Report of a workshop for East African national human rights institutions on the implementation of torture prevention standards.
18 and 19 October 2010
Nairobi, Kenya.

Introduction
The School of Law at the University of Bristol is host to a four year research project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK, which is examining the role of non-binding ‘soft-law’ documents in the development of international human rights law. In particular, the “Implementation of Human Rights Standards” project (IHRS project) is focusing on the implementation of standards to prohibit and prevent torture in Africa, and is using the Guidelines and Measures For the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for Africa (otherwise known as the Robben Island Guidelines or RIG) as a case study. 
It is believed that national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have the potential to play a key role in the use and implementation of standards to prohibit and prevent torture at the national level. To date, the relevant mechanisms of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission), namely the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa (CPTA - formerly the Follow-Up Committee on the Robben Island Guidelines), and the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa (SRP), have had limited contact with East African NHRIs. However, torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) continue to be prevalent within East African countries and in particular during pre-trial detention. 
In addition, the Human Rights Implementation Centre of the University of Bristol has a collaborative relationship with the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF), which is a network of African practitioners active in policing reform and civilian oversight over policing. In 2010, APCOF, together with its partners the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, worked with the East African Police Commissioners Coordinating Committee (EAPCCO) and the East African Community (EAC) to articulate common principles for policing among the five states of the East Africa Community.  
 
Accordingly, for the above reasons it was proposed to host a two-day workshop to explore ways in which collaboration between the African Commission and the East African NHRIs could be strengthened and to examine the use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment.
The event bought together key individuals from the East African NHRIs; the African Commission; the African Union; the Network of African NHRIs; the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT); and non-governmental organisations to discuss the following topics:
•	The role of NHRIs in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment
•	The mandates of the SRP and CPTA
•	How to strengthen communication and collaboration between the East African NHRIs and the African Commission
•	An examination of which standards and mechanisms are used by the NHRIs in their work to prevent torture and other ill-treatment
•	The prevalence of torture and other ill-treatment, in particular during pre-trial detention
•	How to strengthen efforts by the NHRIs and the African Commission to address torture and other forms of ill-treatment, in particular during pre-trial detention.

The workshop took place between 18 and 19 October 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya. It was arranged over two days with plenary sessions each morning, followed by breakout sessions in the afternoon. The event was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK). (See Annex I for a copy of the agenda and Annex II for a list of participants.) 
This report summarises the presentations and discussions that took place during the workshop and in the conclusion presents some practical recommendations based on issues identified by participants during the discussions. (Please note that the workshop was held under the Chatham House Rules, which provide anonymity to speakers, in order to encourage openness and the sharing of information. Accordingly no statement or opinion will be expressly attributed to any named individual during this report.) 

Day One
The role of mechanisms to prevent torture and other ill-treatment
The aim of the first day was to examine the role NHRIs play in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment and to identify possible areas of synergy and collaboration between the activities of the NHRIs and those of the African Commission, in particular its relevant Special Mechanisms namely the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa (SRP) and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa (CPTA).
Summary of presentations
1.	The role of NHRIs in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment
The first series of presentations focused on the role NHRIs can play in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment at the national, regional and international levels, and also explored the concept of “prevention” more broadly.

Looking at the role of NHRIs in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment at the national level, it was emphasised that NHRIs can and do take a number of important initiatives within countries to combat these forms of abuse. For example it was noted that in accordance with the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles) NHRIs have a responsibility to submit opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports to the Government, Parliament, judiciary and other competent bodies on any matters concerning the promotion and protection of human rights. Accordingly, it was suggested that NHRIs should ensure that they engage actively with the Government and Parliament within their own countries on matters relating to the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment. In particular, NHRIs were encouraged to examine existing legislation and administrative provisions that are in force to ensure that they offer sufficient protection for individuals against torture and other ill-treatment, and, where necessary, to submit recommendations to adopt new legislation or to amend or repeal existing legislation to bring it into conformity with international human rights law. 

At the regional level it was noted that there were measures in place to enable NHRIs to engage with the African Commission, although it was acknowledged that in practice the level of actual involvement was disappointing. (The reasons for this lack of engagement were explored further in the first breakout session.) However, it was noted that the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI) had an important role to play in capacity building for NHRIs and forging stronger links between NHRIs and the African Commission.

In terms of NHRI interaction with the international human rights system it was noted that NHRIs that are compliant with the Paris Principles serve as “credible partners” for the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and a number of opportunities for interaction by NHRIs with the UN human rights machinery were identified. 

First it was noted that NHRIs can provide regular information to the international human rights mechanisms and have a vital role to play in monitoring any follow-up action taken at the national level on recommendations and observations emanating from the UN human rights system. (This was also highlighted as an opportunity at the regional level as well.)

A particular focus was also given to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process at the UN as a potential opportunity for NHRIs to engage effectively with the UN human rights system. The UPR process involves the review of the human rights record of all member States of the UN once every four years. In accordance with this process, NHRIs are allowed to submit information which is added to the “other stakeholders” report, which is then considered during the review. NHRIs can also attend the public sessions of the UPR. This was regarded as an important opportunity for NHRIs to engage with a range of actors at the international level and to make an effective contribution to a systematic and detailed review of a State’s human rights record. 

In terms of emerging opportunities for NHRIs in the field of torture prevention, the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) was regarded as offering a number of potential opportunities for NHRIs. The OPCAT entered into force in 2006 and is a unique international treaty in that it focuses solely on measures aimed at preventing torture and other ill-treatment. In accordance with the OPCAT a new UN treaty body, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (the SPT), was established, and in addition the OPCAT requires States Parties to establish or designate National Preventive Mechanisms (commonly called NPMs).  Both the SPT and NPMs have similar broad preventive mandates and are empowered to conduct regular, unannounced visits to places of detention and to make recommendations aimed at strengthening the protection of people deprived of their liberty and improving conditions of detention.

It was suggested that NHRIs are critical partners for the OPCAT bodies and have a number of potential roles to play in relation to the implementation of the OPCAT at the national level. First it was emphasised that NHRIs should play an active role in encouraging the OPCAT to be signed and ratified by their respective State. Second, NHRIs should raise awareness about the OPCAT and the opportunities it presents to strengthen national measures to prevent torture and other ill-treatment. Third, NHRIs should be actively engaged in discussions at the national level on how to implement the OPCAT in their particular countries, especially in the discussions on the most appropriate NPM model for their country. NHRIs should also act as a “watchdog” over the work of NPMs to ensure that they are effective and work in accordance with the OPCAT. In addition, NHRIs have a vital role to play in following-up with the government on any recommendations made by the NPM or SPT. 

Some States Parties to the OPCAT have or are considering designated NHRIs as their NPMs, and it was suggested that this presented an interesting opportunity for NHRIs to be part of the actual preventive framework established by the OPCAT. However, it was stressed that Articles 17 to 23 of the OPCAT set out the mandate, guarantees and powers for NPMs and accordingly any NHRI designated as an NPM must meet these strict criteria. It was noted that this might be a challenge for some, if not most, NHRIs without a substantial review and amendment of their mandate, personnel, budget and powers. 

Finally the first plenary session also examined the concept of “prevention”. It was noted that in accordance with international human rights law, and expressly under Article 2 of the UN Convention against Torture, States have a duty to prevent torture and other ill-treatment, however there is no definition of what “prevention” entails in practice.

It was suggested that two broad categories of “preventive action” could be identified i.e. direct and indirect. In relation to direct preventive action this would include acts aimed at mitigation and reducing the risk of torture and other ill-treatment, in order to create an environment within which these forms of abuse are unlikely to occur. Whereas, indirect action involves measures aimed at deterrence, such as litigation, reparation and redress.

It was emphasised that the development of a comprehensive strategy for torture prevention required an integrated approach combining both direct as well as indirect preventive actions. Accordingly, it was stressed that a comprehensive preventive strategy should be composed of the three following interrelated elements:
1.	A legal framework prohibiting torture
2.	An effective implementation of this legal framework
3.	The existence of mechanisms to monitor both the legal framework and its implementation.

In order to highlight the need for a holistic approach to the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, this integrated preventive strategy was symbolized by reference to a house, wherein the legal framework form the foundations, implementation measures form the walls, and control mechanisms form the protective roof. 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Ratification of international treaties
Prohibition and criminalisation of torture
Legal safeguards

IMPLEMENTATION

Procedural safeguards
Training of officials

IMPLEMENTATION

Fight against impunity

CONTROL MECHANISMS
Visits to places of detention
International HR bodies
Public campaigns

It was stressed that if any part of this preventive strategy was missing or weak then the structure would be incomplete i.e. the preventive system would fail to provide effective protection against torture and other ill-treatment.

2.	The role of the African Commission in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment 
The second set of presentations on the first day focused on the role the African Commission and its Special Mechanisms play in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, and the opportunities for engagement between NHRIs and the African human rights system.

It was stressed that the African Commission has a long history of acting to prevent torture and other ill-treatment and has, since its existence in 1987, unequivocally condemned all acts of torture. 

The Robben Island Guidelines were identified as one of the key instruments of the African Commission concerning the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment. The Robben Island Guidelines contain a set of provisions dealing specifically with issues relating to the prohibition and prevention of torture and other ill-treatment and the rehabilitation of victims. They were drafted in February 2002 at an expert workshop in Cape Town, South Africa, which was organised jointly by the African Commission and an international non-governmental organisation, the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT). They were formally adopted by the African Commission during its 32nd ordinary session in October 2002 and subsequently approved by the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Union held in Maputo, Mozambique, in July 2003. 

The Robben Island Guidelines are divided into three main sections dealing respectively with the prohibition of torture; the prevention of torture; and responding to the needs of victims. It was stated that as well as being an instrument to guide States in fulfilling their obligations to strengthen and implement the prohibition and prevention of torture, the Robben Island Guidelines should also be used by the African Commission, NHRIs and NGOs as a tool to facilitate States’ compliance with their obligations to prevent and prohibit torture and other ill-treatment.

In addition to being a useful tool for action aimed at prevention, the Robben Island Guidelines also enabled the African Commission to set up a Special Mechanism with a specific torture prevention mandate called the Follow-up Committee on the Implementation of the Robben Island Guidelines (Follow-up Committee), with the mandate to ensure that the Guidelines are implemented within the region. Recently at the 46th ordinary session of the African Commission held from 11-25 November 2009 the name of the Follow-up Committee was changed to the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa (CPTA).

The CPTA has the following mandate:

1.	To organise, with the support of interested partners, seminars to disseminate the Robben Island Guidelines
2.	To develop and propose to the African Commission strategies to promote and implement the Robben Island Guidelines at the national and regional levels
3.	To promote and facilitate the implementation of the Robben Island Guidelines within member States
4.	To make a progress report to the African Commission at each ordinary session. 

It was noted that the Robben Island Guidelines call expressly on States to “establish, support and strengthen independent national institutions such as human rights commissions, ombudspersons and commissions of parliamentarians”, and accordingly the CPTA had a direct role to play in advocating for the establishment and effective functioning of NHRIs.
 
However, it was noted that the relationship between the CPTA and NHRIs is not exploited fully and it was acknowledged that the CPTA should engage more with NHRIs in order to create a “symbiotic linkage” for the prevention of torture at the national level and to explore various opportunities for collaboration.

In addition to the CPTA, it was noted that the African Commission also has a Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention (SRP). This SRP position was created in 1996 as a result of lobbying by Penal Reform International. The terms of reference of the SRP refer to the need to ‘examine the situation of persons deprived of their liberty within the territories of States Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’. 

The SRP’s mandate encompasses a range of activities including: 

1. 	Conducting an examination of the state of prisons and conditions of detention 	and making recommendations for their improvement
2. 	Advocating adherence to the African Charter and other relevant international 	human rights norms
3. 	Examining the national laws and making recommendations concerning their 	compliance with international norms
4. 	Making recommendations on any communications filed with the African 	Commission 	related to the subject-matter of the mandate
5. 	Proposing to States any urgent action which needs to be undertaken
6. 	Conducting studies into conditions which contribute to detentions and 	proposing preventative measures
7. 	Co-ordinating his activities with those of other Special Rapporteurs and 	working groups.

It was noted that since the creation of the SRP mandate, successive mandate-holders have conducted a number of visits to States and produced reports and recommendations based on their observations. Consequently, it was stressed that the SRP should establish a constructive dialogue with NHRIs, and NHRIs should send relevant information regularly to the SRP to assist the mandate-holder in carrying out her mandate effectively. In particular it was noted that NHRIs have a key role to play in facilitating and supporting missions to States by the SRP, and CPTA.

In addition to these Special Mechanisms, a number of other relevant procedures of the African Commission were identified, which could be used by NHRIs to raise concerns in respect of torture and other ill-treatment. 

The complaints or communications procedure of the African Commission was regarded as one of the principal means by which concerns regarding torture and other ill-treatment could be raised within the African Commission system. This provides an avenue for States, NHRIs, NGOs and individuals to submit allegations of violations of the African Charter to the African Commission for their consideration. Similarly, urgent appeals were highlighted as a means by which allegations of torture and other ill-treatment can be brought promptly to the attention of the African Commission for action.

It was also noted that the presentation of States’ periodic reports, as required in accordance with Article 62 of the African Charter, is one of the most important processes in the work of the African Commission, which enables a public examination of a State’s human rights record.  NHRIs were encouraged to be more engaged with this process and to be proactive in the submission of information and reports to the African Commission and its Special Mechanisms.

As well as action taken at the regional level, several avenues by which the African Commission can address issues of torture and other ill-treatment directly at the national level were identified and where a collaborative relationship with NHRIs would be useful. The African Charter enables the African Commission to undertake fact-finding missions into allegations of serious or massive human rights violations within States Parties to the African Charter and these were considered to be an important means by which the African Commission can observe and review safeguards in place to combat torture and other ill-treatment. At the end of a fact-finding mission a report is prepared and submitted to the African Commission for consideration. 

In addition to fact-finding missions to countries Commissioners of the African Commission also undertake promotional missions to States and it was explained that these missions enable the Commissioners to meet with relevant stakeholders involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. A report of any promotional mission is also drawn up and published.

Other in-country activities such as workshops, seminars and conferences were also identified as enabling the African Commission to address issues of torture and other ill-treatment at the national level and where linkages with NHRIs can be fostered. 

Key issues identified during breakout session one
The aim of the first breakout session was to explore practical ways in which collaboration and communication between the NHRIs and the African Commission could be strengthened. A series of questions were posed in order to guide the discussions and the issues raised in response will be considered in turn. 

1.	Which East African NHRIs have been to the ordinary sessions of the African Commission?
Twice a year the African Commission holds ordinary sessions during which, in public sessions, the Commissioners report on their inter-sessional activities and examine the initial or periodic reports submitted by States in accordance with Article 62 of the African Charter, and, in private sessions, individual complaints are considered and administrative and other matters are discussed. During the public sessions non-governmental organisations and NHRIs can make statements to the plenary.

Most of the NHRIs represented at the workshop had been at least once to an ordinary session of the African Commission, although it was acknowledged that attendance at the African Commission remained sporadic. Some of the NHRIs with affiliated status at the African Commission, which entitles them to be invited to and participate in the public sessions of the African Commission, noted that they failed to submit a report every two years to the African Commission on their activities as required by their affiliated status.

In contrast to this most of the NHRIs have regularly attended sessions of the UN Human Rights Council (and its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission). Further, some of the NHRIs who have accredited status at the UN, which rates their compliance with the Paris Principles, stated that they did submit their reports in a timely manner as required to the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 

2.	What has been the reason for NHRIs to attend or not attend the Ordinary Sessions of the African Commission?
Several common reasons were given for this lack of regular attendance by NHRIs at the ordinary sessions of the African Commission. 
i.	Many NHRIs stated that they did not have a budget to attend the African Commission, whereas many received funding to attend the UN sessions. 

ii.	It was noted that it was extremely difficult to plan to attend the ordinary sessions of the African Commission because the African Commission does not compile a timetable to indicate on what day/s specific issues are going to be discussed. This made it impossible for NHRIs, NGOs and others to know when they should be there and to plan and budget accordingly. 

iii.	Linked to the second point it was indicated that the African Commission does not have set time limits for interventions by States and observers, and it was suggested that this hampers the ability to prepare a detailed timetable. Whereas, it was observed that the UN was better coordinated and does have set time limits for interventions and does prepare a timetable indicating when specific issues and reports will be considered. Consequently it was remarked that it was much easier for NHRIs, and other actors, to be able to plan and budget for targeted action at UN meetings. 

iv.	It was also noted that the UN actively organises events and activities for NHRIs such as meetings with UN Special Procedures and side-events during the Human Rights Council etc. and these had proven to be popular with NHRIs. It was stated that these types of activities have helped to foster closer links and channels of communication between the NHRIs and relevant mechanisms within the UN.

v.	It was also indicated that NHRIs gave priority to attending and following meetings held at the UN because they had greater visibility as they attracted more media coverage that those of the African Commission. It was stated that the work of the African Commission did not “catch the headlines” at the national level unlike the UN processes. 

3.	What are the current means by which national actors can contact the SRP and CPTA?
Many of the NHRIs stated that they were unaware of how and whom to contact within the staff of the African Commission for specific issues and this was considered to be a further hindrance to closer coordination between the NHRIs and the African Commission. In contrast it was noted the UN OHCHR does publish on its website the name, contact details and areas of responsibility of its staff. A request was made for the African Commission to address this as a matter of urgency.

4.	What information/assistance would the SRP and/or CPTA like to receive from NHRIs and other national actors?
It was noted that the NHRIs of the region should primarily support the African Commission and its torture prevention mechanisms in assisting with the implementation of their mandates. This should extend beyond the attendance of the sessions and involve following up on the recommendations made to the specific states and actively working on the criminalisation of torture at their respective national levels. 

This latter point was especially emphasised as the corner stone for any torture prevention strategies, as currently it was estimated that less than 10 countries in Africa have criminalised torture as a separate criminal offence in their domestic legal systems. It was noted that most countries of the continent have included a prohibition of torture in their constitutions but lack specific legislation criminalising torture which renders the constitutional prohibition a simple declaration. Only in very rare instances has such a constitutional prohibition lead to tangible results: the example of the judgement of the High Court of Kenya of 21 July 2010 was cited as an example where compensations for torture were granted despite the fact that torture is not criminalised in Kenya. The judgement was based on Article 1 of UNCAT and the prohibition of torture in Kenyan Constitution. It was however noted that such cases are rare and very complicated hence the criminalisation of torture ought to be a priority in all African countries.  

5.	What information/assistance would the NHRIs and other national actors like to receive from the SRP and/or CPTA?
It was considered that a broad range of information would be useful for NHRIs to receive from the SRP and/or CPTA, and indeed other mechanisms of the African Commission. These included information on what cases were due to be considered; which countries the mechanisms were planning to visit and when; which countries had yet to respond to a request for a visit; and the name and contact details of staff at the African Commission responsible for each Special Mechanism. In addition it was noted that a more targeted approach would be helpful, namely that the African Commission should send relevant communications, decisions etc. automatically to the NHRIs within the countries concerned.

The need for authoritative statements and interpretations over various issues surrounding torture prevention issues was underlined, noting that the SRP and CPTA are in a perfect position to do this. It was noted that such tools would be greatly beneficial for litigation at the national and regional levels. It was also argued that this would raise the profile of the torture prevention tools of the African Commission, as currently when NHRIs are engaged with litigation preference appears to be given to UN instruments since these were perceived as being more useful during litigation because they offered more detail and explanation with respect to various aspects of torture prevention. 

In relation to visits to countries by the Commissioners of the African Commission an issue was raised in relation to the lack of frequency and information before and following a visit. However, a lack of funds and support staff was given as a reason as to why more country visits are not carried out by the Special Mechanisms of the African Commission and for the lack of country reports being compiled after a visit.

Many NHRIs expressed an interest in assisting the African Commission to organise visits to countries and it was felt that NHRIs should play a pivotal role in facilitating such visits and providing vital information to the African Commission, which could help to ensure the country visits had as much impact as possible. However, it was noted that many Commissioners do already contact NHRIs prior to a visit to obtain information and meet with representatives from the NHRIs during a visit.

6.	What role does/could the Network of African NHRIs and/or the UN National Institutions Unit play in assisting a collaborative relationship between the NHRIs and the Special Mechanisms?
It was noted that the National Institutions Unit of the UN OHCHR, in collaboration with the Network of African NHRIs (NANHRI) has already organised some meetings to familiarise NHRIs with the regional mechanism, however it was suggested that more could be done within Africa to raise the profile among NHRIs of the opportunities for engaging with the African Commission. Specifically it was suggested that setting up a focal point for NHRIs in the African Commission would be most useful. 

The NANHRI has looked at this issue and produced a report detailing ways in which the NHRIs can engage with the African Commission however it appeared that only a few NHRIs, and other actors, were aware of this document. It was therefore suggested that this report should be circulated among the participants, and of course more widely throughout the region.

The NGO forum, which takes place prior to each ordinary session of the African Commission, was highlighted as a good example of an event which encourages NGO engagement with the African Commission, as well as collaboration and coordination among NGOs. It was also noted that some Commissioners attend the NGO forum, which facilitates greater information sharing and collaboration between the Commissioners and NGOs, and strengthens networks among NGOs. It was suggested that the NANHRI should organise a similar event for NHRIs prior to the ordinary sessions of the African Commission. It was indicated that this would provide a space for NHRIs to discuss common issues; strengthen networks; contact Commissioners; and to raise their profile and voice around the African Commission.
Day Two
Use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment
The aim of the second day was to examine the use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment in practice in order to identify instruments and standards that are perceived to be most useful to national actors in their efforts to prevent these forms of abuse. The discussions also explored why people in pre-trial detention face the greatest risk of being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment and offered an opportunity to share experiences and good practice on action and measures taken at the national, regional and international levels to address this problem.
Summary of presentations
1.	Overview of the problem of torture and other ill-treatment within pre-trial detention
The first set of presentations considered the prevalence of torture and other ill-treatment within pre-trial detention and the contributing factors behind this risk. The discussion also explored potential opportunities to reduce this risk for pre-trial detainees.

It was remarked that while torture is as a general rule prohibited under the legal framework of countries, for example within Constitutions and legislation, in practice safeguards to protect people deprived of their liberty are frequently not respected fully. 
A number of common failures to respect safeguards for people deprived of their liberty were identified and these were considered to be contributing factors to the occurrence of torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial detention. These included the following: 
1.	Criminal systems that rely heavily on obtaining confessions
2.	Magistrates and judges ignoring prescribed time limits to release or charge people who have been arrested
3.	Frequent denial of access to a lawyer promptly after arrest
4.	Overcrowding leading to very poor conditions of detention
5.	Men and women detainees are not always separated
6.	Children are held for long periods in pre-trial detention and not always separated from adult detainees
7.	Pre-trial detainees are held alongside convicted detainees 
8.	A lack of prosecutions of law enforcement officials alleged to have been involved with torture, leading to a culture of impunity.

It was acknowledged that people held in pre-trial detention are considered to face the greatest risk of being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment for a variety of reasons. 
First, it was asserted that detaining authorities often perceive torture as the fastest way to gain a confession and the easiest way to exert physical and mental control over detainees and this is most likely to occur within pre-trial detention. This was especially so in countries where criminal justice system relies heavily upon confessions to secure a conviction. 
Second, corruption was seen to be a contributing factor in many countries and was seen to flourish during pre-trial detention because there is less scrutiny and more discretion given to law enforcement officials during this time; it often involves lower paid more junior actors; and involves a series of ‘opportunities’ for law enforcement officials to demand bribes. 
Third, pre-trial detainees are often forced to live in poor, overcrowded conditions of detention. It was suggested that in some instances pre-trial facilities are often so bad that detainees plead guilty just to be transferred to a prison where the conditions might be better. It was also noted that the risk of contagious diseases being spread to the wider community is more imminent within pre-trial detention because of the transient nature of this community and it was noted that this posed a public health crisis in many countries. 
The ripple effect of pre-trial detention for the wider community and States was also singled out for attention. It was noted that the excessive use of pre-trial detention means lost income and reduced employment opportunities, and for families it means economic hardship and reduced educational outcomes. In turn it was remarked that for States this creates increased costs, reduced revenue, and fewer resources for social service programs.
Potential opportunities for NHRIs and civil society actors to strengthen efforts to combat torture and other ill-treatment were also considered. It was suggested that national actors should research, document and protect data on torture practices, which can then be used during litigation and advocacy initiatives. It was noted that a holistic approach is important in order to tackle torture and other ill-treatment and therefore it was considered essential for national actors to create collaborative efforts and network with like-minded organisations.

The importance of criminalising torture under domestic legislation was highlighted as a matter of urgency in many countries. Although it was noted that where such legislation is absent existing international and domestic legislation should be used to ensure individual responsibility for acts of torture. 

The lack of access to legal advice was a common theme throughout the presentations and subsequent discussions on the risk of torture during pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the need for the African Commission and NHRIs to call on States to ensure the right of access to a lawyer promptly on arrest was emphasized as a matter of priority. 

Linked to this issue, NHRIs and civil society organisations were encouraged to pursue public interest litigation cases that seek to:
a)	Protect the rights of suspects and the presumption of innocence
b)	Challenge prolonged pre-trial detention and unlawful detention
c)	Enforce the payment of awards by courts of law.

In addition, it was stated that national actors should pursue individual responsibility through liaison with professional standards units or equivalent bodies mandated to promote professional standards. Such units can enforce both disciplinary and criminal measures against individual perpetrators of torture.

Lastly, alongside calling for the ratification and effective implementation of the OPCAT, it was noted that NHRIs and civil society organisations had a role to play in monitoring the treatment of persons held in detention, and should regularly inspect places of detention. 

9.	The use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment

The second aspect of day two focused on the use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment in practice and lessons were drawn from case studies and good practice identified throughout the course of the discussions.
As a first step it was noted that NHRIs should have a clear mandate to take action aimed at the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, and should interpret their mandates as broadly as possible on this issue in order to encompass a range of activities.
First it was stressed that NHRIs should play an important role in advocating for the implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment and should call for standards to be effectively incorporated into domestic legislation. This would require lobbying Parliamentarians to introduce key legislation and therefore NHRIs should, as a first step, seek to build a collaborative relationship with Parliamentarians who can take this forward. 
The importance of obtaining and making use of case law that defines torture and interprets obligations in conformity with international human rights law was also highlighted as a matter of interest for NHRIs, and other national actors. 
It was noted that the right to an effective remedy is an essential part of the implementation of standards relating to the prohibition of torture, and it was noted that a problem existed in some countries where claims for reparation are held separately from hearings on the merits of the case itself. This it was suggested creates a lengthy and sometimes expensive process for victims.
The provision of training for law enforcement officials; judges; lawyers and doctors was regarded as an essential aspect of NHRIs’ mandate to prevent torture and other ill-treatment. Accordingly, NHRIs were called on to develop training programmes and materials. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that an essential part of an NHRI’s mandate was to initiate public education and awareness-raising activities. In most countries it was stated that the general public have the opinion that persons arrested are automatically guilty and therefore “deserve” harsh treatment. Thus, it was stressed that NHRIs should, in collaboration with other relevant stakeholders, deliver public education programmes on the rights of persons deprived of their liberty specifically and human rights in general.
As well as actions that can be taken at the domestic level, opportunities for NHRIs to advance the notion of torture prevention were also identified at the international level. In particular, NHRIs were encouraged to engage actively with the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) when their respective States are reporting to the CAT. It was noted that NHRIs can play an important role in encouraging and facilitating States Parties to report to the CAT in a timely and comprehensive manner. For example, NHRIs can facilitate meetings between relevant stakeholders and ensure that the State Party report is produced following comprehensive and inclusive consultations. It was also suggested that NHRIs should ensure that they submit their own information to the CAT on the extent to which the State concerned has implemented the UNCAT.
In addition, it was noted that many treaty bodies, including the CAT, have indicated that many States do not implement their concluding observations in practice. Accordingly, it was stressed that NHRIs can assist treaty bodies in monitoring follow-up and implementation of their recommendations by, for example, identifying with the State and other national actors those concluding observations which must be acted upon expeditiously.
Furthermore, similarly to the first day’s discussions, the UPR process was also singled out for specific attention and NHRIs were urged to engage actively with this UN process. In this respect a three-pronged approach to ensure optimal engagement with the UPR was suggested. First, NHRIs should urge the State to prepare its report and should participate in critiques of that report. Second, NHRIs should seek and encourage collaboration with civil society organizations to prepare a joint “stakeholders’ report”. Third, NHRIs should prepare their own report to complement the stakeholders’ report.
Lastly, an opportunity for building consensus around standards for policing at the sub-regional level was identified. The “Common Standards for Policing in Eastern Africa” project, led by the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) was highlighted for specific attention. The aim of this project was to map out common standards of policing across the East African community based on domestic legislation; regional treaties; international law and standards; and relevant jurisprudence.
This project had a number of objectives:
1.	To promote compliance with standards and treaties
2.	To strengthen respect for human rights in policing
3.	To promote positive policing practices
4.	To promote accountability

It was noted that the absence of legal provisions; procedural safeguards; and forensic examinations created a culture of impunity within law enforcement services and consequently an environment within which torture and other ill-treatment will thrive. Thus, it was suggested that determining and gaining consensus on common standards for policing within East Africa would create a useful tool for driving forward discussions on the issue of human rights and policing and for assessing the extent to which police agencies meet these standards. Accordingly, it was suggested that the East African NHRIs could play a central role in monitoring compliance with these common standards on policing.

Key issues identified during breakout session two
The aim of the second breakout session was to explore practical ways in which NHRIs and the SRP and CPTA can strengthen efforts to address the problem of torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial detention. Once again a series of questions formed the basis for the discussions and the responses to each will be considered in turn.
1.	Which of the following instruments do the group participants use most often in the course of their work on torture prevention?
a.	The Robben Island Guidelines
b.	The Kampala Declaration on Prison Conditions in Africa
c.	The African Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial
d.	The UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT)
e.	The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Most of the participants indicated that they most frequently made reference to the UNCAT and the ICCPR during the course of their work. While many of the participants were aware of the other documents, very few noted that they had actually used or made reference to them. 
 
2.	Are there other instruments not named above that the group members use in the course of their torture prevention work?
Other instruments that were regarded as being useful to many participants in addressing torture and other ill-treatment included the African Charter; the UN Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (UNSMR); and the Istanbul Protocol. Within this list, then UNSMR were considered to be particularly popular and useful within the field of torture prevention. One of the reasons given for this was that they are detailed and set out specific criteria for the treatment of prisoners that are not found in relevant treaties.
3.	Are some of these instruments more useful than others? If so why?
Generally it was noted by participants that as a starting point they would prefer to use binding instruments such as the UNCAT and the ICCPR before non-binding documents. This preference was particularly prevalent for those engaged with litigation where it was noted that legal submissions and jurisprudence required binding standards to be cited wherever possible. It was also argued that the UNCAT and ICCPR made it unnecessary to refer to regional instruments because their international character meant that they had greater “standing” in the region and were also expected to subsume the regional standards.
As a general observation so called “soft law” documents were regarded as useful to reference when they contain detailed provisions that elaborate obligations contained in treaties, or when they “go beyond” treaty obligations and contain provisions that contribute to a better understanding of the nature and scope of a particular obligation. As noted in point 2 above, the UNSMR were highlighted as an example of a popular set of rules to cite because they contain very detailed provisions that can not be found in treaties. In addition, the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law were also cited as an example of a set of provisions that were extremely useful because they comprehensively elaborate upon the general right to an effective remedy found in most human rights treaties.
Some participants noted that the Robben Island Guidelines did not contain detailed provisions that elaborated upon treaty obligations per se, and indeed it was noted that some provisions of the Robben Island Guidelines simply restated many obligations already contained in treaties. Accordingly, some participants noted that they were unsure what “added value” these Guidelines brought to their work.
From these discussions a number of factors were considered to be instrumental in determining what instrument was used in practice, these included:
•	The target audience
•	The argument being put forward
•	Whether the issue is sufficiently covered by “hard law” instruments 
•	The specificity of a “soft law” document

However, it was also noted by a few participants that as long as the right result was obtained it did not matter whether the result was obtained using binding or non-binding instruments. Consequently it was proposed that the starting point for any institution, organisation or individual is to determine which instruments support their arguments and therefore are likely to obtain the right result, regardless as to whether or not they are considered to be “hard law” or “soft law”.
Furthermore, there also appeared to be a notable preference to use international instruments instead of regional ones. One of the main reasons proposed for this was that the international instruments had a much higher profile and arguably therefore a greater persuasive force than instruments emanating from the African Commission. It was noted that this is perhaps inevitable because the international nature and scope of these instruments means that more has been written on them and this international  profile creates a greater awareness across regions and nationally. It was also suggested that in some instances the international instruments were considered to be more detailed and therefore useful than some African Commission documents. 
4.	Are pre-trial detainees allowed access to a lawyer, doctor and/or family promptly on arrest in each participant’s country?
Most of the participants considered that access to a lawyer, doctor and family members were guaranteed under their respective Constitutions. However, in practice it was noted that in many countries access to lawyers, doctors and family members by persons held in pre-trial detention is frequently hindered and delayed. 

In relation to obtaining access to a lawyer promptly after arrest, as required under international human rights law, it was noted that authorities frequently obstruct and prevent this right of access. An example was given in one country where the authorities claim that the right for an individual to have someone notified of their detention is upheld, however in practice this right is regularly frustrated by the police simply refusing to allow the detainee credit to call someone. 

5.	Does any member of the group have a positive story to share about tackling abuse during pre-trial detention?
The use of paralegals was given as an example of practice which in some countries has reduced the risk of being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial detention and in reducing the number of persons held for long periods in pre-trial detention. In countries where a paralegal project exists, community based paralegals conduct a range of activities aimed at assisting people deprived of their liberty such as providing information directly to detainees on their rights and identifying individuals who may be eligible for bail. 

6.	What information regarding pre-trial detention would the SRP and/or CPTA find useful to receive from national actors?
It was suggested that the SRP and/or CPTA could receive information from national actors on the extent to which rights on arrest are guaranteed under the Constitution and legislation within African countries, together with statistical information on the number of people held within pre-trial detention.

7.	Is there any action that the national actors would like the African Commission to take aimed at reducing abuse during pre-trial detention?
A number of actions where proposed by participants for the African Commission to take in order to combat torture and other ill-treatment within pre-trial detention and to reduce the number of individuals held within pre-trial detention. 
First, it was proposed that the Special Mechanisms of the African Commission could compile a thematic report on this issue and include statistical data. Alternatively, it was suggested that two or three country reports that are indicative of the problem of pre-trial detention could be used as a way to highlight the problem. The idea here was not to shame any particular country or choose countries with some of the worse records for overuse of pre-trial detention and abuse but instead to take “middle of the road” examples to make a fair comparison and highlight an overall pattern of the problem.
Secondly, the use of alternatives to pre trial detention could be popularised at the African Commission level through, for example, general recommendations or general comments. This would assist the NHRIs in strengthening their national campaigns on use of such alternatives to pre-trial detention such as, for example, police bonds. 
Thirdly, it was also highlighted that given that the African Commission is inundated with information from a variety of sources, NHRIs need to be more strategic about what they send to the Commission and to formulate a long-term strategy for how to engage with it. 
Fourthly, it was suggested that the African Commission could provide examples of best practice in relation to pre-trial detention.
Lastly, many participants said that it would be helpful if the African Commission came up with a clear format of the type of reports it required from NHRIs and NGOs as part of their obligations under their affiliated/observer status.

Conclusion and recommendations
Discussions at the workshop centred around two broad themes i.e. how to build a cooperative relationship between African NHRIs and the African human rights system; and how African institutions can improve the rate of implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment at the national level? The following attempts to highlight the most significant issues that were identified during the discussions and outlines the recommendations made by participants aimed at addressing these areas of common concern. 
1.	Strengthening the relationship between the African Commission and African NHRIs
Looking first at the interaction of NHRIs with the African human rights system, it was noticeable that while many NHRIs have established collaborative relationships with actors at the national level and do regularly engage with the international human rights system, it was observed that the relationship between the African Commission and African NHRIs is not used to its full potential. 
Opportunities and mechanisms for the NHRIs to engage with the African Commission were identified however it was acknowledged that more needed to be done to foster a collaborative relationship between African NHRIs and the African human rights system as a whole.
In order to address these obstacles the following recommendations, addressed to different actors, were made during the course of the workshop:
To the African Commission:
1.	The African Commission should prepare a detailed timetable for its ordinary sessions. This will enable NHRIs, and other actors, to plan more strategically and budget accordingly for when they should attend.
2.	Information on which legal officers of the African Commission have responsibility for a particular thematic issue and how to contact them should be made available on the website of the African Commission.
3.	The African Commission should put in place a procedure whereby relevant communications, decisions etc. are automatically sent to NHRIs within the countries concerned.
4.	The African Commission should ensure that its reports, decisions and other communications are translated into the main official languages of the Continent.

5.	The African Commission should ensure that the AU Human Rights Strategy is more widely distributed. 

To the NANHRI:
1.	The NANHRI should organise events for NHRIs around the ordinary sessions of the African Commission and actively popularise them among the NHRIs of the region and also donors that could provide financial support to NHRIs attendance. 

2.	The NANHRI should ensure that the staff of the African Commission, in particular the legal officers, have all the contact details of the African NHRIs in order to facilitate an exchange of information on relevant issues.  

3.	The NANHRI should assist in circulating the AU Human Rights Strategy among its members and facilitate NHRIs engagement with discussions on this strategy.

4.	The NANHRI should explore ways in which assistance can be provided regularly to NHRIs in order to facilitate their attendance at ordinary sessions of the African Commission.

To NHRIs:
1.	All African NHRIs should forward their contact details to the African Commission and the NANHRI.

2.	NHRIs should ensure that they send their annual reports and other documents they produce during the course of their work to the relevant staff of the African Commission on a regular basis.

To States:
1.	Member States of the African Union should ensure that NHRIs have sufficient resources to enable them to attend ordinary sessions of the African Commission on a regular basis.

2.	Member States of the African Union should provide support to the African Commission to facilitate activities aimed at establishing a constructive dialogue with African NHRIs.

2.	Implementing standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment

Looking at the second broad issue under discussion during the workshop it was clear that NHRIs have a key role to play in shaping a country’s human rights discourse generally, and in preventing torture and other ill-treatment specifically. It was acknowledged that the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment requires a holistic approach if it is to be effective and sustainable. Accordingly, it was stressed that NHRIs should develop strategic partnerships with a range of national, regional and international actors in order to exploit fully the opportunities to move the torture prevention agenda forward within their respective States.  
The issue of pre-trial detention was singled out for particular attention during the workshop because the opportunities and incentives to torture are most prevalent during the initial period of detention and pre-trial detainees are often held for prolonged periods of time in very poor and unsuitable conditions amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 
It was noted that while legal safeguards may be in place within countries, all too frequently these safeguards are ignored or circumvented placing pre-trial detainees at risk of abuse. It was observed that without a robust preventive framework encompassing a functioning legal framework; implementation of standards; and effective control mechanisms, individuals would continue to be placed at risk of being subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. 
Equally the reluctance to use alternatives to pre trial detention was highlighted as an aspect that contributes to the problem. 
Throughout the course of the workshop various obstacles to and opportunities for initiatives aimed at preventing torture and other ill-treatment were identified and the following series of recommendations were made addressed to different stakeholders:
To the African Commission:
1.	The African Commission and its Special Mechanisms should continue to develop its work on policing and human rights and produce reports on abuse during pre-trial detention and implement fully its Resolution on Policing adopted at the 40th ordinary session of the African Commission in November 2006. 

2.	The African Commission should ensure that States include in their periodic reports information on the extent to which rights on arrest are guaranteed under domestic law and to provide statistical data relating to the number of and average length of time individuals spend in pre-trial detention within their respective countries.

3.	The relevant Special Mechanisms of the African Commission should compile thematic reports on issues relating to the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment in the region and include relevant statistical data in their reports.

4.	The African Commission and its Special Mechanisms should encourage States to establish independent monitoring mechanisms, including civilian police oversight mechanisms, for all places of detention.

5.	The relevant Special Mechanisms of the African Commission should issue special recommendations or general comments on the use of alternatives to pre-trial detention.  

To NHRIs:
1.	NHRIs should examine existing legislation and administrative provisions to review their conformity with international human rights law, and, where necessary, submit recommendations to adopt new legislation or to amend or repeal existing legislation.

2.	NHRIs should develop training programmes and materials on human rights for law enforcement personnel, lawyers and judges. Alternatives to the use of pre-trial detention should be especially highlighted.

3.	Public awareness raising initiatives on the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment should be undertaken.  Alternatives to the use of pre-trial detention should be especially highlighted, 

4.	NHRIs, together with the African Commission and civil society organisations, should urge States to establish independent monitoring mechanisms, including civilian police oversight mechanisms, for all places of detention.

5.	NHRIs should play an active role in encouraging the OPCAT to be signed and ratified by their respective State. NHRIs should raise awareness about the OPCAT and be actively engaged in discussions at the national level on how to implement the OPCAT.

6.	NHRIs should systematically collect data on the number of persons held in pre-trial detention and regularly submit this information to the CPTA and SRP, as well as relevant UN mechanisms.

7.	NHRIs should engage with the UPR process by submitting information to be included in the “other stakeholders” report, and facilitate an inclusive dialogue between the relevant government agencies and other stakeholders.

8.	NHRIs should disseminate decisions of the international and regional human rights bodies and monitor their implementation.

To States:
1.	Torture should be criminalised under domestic law in accordance with international human rights law.

2.	Pre-trial detention should be used as an exception not the rule. Alternatives to use of pre-trial detention should be especially promoted.

3.	Where pre-trial detention is used it should be for the shortest time possible.

4.	Access to legal advice promptly after arrest must be guaranteed under domestic law and respected in practice.

5.	Persons charged with a criminal offence should be bought to trial in a reasonable time and have full access to a lawyer throughout.

6.	Victims of torture and their families should have full access to appropriate remedies and reparation. 

7.	Training on human rights should be provided on an on-going basis for law enforcement personnel, lawyers and judges.

8.	Independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and conditions of detention should be established and maintained. These oversight mechanisms must be guaranteed access to all places of detention, including pre-trial detention facilities.

9.	Those States that have not yet signed and ratified the UNCAT and/or the OPCAT should do so as a matter of urgency.

10.	 When establishing or reviewing oversight mechanisms, including national preventive mechanisms established in accordance with the OPCAT, States should ensure that NHRIs, civil society organisations and other relevant stakeholders have an opportunity to participate fully in the process to decide their form and mandate. 

University of Bristol IHRS Team
 									December 2010
Workshop for East African NHRIs
On the implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment
18-19 October 2010
La Mada Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya.

AGENDA
	DAY ONE: 18 October 2010

Theme: Role of mechanisms to prevent torture and other ill-treatment	
9.00-9.30	Registration, tea and coffee
	
9.30-9.45	Welcome and Introduction to the IHRS project and APCOF 
Rachel Murray, Debra Long and Florence Simbiri-Jaoko	
9.45-11.00	1. The role of NHRIs in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment 
Chair: Prof. Rachel Murray (University of Bristol)
Speakers:  
Mr. Dancan Ochieng (NANHRI) 
Ms. Lisa Sekaggya  (UN NI Unit) 
Ms. Barbara Bernath (APT)
Q & A	
11.00-11.15	Coffee break	
11.15-12.30	2. The role of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment
Chair: Ben Kioko (AU Chief Legal Counsel) 
Speakers: 
Commissioner Dupe Atoki (SRP and Chair of the CPTA)
Ms. Hannah Forster(Executive Director of ACDHRS) 
Q & A	
12.30-14.00	Lunch	
14.00-16.00	Breakout sessions: 
In the afternoon participants will be divided into two working groups to explore practical ways to improve collaboration and communication between the NHRIs and the ACHPR mechanisms on the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment.

Chairs: Mr. Zdenek Hajek / Ms. Florence Simbiri-Jaoko 	
16.00-16.30	Coffee break	
16.30-17.00	Report back from Working Groups
	
17.00	Close 	
19.00	Evening Reception at the La Mada Hotel

	DAY TWO: 19 October 2010

Theme: Use and implementation of standards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment	
9.30-11.00	3. Overview of the problem of torture and other ill-treatment within pre-trial detention: risks and solutions
Chair: Ms.Edith Kibalama (KCK)
Speakers: 
Mr. Audace Ngiye (Burundi HRC)
Mr. Amir Manento (Tanzania HRC) 
Ms. Josephine Ndagire (FHRNI)
Ms. Kersty McCourt (OSJI)

Q & A	
11.00-11.15	Coffee break	
11.00 –12.30
	4. The use of torture prevention standards by NHRIs: which instruments are useful?
Chair: Debra Long (University of Bristol)
Speakers: 
Mr. Med Kaggwa (Uganda HRC)
Mr. Laurent Nkongoli (Rwanda HRC)
Mr. Lawrence Mute (Kenya HRC)
Mr. Sean Tait (APCOF)

Open discussion on the use of torture prevention standards within the work of the NHRIs. 	
12.30-14.00	Lunch	
14.00 –16.00	Breakout sessions: 
In the afternoon participants will be divided into two working groups to examine further how the African Commission and NHRIs can address the issue of torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial detention. 

Chairs: Mr. Sean Tait / Mr. Audace Ngiye	
16.00-16.30	Coffee break	
16.30- 17.00	Report back from Working Groups
	
17.00	Closing remarks 	

PARTICIPANT LIST

Mrs Grace Atim	Member of the National Committee Against Torture (NCAT)	greiz_k@yahoo.com	
Commissioner Dupe Atoki	Commissioner of the African Commission, SRP and Chair of the CPTA	gachambers2003@yahoo.com	
Ms Barbara Bernath	APT	bbernath@apt.ch	
Ms Hannah Forster	Executive Director of the ACDHRS and member of the CPTA	edir@acdhrs.org	
Mr Zdenik Hajek	Member of the UN SPT	hajek.ak@seznam.cz	
Mr Med Kaggwa	Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC)	uhrc@uhrc.ug	
Ms Edith Kibalama	Executive Director of Kituo Cha Katiba (KCK)	ekibalama@kituochakatiba.org	
Mr Ben Kioko	Legal Counsel of the AU	ben_kioko@yahoo.com	
Ms Navaz Kotwal	Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)	navaz.uno@gmail.com	
Ms Debra Long	Human Rights Implementation Centre (HRIC), University of Bristol	Debra.Long@bristol.ac.uk	
Mr Amiri Manento	Tanzania Human Rights Commission (THRC)	amiri.manento@chragg.go.tz	
Ms Kersty McCourt	Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI)	kmccourt@justiceinitiative.org	
Ms Mary Murphy	Penal Reform International (PRI)	mmurphy@penalreform.org	
Professor Rachel Murray	Human Rights Implementation Centre (HRIC), University of Bristol	Rachel.Murray@bristol.ac.uk	
Commissioner Lawrence Mute	Kenya National Human Rights Commission  (KNHRC)	lmute@knchr.org	
Ms Josephine Ndagire	Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)	jndagire@ymail.com	
Mr Audace Ngiye	Burundi Human Rights Commission (BHRC)	ngaudace@yahoo.fr	
Commissioner Laurent Nkongoli	Rwanda Human Rights Commission (RHRC)	nkongolilaurent@yahoo.fr	
Mr Dancan Ochieng	Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI)	dochieng@nanhir.org	
Ms Lisa Sekaggya	UN National Institutions Unit (UNNIU)	LSekaggya@ohchr.org	
Ms Florence Simbiri-Jaoko	Kenya National Human Rights Commission (KNHRC)	fsimbiri-jaoko@knchr.org	
Dr Elina Steinerte	Human Rights Implementation Centre (HRIC), University of Bristol	Elina.Steinerte@bristol.ac.uk	
Mr Amir Suliman	African Centre for Justice and Peace
Studies (ACJPS)	amirov10@gmail.com	
Mr Sean Tait	APCOF	sean@apcof.org.za