judgments influence the degree of compliance?

We aimed to answer these questions through desk-based and empirical research that tracked the extent to which the State authorities had implemented the specific reparations awarded in decisions and judgments from regional and UN treaty bodies in nine States (Belgium, the Czech Republic and Georgia; Canada, Colombia and Guatelama; and Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zambia). We have obtained evidence, in some instances not found elsewhere, in relation to implementation of specific cases.

Our most significant findings are as follows:
• In all the cases we examined it was not one single factor which was identified as determinative of whether the State implemented or not, rather a range of factors. Implementation and compliance is therefore context specific and what mechanisms, pressures and actors influence State action depends on the context in that particular moment in time. This has implications for:
o when reparations are determined;
o whether reparations should be considered separately and as a package;
o the need for up to date information for the treaty body or that body determining the reparation;
o the degree of specificity of the reparation.
• Statistics on the level of compliance are not helpful neither are broad-brush conclusions. This also has implications for how implementation and compliance is measured.
• States and parties are looking for and need a dialogue or some engagement post-decision/judgment over how State authorities should implement, whether this dialogue takes place at the national level among other State authorities; or between them and the victim; or between them and the supranational monitoring body.
• States are responding to these decisions. But:
o Their actions are not always visible (and States may not always want them to be visible);
o Depending on the political moment, and other factors, some reparations may be considered to be easier to implement than others. In addition, if the reparations ordered in a particular case are seen as a package then this can impact on whether there is any implementation at all.
• A simplistic consideration of whether the decision or judgment is legally binding or not masks the complexity of the issues:
o The legitimacy and credibility of the treaty body or supranational body that determines the reparations: how meticulous it is in applying its own procedures and deadlines; how much reasoning is provided for the reparations;
o How much visibility the treaty body or supranational monitoring body has at the national and regional levels;
o Whether the implementation of decisions or judgments are seen as being monitored;
o What triggers and mechanisms are put in place at the national level when a supranational decision or judgment is adopted.
• A National Monitoring (and Implementation) and Reporting Framework (NMIRF) can help, certainly in terms of coordination, but we would caution against a simplistic approach here. Rather it is necessary to consider what institutions are available in the State and what mechanisms and procedures are needed to implement specific reparations.
• Specificity of reparations can assist in implementation but more thought is needed about what this specificity means and the degree of specificity needs to be tailored to the particular reparation and particular context. In some instances there was a need for the State to retain or feel that it was retaining control over how it responds to the decision or judgment.
• A case by case approach in determining the reparation and then monitoring their implementation is ideal. This will enable consideration of how the State will react, what is the current political context, is, what to prioritise, etc. This then should dictate:
o How specific the reparations should be;
o What role the supranational body should play subsequently; and
o Whether a dialogue is likely and between whom.
• Implementation and compliance, or lack of, is too easily explained by 'political will' when in fact this masks complex relationships and factors that take place at the national level:
o The 'State' is not just the executive but also the judiciary and parliament. Yet due to separation of powers, whilst it is the executive which receives notice of the decision or judgment and is presumed to coordinate the response, it should not be able to influence how the judicial or legislative arms of the State react. Consequently, for reparations such as re-trial or amendment of legislation, the power of the executive to implement may be limited.
• There are a range of roles that the treaty body or supranational monitoring body can play post-decision and judgment but these are not always distinguished and considered separately, with a presumption that it should be playing all these roles.
• No particular reparation is more likely to be implemented than any other: it again depends on the particular context.
Exploitation Route Our research contributes to scholarship in international relations and international law, in particular the latter. It has contributed to debate on the role of different national actors and regional actors in implementation and influencing the implementation of these decisions and judgments and delivered an in-depth detailed analysis of the procedures and complexities at play at the national level.
As set out in more detail in the 'narrative impact', our research has engaged throughout with key practitioner stakeholders and its findings are already being used and will continue to be so by a number of these actors in the development of their own strategies and procedures going forward.
Sectors Communities and Social Services/Policy,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy
URL http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/hrlip/
 
Description Our project adopted a range of methods to communicate and engage with policy makers and practitioners which ultimately led to the impact described below. These included workshops held in each of the nine countries that were the subject of our study. As will be seen from the publications and engagement sections, workshops were held with key stakeholders, including, government, victims, litigants, civil society, parliamentarians, judiciary and others. The participants at each of these workshops were selected based on advice from our in-country consultants and resulted, in some instances, workshops being held in camera and with distinct groups of stakeholders to permit greater communication and interaction. For many of these workshops, where the discussions were not confidential, reports were adopted and made public. These again have been provided on the list of publications and outputs. Throughout, and after the end of, the grant and the research team participated in the sessions of the treaty bodies and related organs and structural bodies, namely the African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Inter-American Commission and Court on Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and some UN treaty bodies. We have used these occasions to interact formally, through the submission of presentations, and informally with key individuals, and disseminate our preliminary findings and ideas. These opportunities have also given publicity to our research and resulted in interest being generated from other quarters. Subsequent invitations to other events and to become involved in other projects have emanated from these interactions. Conversely, as our project became more and more known, this enabled us to draw in other organisations working in this area. The engagement has been flexible and draws upon, in many cases, long-standing relationships between members of the team and organisations. This approach facilitated close working relationships and ensured team members were on-hand for expert input. It also enabled us to adapt to unforeseen and unpredictable events, such as responding to last-minute changes by these organisations, and drafting submissions and documentation swiftly when called upon for advice. The fact that the project team had a sustained engagement with these organisations and was able to interact with them in both a formal and informal manner, and sometimes behind the scenes, placed them in a unique position to respond. The individual members of the team thus have a commitment to maintaining these relationships beyond the lifetime of the grant thereby increasing the opportunities for meaningful impact. The political nature of this type of work and the way in which the international bodies operate, as well as the fact that the project involved collaboration with other bodies engaged in similar types of work, meant that the causal link between the impact and the project's input cannot and will not always be acknowledged by these organisations. A lack of government responses to these international bodies, one of the reasons the research was undertaken in the first place, can also explain not only why impact may not be achieved immediately but also why it may be difficult to attribute it to our input specifically. Due to the sensitive nature of the work, some aspects have had to remain confidential on the request of the collaborating partners. As a result of these engagement activities the following impact is evidenced. A. Influencing the standard-setting and strategies of supranational organisations Our project worked, and team members continue to work, with the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights to improve the quality and specificity of their reparations' drafts and transparency of decisions. Our involvement in the drafting of the African Commission's General Comment on the right to reparation for victims of torture resulted in various clauses on implementation being inserted and adopted by the Commission in the final version (https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=60). In addition, the African Commission, on our request, held a panel focused on implementation during its plenary session in Banjul, the Gambia, October 2018. The Commission holds 3-4 such panels each session and, as such, only agrees to do so if it is a topic which it finds important. This panel involved members of the HRLIP team, Commissioners, and representatives of governments, victims and civil society. Further, following on from an invitation to present findings of the research to a seminar on implementation, Profs Murray and Viljoen recommended that the African Commission in the future include a clause in its decisions requiring the State to publish them at the national level and develop a database on the status of implementation. These suggestions were adopted by the Commission and incorporated into its General Report of the Regional Seminar on the Implementation of Decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Dakar, Senegal, 12-15 August 2017 (https://www.achpr.org/news/viewdetail?id=13) and in the revisions to its Rules of Procedure (Rule125(10): https://www.achpr.org/news/viewdetail?id=13). This resulted in greater visibility of its decisions and more specific rulings to ensure that victims receive the redress due to them. Our project has engaged and subsequently impacted on the practice of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Two members of the project team (HRIC and the Centre for Human Rights Pretoria) were given leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in relation to a ground-breaking Ruling on Reparations pending before the African Court against the Kenyan government (App.No.006/2012, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya) on the rights of the Ogiek people who were moved off their ancestral lands. The amicus related to the implementation of the judgment and steps that could be taken to monitor its execution and was cited as influential in the litigants' arguments. In December 2019, in advance of the hearing on reparations in March 2020, the Court sought further information from us, as amicus, on how it could hold compliance hearings, and, consequently, as part of its subsequent Reparations Ruling of June 2022, the Court decided - for the first time ever - to schedule an implementation hearing. The amicus brief therefore directly contributes to the restoration of the Ogiek's lands, receipt of compensation of KES 157m (£1.03m), and sets a vital precedent for state reporting for future Court rulings. Furthermore, at the Court's 53rd session in June 2019, justices of the Court and members of its Registry heard from Profs Murray and Viljoen on the findings from the research. As a result, the Court requested us to undertake research into the challenges faced by Tanzania in implementing the Court's judgments (these form the bulk of the Court's docket). The preliminary findings of this research were then presented by Profs Viljoen and Murray at the African Court's Conference on Implementation of the Judgments of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held in Arusha Tanzania from 1-3 November 2021. Recommendations made as a result of preliminary findings in the project fed into the strategy adopted by the African Court for monitoring state responses. Since then, over 60 judgments have benefitted from this change and post-ruling communication between states and the Court has been enhanced. In the Americas, members of the project team, in particular Prof Sandoval, have been involved in litigating cases (in collaboration with the organisation Redress and two local NGOs in Peru) before the Inter-American Court. Specifically, the case of Azul Rojas Marin and Other v. Peru. The case was the first case of its nature to arrive to the Court as it relates to the arbitrary detention of a person because of their sexual orientation and their torture as a result of discrimination in the country against LGBTI people and as a form of punishment, as well as the lack of investigation with due diligence and without discrimination. Prof Sandoval was responsible for writing the submissions to the Court on reparations and she took into account, in various parts, the findings from our project. Prof Sandoval was also appointed as an expert by the Mexican Commission on Victims to write a report on reparations in relation to the Cadereyta case, where 49 persons, most of them migrants, were massacred in Cadereyta in May 2012. Prof Sandoval put together a team of experts on different issues (including a physician, a psychologist and two anthropologists) and has been leading their work since Nov 2018, including conducting field work. The recommendations made in relation to reparations fully take into account our research and draw upon our publications. In addition, Prof Sandoval presented an expert opinion to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in the case of the Patriotic Union Members and Militants v. Colombia, on reparations in which she dealt with issues of implementation, specificity and subsidiarity. She drew upon our publications and the project. This is the largest case that has arrived to the Court (with more than 6000 victims). B. Support for States and national level impact The research has had a significant impact at the national level. With the assistance of an additional grant from the Open Society Justice Initiative, we developed a step-by-step guide, Providing Reparation for Human Rights Cases. A Practical Guide for African States. This provides examples of good practice on the logistics and mechanisms that have been used to implement certain reparations. This has been published and disseminated widely at the regional institutional level in Africa as well as nationally among our networks. Beyond the countries that were the focus of the Project, the team have used the findings in some of the work in Uzbekistan in events organised by the OHCHR and/or UNDP. Advice was given to government officials, the NHRI and National Human Rights Centre - the NMIRF in Uzbekistan. This advice was on follow-up and implementation of recommendations from the UN Committee against Torture and the development of an action plan which included providing examples of good practice e.g. the establishment of a database to follow-up on recommendations, link with existing plans (SDGs, UPR) the need to unpack recommendations, finding champions within Parliament and focal points in Parliament, dissemination and consultation with CSOs etc. This impact is still ongoing. The Zambian government, one of the countries which was the focus of our study, has used our findings, from the information we have gathered on their implementation of decisions and the holding of workshops in the country, to amend their strategy on compliance. The Open Society Justice Initiative provided funding to the HRIC to further this impact by developing guidance for the Zambian government and a database to record information on implementation. C. Impact on civil society organisations Civil society organisations (CSOs), specifically the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (CHRDA) in Cameroon and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) in The Gambia, changed their litigation strategies following capacity-building work by members of the project team. This led to increased realisation of the rights of victims of human rights abuse in a number of countries, including ensuring citizenship to Nubian children. Prof Murray, using findings from the research and at the request of the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), drafted an implementation strategy for the Institute's work on litigation in the African continent. This strategy outlines practical ways at the local, national and international levels by which the organisation can work with key actors to encourage implementation. IHRDA have used this strategy as a roadmap for all subsequent cases. This included utilising it as a basis for a workshop with local partners in the DRC in the implementation of the Kilwa case adopted by the ACHPR in 2018 (Communication 393/10: IHRDA, ACIDH and RAID v DRC), where over 70 people were massacred, and where Prof Murray's recommendations assisted in crafting the mechanism to monitor implementation. The IHRDA has since used the Strategy to conduct in-country dialogues in a number of states against whom decisions had been adopted (see https://www.ihrda.org/2022/07/fostering-implementation-of-decisions-of-african-regional-human-rights-mechanisms-ihrda-organises-public-dialogue-on-implementation-of-decisions-on-kenya-nubian-cases/), including redressing the statelessness of people of Nubian descent, in particular Nubian children (see YouTube video on the dialogue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPhZQdSzb4). This strategy, in addition to other findings of the research, was then shared with other organisations including Redress (a London-based human rights organisation working on torture prevention advocacy and litigation). Consequently, Redress requested the HRIC to produce a joint Practice Note on implementation for litigants working in human rights law. This was published in 2021. In relation to the Project's work in Cameroon, three organisations that have litigated and obtained decisions in their favour at the regional level are the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), the CHRDA and Findets Group Initiative Cameroon. These organisations, with the HRIC, submitted a shadow report for the examination of the Cameroonian state report by the African Commission at its 67th ordinary session in November 2020. Questions were asked by the Commission during the oral examination about implementation of the decisions, drawing directly upon our shadow report, and thereby increasing the visibility of the state measures and holding the state to account. D. Further funding The HRIC obtained funding from the ESRC Impact Accelerator Account for February - August 2022 to work with Cameroonian partners to develop online and in-person training on strategic litigation and implementation for national lawyers at the African and UN levels. This training was delivered during 2022. Due to the sustained and pre-existing relationship with many of these organisations, impact has continued, and will continue to do so, beyond the lifetime of the grant.
First Year Of Impact 2017
Sector Communities and Social Services/Policy,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy
Impact Types Policy & public services
 
Description Amicus Curiae Submission In Relation To The Implementation Of Communication 276/03, Centre For Minority Rights Development (Kenya) And Minority Rights Group (On Behalf Of Endorois Welfare Council) V Kenya Presented To The African Commission On Human And Peoples' Rights
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Influenced training of practitioners or researchers
Impact Team submission of an amicus brief to the African Commission in respect of its monitoring implementation of a decision against Kenya. Done in collaboration and with support of the litigants includign Minority Rights Group as a way of attempting to offer approaches that the African Commission could adopt in its monitoring of the decision.
 
Description Amicus curiae brief by the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights influencing judgment and ultimately remedies to victims
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Contribution to new or improved professional practice
Impact The amicus brief informed a 'pathbreaking judgment' to uphold the rights of the Ogiek people in Kenya, who were moved off their ancestral lands. The recommendations made in the brief were adopted in the Court's Ruling against the Kenyan Government. The recommendations included mechanisms for effective monitoring of implementation (including Court specification of remedies, timeframes and the requirement for a compliance hearing) which contirbute to the restoration of the Ogiek's lands, receipt of compensation of KES 157m (£1.03m), and set a precedent for state reporting for future Court rulings. As part of its Reparations Ruling of June 2022, the Court decided - for the first time ever - to schedule an implementation hearing.
URL https://minorityrights.org/2022/06/23/ogiek-victory/
 
Description Contribution to development of African Commission's practice on reparations and implementation
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Contribution to new or improved professional practice
Impact The project and continued engagement with the ACHPR and its secretariat has resulted in influencing the way the secretariat drafts its decisions. Recommendations made have been adopted in the amendments to the ACHPR's rules of procedure (the key operational document covering its work). This change in process contributed to individuals receiving appropriate remedies for violations they have suffered
 
Description Country workshop in Belgium relating to implementation of judgments in field of migration and children's righst
Geographic Reach Europe 
Policy Influence Type Influenced training of practitioners or researchers
 
Description ESRC funded Human Rights Law Implementation Project presents findings at 116 Session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Geographic Reach South America 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a guidance/advisory committee
Impact Paola Limón, Senior Research Officer at the Human Rights Centre, School of Law, University of Essex attended the 166th Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), on Thursday 7 December 2017, as part of the research activities under the ESRC funded Human Rights Law Implementation Project (HRLIP).During the hearing, Paola presented some of the HRLIP's preliminary findings in relation to implementation of decisions issued in individual communications in Canada. Paola explained that through the work of the HRLIP it has become 'clear that the ineffective implementation of individual decisions in Canada is part of a broader problem, in relation to implementation of international human rights obligations'.
URL http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2017/hrlip-presents-findings-at-116-session-of-the-inter-american-...
 
Description Expert opinion to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Geographic Reach South America 
Policy Influence Type Membership of a guideline committee
 
Description Implementation Strategy for the Institute of Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Contribution to new or improved professional practice
Impact The implementation Strategy has since been used by the IHRDA as the roadmap and framework for each of their cases, incorporating the techniques from the Strategy, including specifying the remedies required and developing mechanisms post-decision by which implementation can be realised, such as dialogue with states. Consequently, this has led to increased realisation of the rights of victims of human rights abuse including: for the people of Kilwa (Democratic Republic of Congo - DRC) where over 70 people were massacred, led to victims being granted compensation of over USD2.5m; calls for prosecution of the perpetrators, including a mining company; and rehabilitation of a school and hospital. The Strategy has been used to develop roadmaps on recently won judgments, and resulted in funding being obtained for in-country dialogues in a number of states (e.g. in Kenya around citizenship of Nubian children: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPhZQdSzb4).
URL https://www.ihrda.org/2022/07/fostering-implementation-of-decisions-of-african-regional-human-rights...
 
Description Influence policy of African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights around implementation of its decisions
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a guidance/advisory committee
Impact A panel event was organised as part of the plenary of the 63rd ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in October 2018. This was done by the research team in collaboration with the African Commission. We brought representatives from government, national human rights institutions, civil society and victims to the session to present their experiences to the African Commission in front of an audience of over 25 African State officials, and hundreds of civil society organisations. The African Commission in holding this event signalled its commitment to the issue of implementation and confirmed during discussions that it would be appointing a unit in its secretariat to lead on implementation, a suggestion that we had made at various stages in our engagement with it. The holding of this panel indicated to States and others the importance that the African Commission attributes to implementation of its decisions.
 
Description Influencing the Strategy of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in monitoring implementation of its decisions
Geographic Reach Multiple continents/international 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a guidance/advisory committee
Impact A workshop was held in collaboration with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington DC, USA, on 2 December 2018. It brought together members of the Inter-American Commission, as well as key civil society organisations and other experts to discuss and provide advice to the Commission on its strategy for monitoring implementation. We were able to present findings from our research and offer suggestions to improving the Commission's approach which it noted it would take into account in its next steps. It wishes to maintain contact with us to seek additional advice and input.
 
Description Practice Note for Litigants on Implementation
Geographic Reach Multiple continents/international 
Policy Influence Type Influenced training of practitioners or researchers
Impact We have been working with Redress, a human rights organisation, to design a Practice Note for litigants. It provides practical guidance to assist them in developing implementation strategies when they are litigating cases at the regional and international levels. The Practice Note will be a joint publication between the Human Rights Implementation Centre in Bristol and Redress.
 
Description Presentation of findings to private meeting of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights February 2019
Geographic Reach Africa 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a guidance/advisory committee
Impact Invited by the African Commission to present findings from our research and sought our guidance as to ways in which they could develop tools and strategies around monitoring implementation of their decisions.
 
Description Seminar 'The developing remedial practice of the European Court of Human Rights' at the Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Geographic Reach Europe 
Policy Influence Type Influenced training of practitioners or researchers
Impact The HRLIP team for Europe organised a Seminar on the developing remedial practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which was held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 8 November 2017. At the event, which brought together some ninety participants, Dr Alice Donald and Anne-Katrin Speck presented emerging findings from the HRLIP relating to the perception that the Court has moved away from its formerly strictly limited, declaratory approach to remedial measures by sometimes indicating specific non-monetary individual measures or general measures. The panel, chaired by Professor Philip Leach, included Robert Spano, Judge at the ECtHR elected in respect of Iceland; Isabelle Niedlispacher, Government Agent in respect of Belgium and Chair of the Committee of Experts on the System of the European Convention on European Rights (DH-SYSC); Pavlo Pushkar, Head of Division in the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; and Kevin Steeves, Director of the European Implementation Network (EIN). Given the failure of certain states to implement judgments and against the backdrop of two recent landmark Grand Chamber cases (Moreira Ferreira (No. 2) v. Portugal; Burmych and others v. Ukraine) which touch upon the institutional relationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers (the body supervising the implementation of ECtHR judgments), the Seminar provided a timely opportunity for state representatives, Judges and Registry lawyers from the Court, staff of the Department for the Execution of Judgments and other Council of Europe bodies, as well as academics and civil society representatives to exchange views on how far the ECtHR can - and should - recommend, or require, states to take certain measures after the finding of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Overall, participants expressed appreciation for the research being carried out at Middlesex University in the framework of the Human Rights Law Implementation Project. The event provided an opportunity for a discussion on a topical issue among academics, Judges and lawyers from the Court, government representatives and staff of the Committee of Ministers, which should be seen as a way to find synergies to enhance the Convention system and to promote and accelerate the implementation of judgments.
URL http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/hrlip/our-research/europe-team/europe-workshopsactivities/
 
Description ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (IAA)
Amount £1,592,486 (GBP)
Organisation University of Bristol 
Sector Academic/University
Country United Kingdom
Start 02/2022 
End 09/2022
 
Description Impact Acceleration Account, University of Bristol
Amount £16,167 (GBP)
Organisation University of Bristol 
Sector Academic/University
Country United Kingdom
Start 11/2019 
End 06/2020
 
Description Open Society Foundations Consultancy Grant
Amount $35,000 (USD)
Organisation Open Society Foundations 
Sector Charity/Non Profit
Country United States
Start 12/2019 
End 06/2020
 
Description UKRI Global Impact Acceleration Account
Amount £20,000 (GBP)
Organisation University of Bristol 
Sector Academic/University
Country United Kingdom
Start 01/2019 
End 03/2019
 
Title Case templates on individual cases 
Description Creation of case templates which capture data and information on each specific case under consideration around the extent to which it has been implemented by the State. 
Type Of Material Improvements to research infrastructure 
Provided To Others? No  
Impact We hope that once filled with the data from our interviews we will be able to provide relevant parts of the template to the regional adn international treaty bodies and other practitioners to enable them to track implementation of the case. 
 
Description Collaboration with Danish Institute for Human Rights 
Organisation Danish Institute for Human Rights
Country Denmark 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution Input of advice and preliminary findings from our research into discussions with the DIHR to inform their research and publications on this area. Ongoing discussions, sharing of drafts and other documents produced from our research. We have agreed to have a joint launch of our respective publications (specifically for us the Special Issue of the Journal of Human Rights Practice) in Geneva later in 2020.
Collaborator Contribution Sharing of their own outputs from research they have been conducting; involving us in potential future collaborative opportunities under DIHR. Joint launch of our publications
Impact We are having a joint launch of our publications later in 2020. This will be in Geneva, most likely in collaboration with the Geneva Academy on International and Humanitarian Law.
Start Year 2018
 
Description Collaboration with European Implementation Network 
Organisation European Implementation Network
Country France 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution Members of the project team are also involved closely in the European Implementation Network (Phil Leach and Anne-katrin Speck) and have shared insights from this project with the EIN.
Collaborator Contribution EIN have drawn upon members of the research team and involved them in activities. Anne-Katrin Speck subsequently was appointed as co-director of the Network after her contract under this grant ended.
Impact Involvement in events and activities.
Start Year 2015
 
Description Collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria and its Litigation Unit 
Organisation University of Pretoria
Department Centre for Human Rights
Country South Africa 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution The HRIC and Litigation Unit have continued collaboration after the end of the grant. This has included the proposed organisation of a webinar and series of podcasts on implementation by the three African human rights bodies. It also involves engagement with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and development of relationships with the African Commission, and with the UN WGAD, in collaboration with the Robert Kennedy Foundation.
Collaborator Contribution This is a collaborative endeavour with tasks being shared equally between the HRIC and Litigation Unit.
Impact Series of webinars, training and other events, as well as research and engagement with international and regional organisations
Start Year 2020
 
Description Continued collaboration with Open Society Justice Initiative 
Organisation Open Society Foundation, New York
Department Open Society Justice Initiative
Country United States 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution As a partner on the project we have involved OSJI in our team meetings, discussions and outputs throughout. We have held joint events and shared our research findings with OSJI.
Collaborator Contribution OSJI have involved us in their events, and invited us to be part of a joint publication which follows up from previous outputs they produced several years go. We have obtained further funding from Open Society Foundations to pursue collaborative work in Cameroon and Zambia working with government and civil society. This has commenced.
Impact Further funding Participation in events organised by OSJI Their participation in events organised by the project Publications, including special issue and joint publication, due out at the end of 2020
Start Year 2015
 
Description Development of Implementation Strategy for the Institute of Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) 
Organisation Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa
Country Gambia 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution As a result of our research findings the IHRDA were interested for the HRLIP team to develop an implementation strategy for their organisation to assist them in following up cases that they have successfully litigated. The implementation strategy was developed in collaboration with the IHRDA and has been subsequently used as they attempt to encourage the Democratic of the Republic of Congo (DRC) to implement the African Commission's decision in the Kilwa case.
Collaborator Contribution IHRDA requested us to draft an implementation strategy for them. They gave feedback on its contents and then have since used this in their work. They have informed us of its use on a regular basis.
Impact Implementation Strategy for the Institute of Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)
Start Year 2017
 
Description Minority Rights Group advice on implementation 
Organisation Minority Rights Group International
Country United Kingdom 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution Minority Rights Group approached us to ask for advice on developing a strategy for implementation of their cases that were successful won before the African Commission (Endorois) and African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (App.No.006/2012). As a result we submitted two amicus briefs, at their request, to the Commission and Court to provide guidance to enhance implementation. We have shared a strategy on implementation with MRG who have started to use this in their work and adapt for their own purposes, in collaboration with their partners in Kenya. We have been brought into discussions to develop this strategy further.
Collaborator Contribution They have requested our advice and involved us in discussions on their strategies.
Impact Two amicus briefs. We were given leave to submit the amicus to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. We have since been in correspondence with the Court as it moves towards a hearing on reparations on the Application. We have been invited to make further submissions and clarifications around compliance hearings, which we did so in January 2020. The reparations hearing is due to be held later in 2020.
Start Year 2016
 
Description Universal Rights Group 
Organisation Universal Rights Group
Country Switzerland 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution Universal Rights Group have been leading on encouraging States to develop national monitoring (implementation) and follow up mechanisms and they have shown an interest in our work around implementation. We collaborated around activities in Zambia and Geneva discussing the findings of our research and impact on their work. We also developed with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law a project gathering information on NMIRFs. This is ongoing.
Collaborator Contribution Sharing of documents, organising of activities and engagements in various States, both within and outside the ones under our study. Engagement with local actors and facilitating activities and other interactions with States, representatives of international and national organisations.
Impact Engagement in Zambia, facilitating contacts. Ongoing outputs including reports yet to be finalised as depends on their input and leadership.
Start Year 2018
 
Description "Implementation of the duty to provide medical and psychological attention to victims of human rights violations in Colombia" 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact On 1 August 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion group (in Spanish) titled "Implementation of the duty to provide medical and psychological attention to victims of human rights violations in Colombia" at the office of Dejusticia. There were 12 participants, including the in-country liaison consultant, 3 people from 3 civil society organizations, 1 independent human rights expert, and 7 people from 4 State institutions. The discussion carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description "Strengthening Colombia's institutional mechanisms and processes for the implementation of recommendations and orders issued by regional and international human rights bodies" 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact On 31 July 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion (in Spanish) group titled "Strengthening Colombia's institutional mechanisms and processes for the implementation of recommendations and orders issued by regional and international human rights bodies" at the office of Dejusticia. There were 20 participants, including the in-country liaison consultant, 1 independent lawyer, 4 people from 3 civil society organizations, 4 independent human rights experts, and 10 people from 5 State institutions. The discussion was carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description '1st International Meeting of Experts and Networks of the IASHR' ['1er Encuentro Internacional de Especialistas y Redes del SIDH'], Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Mexico City, Mexico) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Opportunity to present project and make contacts with key professionals
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Attendance at 'Regional Challenges in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights' in Vilnius (Lithuania), December 2016 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 8-9 December 2016, Anne-Katrin Speck attended the Conference 'Regional Challenges in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights' in Vilnius (Lithuania), which was organised jointly by the Council of Europe, the European Humanities University and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Among the themes covered were the relationship between implementation and perceived legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, and challenges of implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights in situations of transition and recent transition.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Attendance at Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Attendance at Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe to discuss implementation and how our project can engage with their work.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Attendance at extraordinary sessions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mexico August 2016 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Attendance at Inter-American Court of Human Rights to discuss implementation, its role in implementation and how our project can engage with them.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Briefing for UN Human Rights Committee 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Members of the team held a briefing with members of the UN Human Rights Committee during the Committee's 124th session in Geneva in October 2018. The briefing was an opportunity to discuss and share experiences on follow-up of decisions on individual communications with members of the Committee and staff at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Capacity Building Workshop And Roundtable On International Human Rights Protection Mechanisms In Zambia 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Two roundtables were held in Zambia on 16 - 17 August 2017 to obtain additional information on the status of implementation of the African Commission and Human Rights Committee's cases involving Zambia, determine the national institutions responsible for implementation, clarify the procedure for implementation of the decisions and identify impediments to implementation. The roundtables were attended by over 40 participants including the Attorney General of Zambia, Mr Likando Kalaluka, a former member/chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, Dr Zonke Majodina, legal officers and staff of various government institutions and ministries including the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Finance, staff of the Zambian Human Rights Commission, National Assembly of Zambia, other academic institutions in Zambia, Zambia Open University, Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), Centre for Human Rights researchers, civil society organisations and the press. Participants used the opportunity of the roundtable to discuss factors affecting implementation of decisions of international human rights bodies in Zambia.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Conference on 'Reforms of the Individual Complaint Mechanisms in the UN TBs and the ECtHR: Symptoms and Prescriptions - Mutual Lessons?', PluriCourts University of Oslo (Norway) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Engagement with practitioner and policy making audience
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Conference on Regional Challenges in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 8-9 December 2016, Anne-Katrin Speck attended the Conference 'Regional Challenges in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights' in Vilnius (Lithuania), which was organised jointly by the Council of Europe, the European Humanities University and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Among the themes covered were the relationship between implementation and perceived legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, and challenges of implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights in situations of transition and recent transition.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Conference: Current issues and common challenges for the protection of human rights in Europe, Africa and the Americas London, 14 June 2019 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact A joint event organised by the Project with the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, and the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. We presented our findings which were discussed by practitioners from civil society, government and the treaty bodies as well as academics. Continued collaboration with the Bingham Centre in particular.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
 
Description Country Workshop Burkina Faso 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact A one-day consultative workshop was held on 20 July 2017 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso to initiate consultations and discussion on the experiences and challenges for implementation of decisions in Burkina Faso. The workshop was organised with the Burkinabe Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and was attended by approximately 20 participants from public institutions and government ministries. The workshop examined a number of fundamental research points including the notion of and issues concerning implementation and factors that influence implementation in Burkina Faso. The workshop enabled the participants to share practical experiences and lay the ground work for identifying further areas of research to be explored in more detail in further consultations and interviews.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Engagement with African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Attendance at sessions of the African Commission, engagement with its Commissioners and working groups; participation in events; submissions on commission draft resolutions and other documentation; assistance in developing its strategy
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016
 
Description Engagement with African Union officials 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact A member of the research team visited the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa Ethiopia from 28 May to 1 June 2018 to hold a series of meetings and interview key individuals from the AU. It outlined ideas from our research as to how the AU could support implementation of the decisions of the African Commission and African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. It also provided an opportunity for us to engage with the EU delegation to the AU and donor governments, to inform them of our research.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Engagement with National Ombudsman of Costa Rica 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Meeting with National Ombudsman of Costa Rica to talk about the role of national human rights bodies on the implementation of cases.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Engagement with Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Central Africa regional office 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Engagement and consultations with OHCHR Central Africa regional office in Cameron to discuss potential research partnership including co-organising workshops
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017
 
Description Engagement with academic and practitioner conference on implementation Ghant 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Various members of the ESRC team also participated at a conference organised by Ghent University -Human Rights Centre- in January 2016 titled "The good, the bad and the Ugly and moving forward: What to learn from international human rights systems" where implementation issues were at the centre of the discussion from a comparative perspective (UN and regional systems).
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Engagement with practitioners in 9 States to hold interviews adn workshops 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Engagement with individual in-country consultants, who are practitioners, civil society organisations and members of government, to gather data, documents, faciltate interviews and workshops in year 2 of the project.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017
 
Description Establishment of an advisory group 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Establishment of an advisory group composed of experts from civil society background, those with government and international organisation experience as well as academics, through which preliminary findings from the research project were submitted for their input and discussion.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012
 
Description Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Part of Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime to discuss a draft issue paper on the Organized Crime Convention and human rights. I commented on and led presentations on implementation and prevention.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2021
 
Description Expert contribution to Capacity Building Workshop for the African Commission on Drafting of Decisions 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The University of Pretoria's Centre for Human Rights organised a capacity building workshop for the legal officers of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights with respect to drafting decisions. I presented on drafting remedial recommendations, drawing upon the findings from the grant. I was subsequently requested to follow up with further guidance on reparations (as listed in 'publications').
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2022
 
Description Expert opinion to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Prof Clara Sandoval presented an expert opinion to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in the case of the Patriotic Union Members and Militants Vs. Colombia, on reparations and issues of implementation, specificity and subsidiarity. The opinion referred to the papers written with Prof Murray (on specificity, published in the Journal of Human Rights Practice specifically) and drew upon the project findings. This is the biggest case that has arrived to the Court (more than 6000 victims) and the reparations are being contested by Colombia. The judgment of the Court is awaited. Prof Sandoval's opinion could have significant impact.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2020
 
Description Focus group with CEJIL 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Held a focus group with CEJIL which connected the team with CEJIL in different States to discuss implementation ideas in the Americas as they relate to cases.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Human Rights Implementation in Georgia: X and Y v Georgia and Identoba and Others v Georgia 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact The HRLIP, jointly with the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and the East West Management Institute (EWMI) / Promoting Rule of Law in Georgia (PROLoG) hosted a one day roundtable at Free University of Tbilisi (Georgia) to discuss the implementation of (i) the case of X & Y v Georgia of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW) (concerning domestic violence) and (ii) the ECtHR case of Identoba and Others v Georgia (concerning the rights of LGBTI demonstrators to peaceful assembly) - chaired by Anne-Katrin Speck. The two roundtable sessions provided an opportunity for some 40 participants (including representatives from civil society, the Parliament, OHCHR and the former adviser to the Prime Minister on equality) to discuss the current state of implementation of the two cases, outstanding challenges and possible ways forward with speakers representing several Government ministries, the Prosecutor's Office, the police, the Ombudsman's Office and several NGOs.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Immigration Detention of Children. 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact A Workshop organised in Brussels on 1 February 2017 brought together seven representatives of six different NGOs working in the field of migration and children's rights, to discuss the implementation of one of the HRLIP's selected judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, which relates to immigration detention of asylum-seeking families with children. Among the issues raised during the Workshop was the risk of 'backsliding' after the Committee of Ministers' decision to close the supervision of the execution of a particular judgment.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Implementation of Guatemala's duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 9 August 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion group (in Spanish) titled "Implementation of Guatemala's duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations". There were 20 participants, including the in-country liaison consultant, 8 people from 6 civil society organizations, and 11 people from 5 State institutions. The discussion was carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Implementation of Recommendations and Orders of International Bodies on Individual cases: Looking at the Future: Workshop with Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The HRLIP jointly organised with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a workshop on "Implementation of Recommendations and Orders of International Bodies on Individual cases: Looking at the Future" on 2nd December 2018 at the CIDH headquarters in Washington DC. The meeting brought together key experts, academics and practitioners working on implementation and related issues to share with them some of the preliminary findings of the HRLIP as well as with an up-date on current work on implementation at the CIDH. Various suggestions about how to strengthen implementation procedures in the Inter-American System were made, including the potential work that civil society and, academia, in particular could play to support the System to monitor implementation but also to trigger compliance with recommendations and orders in individual cases. The HRLIP continues in close conversations with the CIDH so as to share with it all its expertise on implementation at a time when there is a unique opportunity at this body to produce impactful changes and practices in this area.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Institutional responses to immigration in Canada 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 7 June 2017, from 8:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion group titled "Institutional responses to immigration in Canada" at the Law School of the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM). There were 7 key participants, including the in-country liaison consultant and 6 lawyers that have litigated the cases that the HRLIP is looking into. The discussion was carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Inter-American Human Rights Network 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Dr Clara Sandoval, Paola Limon, Dr Alice Donald and Anne-Katrin Speck participated in/attended the second and third meeting of the Leverhulme Inter-American Human Rights Network, held at University College London on 10 October 2015 and at Ghent University (Belgium) on 29-30 January 2016, respectively
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://interamericanhumanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IAHRN-London-Workshop-Summary-v02.11....
 
Description Measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact On 15 November 2017, the HRLIP organised a Workshop in the framework of the Open Society Fund Prague (OSF)/Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) Conference in Prague commemorating the ten year anniversary of the ECtHR's Grand Chamber judgment in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic regarding discrimination against Roma children in the Czech education system. The panel discussion, moderated by Dr Alice Donald, provided an opportunity to explore, together with government officials, Roma rights activists, Roma parents, education experts and academics, what benchmarks or indicators of success might be identified such that the Committee of Ministers might declare itself satisfied that the Czech Republic has fully and effectively implemented the Court's judgment.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Meeting with Judges and lawyers at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The Americas project team held a meeting with judges and lawyers at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and with its implementation team to talk about implementation issues.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Participation in 60th ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Niger 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Debra Long and Prof. Frans Viljoen participated in the 60th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights held in May 2017 in Niger. At the session a statement was made on behalf of the HRLIP during the plenary discussions outlining the research project objectives and individual communications being examined. Attendance at the session also provided an opportunity to hold meetings with the Commissioners and civil society organisations.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Participation in 61st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Prof Rachel Murray and Debra Long attended the 61st ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Banjul, The Gambia, from 31st October until 3rd November 2017. During the visit informal meetings were held with Commissioners, the Secretariat and civil society organisations.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Participation in 62nd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Prof Rachel Murray, Prof Frans Viljoen and Debra Long participated in the 62nd ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Nouakchott Mauritania in order to hold informal talks on implementation with Commissioners, the Secretariat and civil society organisations.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Participation in European Implementation Network and Open Society Justice Initiative briefing on implementation of selected judgments, Strasbourg November 2016 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Prof Leach participated in a quarterly civil society briefing by the european Implementation network and the OSJI to discuss implementation of selected judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Opportunity to share strategies, highlight the project, gathre views from civil society and litigants.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Participation in Independent Academic Study on the domestic impact of UN human rights treaties 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Participation in workshop at UN on 28 February 2019 presenting findings of our research which then informed the development of a further project by the University of Pretoria to examine the impact of UN human rights treaties. This proposed project is a follow up from a project initiated by Prof Viljoen 20 years ago. Our research findings fed into the methodology of this current Pretoria project and we will continue collaboration around the outputs of the Pretoria project in the form of a website.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
URL http://www.icla.up.ac.za/research/impact-of-the-un-human-rights-treaties-on-domestic-level
 
Description Participation in Workshop on 'Responding to legitimacy challenges: opportunities and choices for the European Court of Human Rights', at European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 21 September 2018 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Dr Alice Donald and Anne-Katrin Speck participated in a Workshop on 'Responding to Legitimacy Challenges: Opportunities and Choices for the European Court of Human Rights' at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France) on 21 September 2018. They presented findings from HRLIP's research on the developing remedial practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and discussed the implications of the Court's developing remedial practice for the legitimacy of the European Convention system. During the ensuing discussion, with the participation of several Judges of the Court and fellow researchers, Alice and Anne cautioned that a return to the Court's traditional practice of issuing purely declaratory judgments, as some Judges have advocated, would be to the detriment of actual and potential victims, given that well-judged remedial indications were widely seen to potentially have a positive impact on the execution process. They called on all conscientious actors to join forces to push back against deliberate misportrayals of the principle of subsidiarity, upon which the Convention system is built, as inhibiting a more proactive remedial approach.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Participation in stakeholder meeting 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Participant, Stakeholder Meeting on European Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS), 20-21 June 2017, Vienna Austria, organised by EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Participation in training event for NGOs on litigating cases before UN Treaty Bodies 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 4 October 2018 Debra Long and the OSJI participated in a meeting and training event for NGOs on litigating cases before the UN treaty bodies. The event was organised by the Centre for Civil and Political Rights and the Open Society Justice Initiative. The HRLIP spoke at this event about strategies for NGOs to monitor the implementation of individual cases and decisions, drawing upon our research.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Reforms of the individual complaint mechanisms in the UN and ECtHR 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Anne-Katrin Speck attended the Concluding MultiRights Conference on 'Reforms of the individual complaint mechanisms in the UN treaty bodies and the European Court of Human Rights: Symptoms and Prescriptions - Mutual Lessons?', which was held at the University of Oslo (Norway) on 29 February - 1 March 2016. The Conference sought to provide a forum to explore mutual lessons from the reform processes of the UN treaty bodies and of the ECtHR.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
URL http://www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts/english/blog/laura-letourneau-tremblay/2016-03-18-reforms-un-ecthr...
 
Description Regional Consultation: 'Enhancing Cooperation among UN mechanisms, the Inter-American Commission, Inter-American Court, human rights defenders and civil society in the Americas', held in the context of IACHR's period of sessions, Washington DC 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Engagement with practitioner and treaty body audience
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Regional human rights litigation, Middlesex University, London, 28 April 2016 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Study participants or study members
Results and Impact The Americas and Europe teams of the HRLIP participated in a Roundtable on 'Regional human rights litigation' hosted at Middlesex University, London, on 28 April 2016. Participants discussed current issues relating to litigation before the courts and commissions in all three regional human rights systems, with the themes covered including interim measures, evidence, violence against women, and redress.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Research visit to Cameroon 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact In March 2018 a representative of the HRLIP undertook a series of meetings and interviews in Cameroon meeting with government officials, and representatives from the national human rights institution and civil society to discuss the implementation of decisions on individual communications.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Research visits to Zambia 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact In February 2018 a representative of the HRLIP undertook a series of meetings and interviews in Zambia and met with a range of government officials, and representatives from national human rights institutions and civil society to discuss the implementation of decisions on individual communications.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Roundtable with Zambian stakeholders 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact A roundtable was held on strengthening follow-up on recommendations from the UN and African human rights bodies, in Lusaka, Zambia, on 27 March 2019. It was a small, invited gathering, involving government officials, the judiciary and national human rights institution. The aim was to share our findings with key stakeholders in Zambia and initiate discussions on establishing a national mechanism and other support that may be needed.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
 
Description Seminar on 'Impact and challenges of monitoring compliance with judgments of the regional human rights tribunals', Max Planck Institute (Heidelberg, Germany) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Opportunity to discuss project, present ideas and discuss future engagement
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
URL http://www.mpil.de/apps/eventcalendar/data/pdf1/seminario_internacional_programa_18_19_071.pdf
 
Description Seminar: 'The developing remedial practice of the European Court of Human Rights' at the Council of Europe, Strasbourg 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The HRLIP team for Europe organised a Seminar on the developing remedial practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which was held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 8 November 2017. At the event, which brought together some ninety participants, Dr Alice Donald and Anne-Katrin Speck presented emerging findings from the HRLIP relating to the perception that the Court has moved away from its formerly strictly limited, declaratory approach to remedial measures by sometimes indicating specific non-monetary individual measures or general measures.

The panel, chaired by Professor Philip Leach, included Robert Spano, Judge at the ECtHR elected in respect of Iceland; Isabelle Niedlispacher, Government Agent in respect of Belgium and Chair of the Committee of Experts on the System of the European Convention on European Rights (DH-SYSC); Pavlo Pushkar, Head of Division in the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; and Kevin Steeves, Director of the European Implementation Network (EIN).
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
URL https://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/hrlip/our-research/europe-team/europe-workshopsactivities/
 
Description Statement to the 69th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Presentation to the Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights during its session.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2021
 
Description Statement to the 71st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Statement to the public session of the 71st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. This is a formal statement, using the fact that the HRIC has observer status with the African Commission. It called upon, among other things, for the African Commission to take further steps to address the implementation of its decisions.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2022
 
Description Strengthening Canada's institutional coordination in the implementation of views and recommendations issued by regional and international human rights bodies 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 12 June 2017, from 8:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion group titled "Strengthening Canada's institutional coordination in the implementation of views and recommendations issued by regional and international human rights bodies" at the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, in Ottawa, Ontario. There were 10 participants, including 8 people from 7 civil society organizations, and 2 people from 2 State institutions. The discussion was carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
URL http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/hrlip/our-research/americas-team/americas-workshopsactivities/
 
Description Strengthening Guatemala's institutional mechanisms and processes for the implementation of recommendations and orders issued by regional and international human rights bodies 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact On 9 August 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. the HRLIP Americas Team held a workshop/discussion group (in Spanish) titled "Strengthening Guatemala's institutional mechanisms and processes for the implementation of recommendations and orders issued by regional and international human rights bodies". There were 15 participants, including the in-country liaison consultant, 8 people from 7 civil society organizations, and 6 people from 4 State institutions. The discussion was carried out under the Chatham House Rule.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Submission of shadow report with respect to Cameroon examination before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The HRIC, OSJI and partners in Cameroon and the Gambia produced a shadow report for consideration by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights during its examination of Cameroon's state report at its 67th ordinary session in November 2020. Questions were asked by the Commission drawing upon the report of the Cameroonian delegation.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2020
 
Description The implementation of human rights judgments and decisions in the Czech Republic 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact On 14 November, the Europe team of the HRLIP, together with Judicial Studies Institute (JUSTIN) in the Faculty of Law at Masaryk University, Brno, co-organised a ?czech republic workshop on the implementation of human rights judgments and decisions against the Czech Republic. Building on the tentative findings of both research teams regarding the application and implementation of ECtHR's case law by the top Czech courts, as well as the HRLIP's research on Belgium and Georgia, the workshop provided a platform for an in-depth discussion among academics, Government officials, parliamentary staff, civil society representatives and staff from the Office of the Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman), broadening the existing debate on fostering the implementation of the Convention and the ECtHR's case law in the Czech Republic.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description Training seminar for members of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Anne-Katrin Speck presented 'National Parliaments and the implementation of ECHR standards: an overview' at a training seminar for members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the role of national parliaments in implementing ECHR standards, organised by the Parliamentary Projects Support Division (PPSD) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Strasbourg, 7-8 November 2019
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
 
Description Training seminar for members of the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine, March 2019 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact at a training seminar for members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the role of national parliaments in implementing ECHR standards, organised by the Parliamentary Projects Support Division (PPSD) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Strasbourg, 20-21 March 2019
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
 
Description Visit to UN OHCHR 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Visit to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in october 2016 by members of the research team to discuss UN secretariat role in monitoring implementation of its decisions. Provided opportunities for further work and potential involvement of our project in their strategy.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Visiting the offices of and attendance at the sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Visit to offices and attendance at the session of the Inter-American Commsision to discuss ideas on implementation, their role in implementation and project in general.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Workshop entitled 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and Moving Forward: What to Learn From International Human Rights Systems?', Leverhulme Inter-American Human Rights Network (Ghent, Belgium) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Participation in event involving key policy makers and practitioners enabling us to discuss our project
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Workshop on 'Regional Perspectives on Human Rights Regime Effects', University College London (UK) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Involvemnet in workshop discussing regional perspectives on implementation. Engagement with practitioner audience
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Workshop on strategic litigation of torture with Redress, Nairobi, August 2019 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact A workshop was organised with Redress, a London-based NGO litigating on torture issues, in Nairobi, Kenya, from 2-29 August 2019. The workshop had two purposes: to train local Kenyan based organisations working on torture prevention on strategies for implementing their cases; and secondly, to bring together some organisations litigating in Cameroon, to discuss strategies for implementation of their decisions from the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. The workshop took place successfully and the second aim was achieved and subsequently resulted in the submission of a joint funding bid to continue the work.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
 
Description Workshop on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Opportunity to highlight project and meet professional practitioners involved in implementation at the regional level
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016
 
Description Workshop with civil society: Cameroon 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact A roundtable was organised in Yaounde Cameroon on 5 July 2017 to discuss the opportunities and challenges for implementing decisions of the human rights treaty bodies in Cameroon. It brought together representatives from civil society organisations, leading academics and representatives from professional bodies. It explored a number of key research questions in order to obtain information on the national process for responding to decisions as well as the status of implementation of decisions involving Cameroon. It enabled the participants to share information and exchange views on the factors that can assist or hinder implementation in practice.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017