EVALUATION REPORT
SUPPORT PROGRAMME FOR EFFECTIVE PREVENTION OF TORTURE IN LATIN AMERICA ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE – APT
(2009 – 2013)
Presented by Elisabeth Hayek-Weinmann
March 14th, 2013
[1]
CONTENT
Introduction
I. Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation a. Evaluation Objectives and Scope b. Methodological Framework and Implementation Phase
II. Background and Context of the Programme
III. Conceptualization and Design: The logical framework of the
Programme
IV. Relevance
V. Performance a. Effectiveness b. Efficiency
VI. Sustainability
VII. Conclusions
VIII. Recommendations
ANNEXES Annex 1: Call for Proposals, 27 Nov 2012 – Terms of Reference Annex 2: APT-AL Programme and Reference Documents Consulted Annex 3: Interviews’ Guideline (Spanish) /Written Questionnaire (Portuguese) Annex 4: Interviews Conducted/Questionnaires Administrated Annex 5: APT-AL Programme Logical Framework/Expected Results
[2]
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AECID CSO CONAPREV IACHR IIDH IDB ILANUD LogFrame LPM NPM OAS OHCHR OPCAT SDC SPT UNDP USAID
Agency for International Development Cooperation of Spain Civil Society Organisation National Commission for the Prevention of Torture - Honduras Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Inter-American Institute for Human Rights Inter-American Development Bank UN Latin American Institute for Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders Logical Framework Local Preventive Mechanism National Preventive Mechanism Organization of American States Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture Swiss Development Cooperation UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture United Nations Development Programme US Agency for International Development
[3]
EVALUATION REPORT SUPPORT PROGRAMME FOR EFFECTIVE PREVENTION OF TORTUREIN LATIN AMERICA
ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE – APT (2009 – 2013)
Introduction This report presents the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the External Evaluation of the Support Programme for Effective Prevention of Torture. The Programme’s stated aim is to prevent torture and ill-treatment in Latin America, through the establishment of an effective, legitimate and sustainable torture prevention system under the OPCAT. As the Programme reaches its final year of implementation, ATP and the Liechtenstein Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the main donor of the Programme, considered it particularly crucial to derive key lessons from the experience that can be usefully fed into the on-going activities as well as future developments at regional and global levels. The Programme has also received support from Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and Spain Ministries of Foreign Affairs as well as the UN OPCAT Special Fund. In compliance with the Call for Proposals for the assignment (Annex 1), the Programme has been assessed from the perspective of its achievements and implementation strategies, examining relevance, ownership and the institutional capacity generated at national levels. The Evaluation has been framed by the methodological approach and work plan described in the Inception Report submitted to APT on 15.01.13, and was carried out between 07.01 to 20.02.13. While this assessment was conceived primarily as a desk-study based on the review of existing documents, an additional field study phase was planned -covering Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama-, it also included telephone interviews and the administration of written questionnaires in order to obtain qualitative information from key associates and partners in the remaining Latin American countries targeted by the Programme.
I. Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation
a. Evaluation Objectives and Scope
The main purpose of the evaluation was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Programme’s results, in terms of the objectives defined in the Project Proposal Document of January 2009, as well as a review of the appropriateness of its implementation strategies. The evaluation covered the six lines of activities carried out by the Programme in 17 Latin American countries, from 2009 to 2012. It granted special attention to 9 countries in the region identified by the Programme as priority areas of intervention (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay).
b. Methodological Framework and Implementation Phases
The assessment was conceived as an external exercise based on a knowledge-management approach. It was oriented to draw lessons from the experience and sought to identify best practices and recommendations to enhance APT’s future initiatives in the Latin American region. The evaluation was guided by the set of principles established within the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and by the OECD-DAC Evaluation Quality Standards. The Evaluation design followed analytical categories and criteria derived from the Results Based Management-RBMS- and Results Analysis methodological frameworks, with an emphasis in terms of relevance, effectiveness and sustainability. The assessment is based on a combination of secondary and primary information gathered through
[4]
desk-study and qualitative research instruments. A detailed list of documents reviewed and the bibliography consulted can be found in Annex 2. The qualitative instruments included face-to-face interviews conducted during the field visit to Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama; it also included telephone interviews and written questioners directed to key programme associates and stakeholders in five additional countries and to other key actors working at international or regional level. All interviews and questioners followed the same set of guiding questions (See Annex 3). The Evaluation was carried out in three in phases: 1. During the preparatory phase an initial desk-study was conducted, mainly covering the Programme’s planning
and monitoring documents (Project Document, Work-Plans and Narrative Reports) as a base for the evaluation design that was presented in the Inception Report. Additional reference and context documents were gathered and, with the support of the APT Office in Panama, key regional partners were identified and a programme of interviews was organised.
2. During the field visits to Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama, a total of 32 semi-structured interviews were
conducted. They covered the four categories of key actors previously identified in the Inception Report: a) international and regional organisations; b) leading national associates and direct beneficiaries (NPMs, heads of the National Institutions of Human Rights and other national authorities); c) civil society organisations; d) qualified observers. A group discussion was held in Honduras with 16 members of the Association of Relatives of Victims of Comayagua1.
3. The last phase was dedicated to the tasks of conducting telephone interviews, distributing the written
questionnaires, systematising and analysing the information gathered and preparing the evaluation reports. A total of 16 telephone interviews (out of 20 requested) were carried-out with partners and associates in Argentina (5), Chile (2), Mexico (2), Uruguay (2), Paraguay (1), and other key actors working at global or regional organisations (4). The guiding questions of the semi-structured interviews were translated into Portuguese by the APT Regional Director, they were distributed to 9 stakeholders in Brazil and 3 of them were returned fully answered, one of them signed by the six members of the LPM-Rio de Janeiro. In total, 55 stakeholders and associates of the Programme were consulted (a detailed list of interviews and questionnaires answered is presented in Annex 4).
II. Background and Context of the Programme Leaving behind a recent past afflicted by dictatorships and internal conflicts, Latin American countries have displayed a wide-spread commitment with the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture – OPCAT, with 14 out of 20 Latin American States having signed or ratified it2. During the last two decades, Latin America has experienced democratisation processes that successfully replaced authoritarian governments and brought protracted internal conflicts to an end. In some cases, these processes led not only to changes in government, but also to broader projects of constitutional reforms to reshape the State, projects that had been legitimized by popular vote (as in the case of Bolivia) or as a result of Peace Agreements (Guatemala, El Salvador). However momentous these advances have been in terms of democratic rule and electoral regimes, many basic civil rights are not safeguarded and levels of poverty and inequality remain among the highest in the world.
1 362 inmates died in a fire at Comayagua prison on February 15th 2012. Since then an Association formed by relatives of the victims has been demanding a full investigation and asking for justice and reparation.
2 The exceptions are Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti and Venezuela (the last one has already signed the OPCAT).
[5]
Moreover, during the last two decades the region has experienced an increase in multiple manifestations of crime and social violence making Latin America one of the most violent regions in global terms, with some cities experiencing homicide rates that are amongst the highest in the world. Regional surveys indicate that between 1995 and 2010 on average both victimization and perception of insecurity have worsened (Latinobarometro: 2011). By 2012, 33.9% of the respondents of the AmericasBarometer indicate crime as their country’s more pressing problem (Lapop/Vanderbilt University: 2012). In this context, new dimensions have been added to the challenges concerning human rights issues, and specifically, concerning APT’s work in Latin America. ‘Iron fist’ policies, with their propensity for harsher sentences, the criminalisation of actions previously not considered as such and a tendency towards reducing the age of criminal responsibility, have contributed to a significant increase in the prison population throughout the region. Recent figures quoted by Basombrio, indicate that 145 out of every 100,000 habitants in the region are in overcrowded prisons with deplorable health conditions. On average, 54% of those imprisoned have never been convicted in a court of law. In Honduras this indicator reaches an astonishing 79% (Basombrio: 2012). In at least two cases, Costa Rica and Chile, the increase in the prison population it is also a by-product of reforms to the justice administration system in order to increase its efficiency. In its Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights summarises the most serious and widespread problems as follow: (i) overcrowding and overpopulation; (ii) deficient physical conditions and lack of basic services; (iii) high incidence of prison violence and lack of effective control by the authorities; (iv) use of torture in the context of criminal investigations; (v) excessive use of force by those in charge of security at prisons; (vi) excessive use of preventive detention; (vii) lack of effective means to for protecting vulnerable groups; (viii) lack of labour and educational programmes; (ix) corruption and lack of transparency in prison management (IACHR: 2011). A common view about the conditions at the centres of detention emerges from the interviews held with national authorities and CSOs representatives, which coincides with the summary presented by the IACHR. Without exception, the interviewees stressed the overcrowding as a major risk factor in terms of violence and human rights violations.
III. Conceptualization and Design: The logical framework of the Programme
The Programme’s general objective, as stated in the Project Proposal document of January 2009, is “to prevent torture and ill-treatment in Latin America, through the establishment of an effective, legitimate and sustainable torture prevention system under the OPCAT”. In order to contribute to this aim, the Programme identifies a set of specific objectives:
1. Promote OPCAT ratification by Latin American States, 2. Facilitate the designation and establishment of National Preventive Mechanisms – NPMs in
accordance with a set of established principles, and 3. Support the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture – SPT in the fulfilment of its
mandate. 4. Advocate for State authorities to meet their international obligations to prevent torture and
ill-treatment. 5. Strengthen the capacity of civil society to be involved in the torture prevention system 6. Raise awareness about the torture prevention system, particularly amongst authorities
involved in its application. 7. Activate a sustainable and dynamic network of international, regional and national actors
committed to torture prevention. Consistently with these objectives, the Programme document proposes the following six lines of action: advocacy and lobbying; provision of advisory services; training; research and analysis; dissemination; promotion of exchange
[6]
networks. It also foresees the opening of a regional office in Panama. Even though the Programme scope covers twenty Latin American countries, the Work-Plan 2009 -2013 identifies eight countries as a priority area of intervention (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Uruguay). During its implementation a change was made in terms of the target countries and since 2012 APT –LA work is focused in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and Honduras. The Programme had an overall budget of CHF 1,423,261. The Programme design is fully consistent with APT’s mission and strategic objectives (APT 2010). It is in line with APT’s Strategic Plan 2011- 2012 and with the scope and mandate of the OPCAT. The implementation strategy, which combines activities aimed both at the strengthening of the State Institutions in their capacity to fulfil the obligations under the Optional Protocol and at enabling CSOs qualified and active participation, is coherent with the Right Based Approach. It also follows the APT’s Guidelines on Country Engagement (APT 2007). The strategy of forming a close alliance with State Institutions and CSOs organisations -and facilitating the dialogue between them- is highly appreciated at national levels. In all the interviews conducted within the Region this appreciation is clearly voiced, with the exception of Mexico where there are indications of an estrangement between the CSOs and the NPM, which is perceived as lacking in legitimacy, and in Costa Rica where the dialogue between the NPM and CSOs has not been entirely developed. For the purposes of the present evaluation, and based on the information given in the Project Proposal, the Logical Framework of the Programme has been reformulated according to the categories of the Results Based Management Approach. This adapted version of the LogFrame is presented in Annex 5. The sequence of activities, outputs (changes in knowledge and capacities created as a direct result of products and services rendered by the Programme) and outcomes (expected changes in terms of public policies, legal and institutional frameworks, and NPMs performances to which the Programme partially contributes) shown in the LogFrame constitute a Theory of Change that is consistent with the premise underpinning APT’s mission, that torture happens when there is no access to the detention centres and where there is a prevailing the lack of transparency. While the Programme’s planning instruments (Project Proposal and Work-Plan 2009-2013) offer a clear picture of the intended work, strategies and expected results, there are some weaknesses in the monitoring system. The Annual Activities Plans and Annual Narrative Reports provide properly detailed information on the activities carried out during the reported year, with links to on-line files of supporting documents, however, they do not follow the same structure of the Logical Frame and Work-Plan and there is no record of the decision-making process behind some changes in the annual activities implemented in relation to the planned ones or the variations in terms of the countries originally identified as a targets. In addition to the instruments to facilitate the follow-up of the activities, it is a pending task of the Programme to build a set of indicators in order to facilitate the measurement of it achievements at outputs level. In contrast, the expected outcomes are precise and clearly defined, and they are reasonably measurable –in quantitative and qualitative terms-. The measurement of the intended impact represents a major challenge. A common feature throughout Latin America –with the possible exception of Chile- is the lack of reliable statistics (inconsistencies between the data generated by different official sources are frequently observed). The IDB (the biggest source of development funds in the Region) and USAID have been two of the major players financing Justice and Security Sector Reforms at national level for the last two decades and they have been addressing the technical needs to build robust statistical systems. These efforts represent an opportunity for APT, in association with the national authorities, to ensure that specific statistics concerning detention centres and prisons are included with disaggregated data on women, children/adolescents, ethnic minorities and vulnerable persons. .
[7]
IV. Relevance
a. Existence of an international consensus There is a significant body of international and regional treaties, of mandatory nature, that provides a strong basis for the relevance of the Programme. In addition to the UNCAT, to which 23 American States have joined, and its Optional Protocol, the Programme is also relevant in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.; Its content is consistent with the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and with additional principles and standards adopted through UN General Assembly Resolutions 45/111, 43/173, 45/113. The Inter-American human rights system includes the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, ratified by 18 American States as well as a set of Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of their Liberty in the Americas (Resolution 01/08).
b. Alignment with the needs of the National Authorities in order to fulfil their international obligations and the needs of the CSOs in their supporting role
The assessment of the main problems affecting detention centres, shared by IACHR and ILANUD, the steep trend towards prison overcrowding, the recurrent violence incidents with devastating consequences and a public opinion increasingly in favour of highly repressive policies to combat violent crime, lead to a regional context of increased need for a comprehensive knowledge of OPCAT’s preventive system and the need to develop national capacities within the State institutions and CSOs organisations. All the interviewees perceived the Programme as a highly relevant in all its components, including in the SPT members who pointed out the relevance of the support given to their monitoring missions and to the follow-up of their recommendations. Due to the innovative nature of the OPCAT, with its focus on prevention and advisory role, its success depends strongly on the national authorities’ political willingness, the technical capacity and effectiveness of the NPMs and the active participation of specialised CSOs. All these aspects are articulated and addressed within the Programme. A Brazilian stakeholder, commenting on the relevance of the Programme, highlighted that torture is “unseen, untold, uninvestigated and unpunished” and that APT’s advocacy efforts and technical support helps to create political conditions and institutional capacities needed to combat all four dimensions.
c. Consistency with the subsidiarity principle The highly specialised nature of APT’s technical and political support, the absence of national expertise regarding the new monitoring system set in place by OPCAT, and the Programme strategy designed to work in close collaboration with national institutions and organizations, ensures APT’s relevance according to the subsidiarity principle. The APT Programme is recognised as a unique source of theoretical and practical knowledge regarding preventive monitoring by all the key actors interviewed or consulted through written questionnaires. In the cases of Argentina and Chile, the APT Manuals and Guidelines are cited as a base for developed monitoring instruments, adapted according to local circumstances.
[8]
V. Performance
a. Effectiveness As proposed in the Inception Report, this section addresses the effectiveness of the Programme considering to what extent its expected results have been achieved3. For this purpose, the information available has been processed and presented in three tables. The first one summarises updated information related to the OPCAT’s signature and compliance by Latin American States (expected outcome) and it is followed by relevant comments gathered through interviews and questionnaires. In order to trace back the way in which the Programme has contributed to the advances of the OPCAT status in the region, the second Table summarises the activities reported by country, comparing them with the original plan. A third table illustrates the Programme’s activities by year. Effectiveness from the perspective of the expected outcomes As presented in the following Table, since the opening of its Regional Office in Panama in 2009, two new ratifications have been registered (Ecuador, Panama) and a significant number of legal frameworks regulating the monitoring mechanisms have been sanctioned, five at national level (Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay) and eight at subnational or local levels (four Provinces in Argentina and four States in Brazil. All NPMs members have been nominated and the mechanisms are operating in nine countries, the most recent nomination has taken place in Paraguay (January 2013). APT’s Latin American Programme has carried-out advocacy and/or technical support activities in all these countries, with the exception of Nicaragua.
Table 1 OPCAT’s Status per country
By January 2013
Signed
Ratified
NPM Legal Framework sanctioned
NPM functioning
SPT Visits
Changes observed between 2009 and
Jan 2013 Argentina*
30.04.03
15.11.04
Law No.26.827
07.01.13
National (1) Federal (1) Local PM (4)
National Law sanctioned by unanimity
Bolivia
22.05.06
23.05.06
Not designated
2010
Brazil*
13.10.03
12.01.07
LPM (2:12.09 and
30.06.10
LPM (3)
2011
4 LPM designated National law proposed
Chile*
06.06.05
12.12.08
10.12.09 NHRI
NPM designated
Colombia
Costa Rica*
04.02.03
01.12.05
Executive Decree
13.12.06
Decentralised
Unit- NIHRI
New law proposal in Parliament
3 This section is addressed from the Results Analysis methodological approach. This approach implies to look for factual
changes in terms of outcomes and to analyse the contribution (activities and outputs) of the Programme’s intervention in a retrospective way. Since the Programme has yet to develop an information system at output level, the second part of the analysis will be mainly based on the activities reported.
[9]
Ecuador
24.05.07
20.07.10
NHRI
El Salvador
Guatemala
25.09.03
09.06.08
Legislative
Decree 11.10
New body Not designated
Honduras*
08.12.04
23.05.06
05.12.08
New specialised institution CONAPREV
2009
Mexico*
23.09.03
11.04.05
Inter-ministerial Agreement/NHRI Legal Framework
NHRI
2008
Nicaragua
14.03.07
25.02.09
Presidential
Agreement, 2012
NHRI
Panama*
22.09.10
02.06.11
Not designated
Two processes of dialogue under way
Paraguay*
22.09.04
02.12.05
Law No 4288
27.04.11
New specialised
institution, 01.13
2009
NPM designated
Peru
14.09.06
Not designated
Uruguay*
12.01.04
08.12.05
NHRI Law 27.01.09
NHRI
Venezuela
01.07.11
* Target countries according to the Project Proposal or added subsequently. Further qualitative information about the OPCAT advancements and the Programme’s contribution to them was gathered through the basic set of questions used as a guideline in the interviews and questionnaires. They explore:
i. The Programme’s stakeholders and associates’ perceptions and opinions on the advances made in the implementation of the OPCAT’s preventive monitoring system;
ii. How they explain the observed changes in the implementation; iii. Which are the main challenges and opportunities that they identify for the advancement of the system,
and iv. How they perceive and assess the APT Programme’s contributions, and finally asking for critical
observations and recommendations. A summary of the answers to the questions with a frequency over 50% is presented below, followed by specific remarks relevant to each country. Some general observations are registered as concluding remarks of this section. The most frequent answers to the questions about OPCAT’s developments in the region make reference to (i) an increased awareness and understanding of the OPCAT mandate and the obligations acquired by the signatory States, and, (ii) an increased awareness among national authorities, CSOs –and, to a lesser extent the general public- of the human rights violations and systemic problems afflicting persons deprived of liberty. In the countries where there is a national or local PM in function, a greater visibility and a higher positioning in the public agenda of
[10]
the problems affecting the prison systems are reported, as well as more favourable political conditions for the CSOs to exercise their monitoring functions and advance their demands in terms of a greater transparency and accountability from the authorities in charge of the prison systems. These positive changes are mainly explained as a result of long term efforts of human rights CSOs in the region and the strategic involvement of APT. Throughout all the interviews and questionnaires, APT’s sustained commitment to provide support, both in terms of its advocacy and its institutional capacity building dimensions, is highly appreciated. Regarding the challenges to further advancements and impact of OPCAT implementation, the answers coincide in pointing out as major obstacles (i) the combination of overpopulation and overcrowding with the diminishing public resources needed for the improvement of detention centres, (ii) prevailing patterns of condoning torture among penitentiary and police officers, with incentives for torture and ill-treatment still in place, and (iiI) the corruption of penitentiary authorities and their lack of effective control inside of the prisons. In terms of recommendations, two thirds of the interviewees suggested implementing a broader campaign in order to expand -outside the specialised CSOs and authorities linked to the OPCAT- the knowledge about the preventive mechanisms, to raise awareness of the conditions of detainees and of the prevalence of torture and ill-treatment in detention centres. Summary of main findings by country From the perspective of the Argentinian stakeholders that were consulted, the advocacy and lobbying efforts made in the context of the Programme was crucial to the process of passing the NPM Law in the Congress and in the Senate, bringing to an end a protracted legislative debate. Argentina, along with Costa Rica, was one the first Latin American countries to sign the OPCAT and the first to ratify it, through the sanctioning of Law No.26.827, with unprecedented approval rate in both legislative Chambers, finally complies with the obligation of setting-up the preventive monitoring mechanism. The sanctioned system is innovative and complex in its constitution, in accordance with the federal nature of the Argentinian State. The Programme’s strategy of working in close collaborative relationship with specialised CSOs was highly valued. In a context where there are long-standing and strong human rights organisations, as well as research institutes specialised in key issues of justice and democracy, the Programme has consolidated a partnership that could bring new theoretical and practical developments in support of the NPM and LPMs. One of the most frequent recommendations gathered from the interviews and questionnaires (not just in Argentina but also in Brazil, Costa Rica, and from representatives of international organizations) relates to the need to consolidate a virtual platform to bring together Latin American knowledge and experiences in monitoring prisons and preventive detention centres. This platform is conceived as a useful base to develop -specifically adapted and more detailed- monitoring instruments and indicators to address conditions affecting the human rights of women, children and adolescents, ethnic minorities and vulnerable persons in all centres of detention, not only those under the control of judicial and security authorities. The Brazilian answers to the questionnaire point out, as major challenges, the size and complexity of the federal penitentiary system (with more than 1,000 centres of detention to be monitored), and the competing needs derived from the plurality of national, subnational and local institutions with responsibilities over the system. In light of these challenges, the Law Proposal 2442 has been emphasised as a significant step forward, submitted by the Secretary of Human Rights to the National Congress following a visit of APT. While the NPM being considered in the Law Proposal is seen as weak in terms of independence and autonomy, it has served to stimulate the debate at the level of federal States, facilitating the constitution of LPM, some of them more advanced than the proposed NPM. The respondents were emphatic in their appreciation of the advocacy support, technical advice and training received from APT. it was single out, as particularly important, the articulation of State Institutions and CSOs
[11]
facilitated through APT’s activities such as the national meeting held on December 2012 to discuss LPMs experiences. From the 2 interviews in Chile an ambivalent assessment emerges. On the one hand, it is recognised the positive impact on the advancement of the OPCAT agenda resulting from high profile discussions held between the Chilean government and APT representatives. At the same time, it is considered disappointing the fact that despite the designation of the NHRI as the NPM, the full functioning of the mechanism is still pending. It was hailed as an opportunity to ensure the proper functioning of the mechanism the appointment of a new head of the Ministry of Justice. In one interview a perceived deterioration in communication with APT since the opening of the Regional Office in Panama was reported. During the visit to Costa Rica it was possible to interview a wide range of national authorities. All of them were emphatic in their appreciation of the Costa Rican NPM’s preventive and persuasive approach. While in agreement with this assessment, external observers also remarked with concern the transitory nature of the Executive Decree providing the legal framework for the NPM’s work. A law proposal has been discussed in Parliament for some months now and there is some optimism that it will be approved shortly. In addition to providing a firmer legal basis, it is also expected that the law would redress the current constraints imposed on the NPM’s mandate, which is limited to the detention centres under the control of the judiciary. In relation to the Costa Rican experience, it is important to note that no systematic relationships have been established between the NPM and CSOs; however this has to be interpreted in the context where no long-standing and strong national human rights organisations are present. Nonetheless, during the interview held with the NPM members it was recognised as a pending task to seek more contact with relatives of prisoners. In contrast with the relatively weak presence of Costa Rican CSOs, it is essential to underline the fact that several State institutions are in charge to exercise judicial and administrative control over the prison system. During the interviews with national authorities, references were consistently made to NMP’s positive performance, and the APT Programme was recognised and appreciated for its subsidiary role, which can be considered as a positive indication of the level of institutionalisation and national ownership of the Costa Rican NPM. In the case of Honduras, APT’s support and the newly formed NPM (CONAPREV) face stark challenges. Honduras has one of the highest poverty and extreme-poverty rates in the Continent and the country is still in the process of recovery from a breakdown of its democratic regime, experienced when former President Zelaya was ousted from office in June 2009. It has now the highest rate of homicide of the three Central American States known as the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras), which alongside Mexico had suffered a severe increase in violent crime linked to drugs and people trafficking. The extremely precarious penitentiary system has registered a series of deadly incidents in La Ceiba, San Pedro Sula and the capital, Tegucigalpa, creating conditions where prevention and response to crisis situations are simultaneously demanded4. The three CONAPREV members are overstretched in their capacity in trying to participate in all the inter-institutional committees created to deal with the on-going reforms of the Security and Justice Sector (which includes new institutions and laws regulating the country’s penitentiary system). In this context, APT’s technical assistance has been particularly relevant to the need to create institutional capacities for preventive monitoring tasks. However, a broader advisory support is needed in order to enhance CONAPREV’s contributions to the Justice and Security policies and institutional reforms being discussed. It is of note that the central government has not allocated the necessary funds for CONAPREV’s functioning and since its creation has been supported by bilateral and multilateral donors (AECID, which has also covered basic
4 In 2009 UNDP reported a homicide rate of 60 per 100,000 persons; UNODC estimates that by 2012 this rate has reached
81.1/100,000. One interviewee, outlined that inside the prisons homicide rate is even higher, making Honduran jails the most dangerous places in the country.
[12]
operational costs, SDC and the European Union5), generating uncertainties about the medium term sustainability of the mechanism. In the light of the strong presence of international agencies in the country (Honduras is among the few Latin American countries still receiving a significant amount of international aid) it is advisable that the APT Programme should seek to establish a closer dialogue with representatives of the cooperation agencies that have field offices in Tegucigalpa, such as EU,AECID, SDC, UNDP, IDB, and international NGOs (i.e. DanchurchAid) in order to coordinate and harmonise the efforts being made to strengthen the NPM. In the case of Mexico, two interviews out of four requested were conducted. It was reported advances in the development of monitoring tools. At the same time, concerns voiced during the interview were consistent with the opinions articulated by regional/international associates of the Programme. These concerns are related to the appropriateness of assigning the monitory function to a national institution perceived as lacking independence and hence credibility. Panama is one of the newest Latin American States to join the OPCAT, having signed and ratified the Optional Protocol in 2009 and 2010 respectively. National authorities and civil society actors interviewed during the visit to country confirmed that the APT’s presence and continuous support have been an enabling factor of the ratification process. Since then, the Programme has provided technical assistance to the inter-institutional committee –chaired by a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs- in order to prepare a law proposal to designate the NPM. The APT Programme has also facilitated a dialogue among the CSOs and is working at building a common ground for CSOs and the government committee on the NPM constitution; however, some distrust still prevails and in practice, the government and the CSOs are engaged in two parallel processes drafting a law proposal. During the two telephone interviews corresponding to Uruguay and Paraguay, the long-term support received from APT was valued for its opportune advocacy support and for the technical quality of the training materials and monitoring instruments. However, there is a perception that APT has reduced its activities and presence in both countries. In Paraguay it is reported that an important technical support has been received from Manfred Nowak and the Human Rights Institute of the University of Vienna. The International and regional actors consulted coincided in their highly positive appreciation of the APT support to the SPT’s monitoring missions in Latin America. One of them emphasized that APT’s contribution is an ‘essential’ to SPT’s work, particularly in terms of the following-up of their recommendations. Some discrepancies were expressed regarding a fundamental point: the appropriateness of confining the monitory function to an existent National Human Rights Institution (as in the case of Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico) instead of creating an entirely new specialised body (as in the case of Honduras) and to what extent APT should actively favour one model over the other. One concern was raised in terms of the risk of an ever reducing commitment of the States where laws have been sanctioned and N/LPM established as they become complacent with only a formal compliance of the OPCAT obligations. Three of the interviewees in this category recommend reactivating the initial efforts made to promote El Salvador’s ratification of the OPCAT, since there is a perceived favourable disposition in the current government to do so. Some concerns were expressed in interviews in Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay in terms of a perceived diminished presence of APT. In the case that an institutional decision was made in terms of an exit strategy, it is advisable that this strategy should be shared and explicitly communicated to the long terms stakeholders in the given country.
5 The European Union’s Support Programme to the Security Sector (with a budget of 44million Euros) is in its final phase
and a new Programme is in negotiation with some funds earmarked for CONAPREV, APT technical support can be of crucial importance in order to maximise the effectiveness of the EU financial support.
[13]
Lessons from the experience in Mexico, and some remarks from the interviews in Panama and Honduras, points to the need of a more articulated and explicit political strategy from APT in order to be able to work effectively in contexts of highly polarised and contentious relationships between the human rights organisations and national authorities.
Effectiveness from the perspective of the lines of activities With the purpose of recreating the sequence of effects produced by the Programme, and to examine its contribution to the results described in the previous section, the information provided by the Annual Activities Plans, Annual Narrative Reports, Mission Reports and other internal documents, has been condensed and organised following the lines of intervention identified in the Project Proposal Work-Plan 2009 – 2013. This information is presented in Table 2. In addition to the activities carried-out at country levels presented in the Table, the Programme has conducted important initiatives covering the whole region. Of particular importance are the design and management of a website that offers comprehensive information, in a clear and user-friendly way, about the Programme activities as well as updated relevant news from the region. The website makes available a rich body of publications, covering theoretical and practical material that is highly appreciated for its quality and usefulness by all the interviewees. The Programme also took part in the organisation of the APT OPCAT Global Forum, held on 10 -11 November 2011 in Geneva in which 29 Latin American partners and associates participated, including representatives of all State-parties to the OPCAT and all NPMs and LPMs. During the interviews, he Forum is frequently referred to as an important step in the process of creating a global network of practice and as landmark for its lasting effect in terms of creating a better understanding of OPCAT as well as a more favourable attitude towards it amongst the national authorities that attended the event. During the 2009-2012 the Programme provided support to the SPT visits to the region, covering Paraguay (March 2009), Honduras (September 2009), Bolivia (August-September 2010) and Brazil (September 2011).
Table 2 Programme Activities per Country
Planned / Executed 2009-2012
Advocacy and
Lobbying
Advisory Missions
Training Exchanges and
Networks* Planned Executed Planned Executed Planned Executed Planned Executed
Argentina 18 10 4 5 11 7 3 2
Bolivia 1 1
Brazil 13 10 3 11 15 12 1
Chile 2 2 1 3 3
Colombia 2 1
Costa Rica 3 1 1 1 1 3 (1)
Ecuador 1
El Salvador 2
Guatemala 1 2 4 (1)
Honduras 3 2 2 1 2 (2)
Mexico 1 3 2 6 3
[14]
Nicaragua 1
Panama 3 3 3 4 1 3 1
Paraguay 1 1
Peru 1
Uruguay 2 2 2
Venezuela 1
TOTAL
45
38
21
35
40
32
3
4
*Exchanges and networks has been registered in the country where the activity took place, in parenthesis are recorded the countries that were benefited from it. The Table were prepared with the support of the Regional Office staff. The Table shows a wide coverage of countries with some of them, seven out of 17, registering two or less activities during a four-year period, which suggests a certain degree of dispersion of the efforts being made. It also displays a concentration in the number of activities carried out in Argentina and Brazil (with 53% % of the total number of activities); a concentration that is consistent with the extension and complexity of the federal nature of these States. The number of activities in Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, México and Panama reflects the decision made in terms of targeting these countries. Some differences are noticeable when comparing planned and executed activities; this is not necessarily a direct indication of the level of effectiveness of the Programme and could partially be explained in terms of the nature of the activities performed6 and, particularly, by some weaknesses in the way the information of the Programme’s performance is registered and by the absence of a monitoring system structured according to the LogFrame adopted and the Work-Plan linked to it7.
Table 3
Programme Activities Executed per year 2009-2012
2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Advocacy and Lobbying 5 12 8 13 38
Advisory Missions 4 9 8 14 35
Training 5 8 8 11 32
Exchanges and Networks 1 1 2 4
TOTAL 14 30 25 40
As shown in Table 3, there is a balanced distribution in terms of line of interventions, with advocacy activities representing a 35% of the total, advisory activities a 32%, and training activities 29%. It also presents a substantial increase in the number of activities performed during 2012, resulting from the consolidation of the functioning of Regional Office.
6 As in the case of advocacy and advisory activities; even if in the Project Proposal they are clearly described as two distinct activities, in practice they are not always discernible.
7 Information about the activities implemented by the Programme and their outputs (i.e. number of national authorities, N/LPM and CSO’s staff trained) is found in different formats, none of them follows the structure of the planning instruments.
[15]
b. Efficiency
The Programme’s budget for the four-year period between 2009 and 2012 reached CHF 1,093,371, covering six budgetary lines: (i) Personal costs; (ii) Office costs;(iii) Coordination and strategic planning costs; (iv) Activities at the national level; (v) Activities at the regional level; and, (vi) Communications. Within the budgetary constraints, the Programme has covered a remarkable number of activities across the region, including initiatives at country level as well as initiatives with a regional scope. The Programme’s contributions in terms of the political will promoted, the legal and institutional frameworks developed and national technical capacities created are documented and they are hugely valued by all the partners and associates consulted. However, the demand-based approach in defining the Programme’s priority countries can have a negative impact in terms of its efficiency. To improve its efficiency levels the Programme could consider additional criteria, such as the availability of institutional, technical and financial resources at national level and sustainability considerations, to refine its priorities. To fully address the efficiency analysis of the Programme, detailed information recorded in the same lines of activities and outputs would be necessary. Since, in accordance with the donor, the financial report of the Programme is integrated within APT’s accounting system and follows the institutional accounting lines, there are limits to the extent in which that approach is applicable.
VI. Sustainability The results promoted by the Programme, by their very nature, have a high degree of sustainability. This is particularly the case of the new legal frameworks being adopted, the national capacities created within the N/LPM and CSOs organisations, and the design and adoption of new monitoring instrument adapted to specific circumstances. Three strong recommendations from the stakeholders and associates that were consulted are pertinent to this section. Firstly, the need to pursue a strategy of close coordination with national institutions in charge of training and formation of penitentiary staff and police officers in order to ensure continuous and systematic education as opposed to one-off training sessions. Secondly, to prioritise the undertaking of ‘training trainers’ programmes over the training of direct beneficiaries. The third recommendation is also linked to knowledge management strategies and is referred to the need to create a ‘virtual platform of practice’ to facilitate peer review and experience exchanges. In terms of medium term sustainability, political and financial deficits pose a threat to the consolidation of these substantial gains, particularly, in the Central American countries where highly polarised political and social conditions still prevails, the State institutions are weak and the public debt is becoming unmanageable. From a broader perspective, the long- term condition of sustainability of the Programme’s results are dependent on positive changes taking place in terms of the expected impact, to which the Programme partially contributes. The eradication of torture and ill-treatment in Latin America requires the consolidation of the political will of the States and steady change in societies’ attitudes from condoning torture towards a strong rejection of it.
[16]
VII. Conclusions
1. The Programme design and conceptual framework is consistent with the Human Rights Based Approach applied to external aid interventions, with OPCATs’ scope and objectives and with APT’s vision, mission and strategic planning documents. The logical sequence of intended effects and their contribution to preventing the occurrence of torture and ill-treatment in Latin America, reflects a consistent Theory of Change.
2. Despite the strengths noted in terms of conceptualisation and planning, some weaknesses observed in the monitoring system do set limits to the Programme’s ability to process information on the progress being made on time and to perform a self-assessment on how to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. It also limits the scope of the Programme’s evaluation and to the possibility of a more accurate measurement of its achievements in terms of outputs, outcomes and intended impact.
3. The Programme fulfils all three criteria of relevance. The advocacy and technical support provided are
relevant to the implementation of the UNCAT and OPCAT, as well as to the regional Treaties on torture prevention. APT’s long standing presence in the region and the Programme strategy to work in close relationship with national partners were key to maintain the Programme’s relevance in relation to the local demands and developments. The highly specialised nature of APT’s support ensures that the Programme provides a unique and valued contribution. All the stakeholders and associates consulted were emphatic in their appreciation of the relevance of the Programme’s content and strategies.
4. Significant progresses were made in Latin America during the Programme’s execution period. Programme
contributions to the advances made in Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Uruguay and Paraguay are fully documented.
5. The interviews report the development of some specific instruments that have been adapted to local circumstances to conduct preventive visits in prisons. However, the broader scope of the NPMs in terms of monitoring all centres of detention is not yet achieved. It is also a pending task to incorporate specific categories into the existing instruments to better record the detention conditions of women, children/adolescents, ethnic minorities and vulnerable persons.
6. While being flexible and responsive to local developments was a key factor to ensure the relevance of the
Programme, it also entailed the risk of dispersion of the efforts being made. The Programme intervened in 17 countries, in 7 countries it is reported two or less activities and there is no register if any follow-up consideration was made.
7. Despite some differences between planned and executed activities, the Programme shows a high level of compliance with its own targets. It demonstrates a balanced distribution in terms of the type of activities conducted.
8. The Programme’s achievements in terms of legal and institutional design development, as well as of creating national ownership and institutional technical capacities, are inherently sustainable. However, long-term sustainability can only be achieved through a change of political and social attitudes in Latin American societies towards torture.
9. The extensive network of partners and associates with whom the Programme has established productive relationships in the region is an indicator of APT’s credibility and the usefulness of the advocacy and technical support provided.
[17]
VIII. Recommendations
1. To design and adopt a programme monitoring system, including tools to register the activities carried out, consistently with the LogFrame and the planning structure of the Programme; and a selection of few but viable indicators at output and outcome levels to better record, assess and communicate the results achieved by the Programme and to give a proper support to the decision-making process in terms of priorities made and specific implementation strategies adopted by country8 .
2. Despite its shared characteristics and common cultural background, Latin America is a highly diverse region. The Programme could improve the identification of priority countries, and enhance its performance, by taking into consideration differences in size, complexity and strength and/or weakness of the State institutions, as well as political, social and financial resources. Federal States of the size of Argentina, Brazil and Mexico will demand more time and resources to reach a proper coverage at national levels.
3. Interventions in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which are notoriously fragile States (with
traditionally weak institutions, with an on-going crisis of security and legitimacy, and dire socio-economic conditions), demand a more holistic approach so the results are effective and sustainable. This only could be reached through strong coordination and harmonisation relationships with the major donors financing Justice and Security Reforms in the Central American region. The consolidation of NPM demands a broader approach both in terms of technical capacities (for them to perform not only preventive monitoring tasks but also to effectively participate in policy making processes) and in terms of organisational consolidation9.
4. The strategy of working in close dialogue with national counterparts and the efforts of building bridges between State institutions and national CSOs is key to the APT and the Programme’s work. However, in politically polarised contexts, where a mutual distrust between national authorities and CSOs prevails, the Programme should adopt a conflict sensitivity analysis methodology10 to minimise the risk of being perceived as taking side.
5. In the case that APT decides to reduce its presence in a given country, it is advisable that this strategy should be shared and explicitly communicated to the long term stakeholders in the country.
6. In order to assess the achievements in terms of impact intended by the OPCAT’s monitoring system, it is
crucial to incorporate and register the pertinent data into the national statistics. While this is a task beyond the scope of APT and the Programme, it is an area in which APT, in association with the Programme’s national partners, could make an important conceptual and technical contribution to the efforts being made by multilateral donors (i.e. the creation of an integrated statistics system in Central American countries that would to allow performance assessments of the justice and security institutions). The definition of a baseline and the availability of reliable indicators is not only essential to the measurement of changes in terms of the human rights conditions in the detention centres , but also to minimise the risk of ‘complacency’ within the national authorities with the formal achievements obtained.
8 Useful guidelines on how to build indicators for human rights and other complex interventions can be found in the
Swedish Agency for Development and Evaluation – SADEV’s How to Trace Results for Democracy Support, Policy Brief November 2006.
9 For this purpose, the Marguerite Case Foundations has developed an Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool offering
practical guidance which could be used as a reference. 10 An introduction to this methodology can be found in Interpeace Do-no-harm, Conflict-Sensitivity and Peacebuilding.2010
[18]
ANNEXES
[19]
ANNEX 1
Call for proposals External evaluator – evaluation of a 5 year project
Deadline for application: 16 December 2012
Start date: January 2013
Deadline for submission of evaluation report: 3rd of March 2013
Organisation The APT is a human rights non-governmental organisation advocating worldwide for the
prevention of torture over the last 30 years. The APT is the leading organisation behind the
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) which creates a system of
national and international preventive bodies, who visit all places where persons are deprived of
their liberty. See www.apt.ch for more information on the APT’s mission and work.
Background
In 2007, the APT started to develop a 5-year-project (2009-2013) entitled “Support Programme
for Effective Prevention of Torture in Latin America” to support the processes of implementation
of OPCAT in Latin America, including through the opening of a regional office. This office was
subsequently opened as part of implementing the programme, in Panama, in 2010. The project
is focusing on the following objectives:
- Raise awareness about the torture prevention system
- Advocate for OPCAT ratification
- Facilitate the designation of National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs)
- Advise and assist NPMs to strengthen their effective functioning
- Contribute to the development of a dynamic regional network on torture prevention
[20]
Currently, the following countries are targeted: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico,
Panama and Honduras. The Liechtenstein Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is the main donor of
the programme for the period 2009-2013, has commissioned an external evaluation. For more
information on APT’s work in Latin America, visit: www.apt.ch/en/americas.
Evaluation objective The main objective of the evaluation is to review the appropriateness of the implemented
strategies and the achievements of the programme from 2009 to 2012 in accordance with
original objectives and subsequent adjustments. The external evaluator is expected to present
the APT with relevant recommendations for future developments, including the identification of
best practices.
Evaluation methodology The external evaluator will be provided with data and information relevant to the project,
including mission reports, project documents, annual reports, reports from partners,
memorandum of understanding, etc. Additionally, the evaluator will be required to undertake on-
site visits (at APT’s expense) to meet with programme partners and beneficiaries in Panama,
Costa Rica and Honduras. Finally, the evaluator will also be expected to have bilateral
discussions with APT officers and management.
Evaluation output The evaluator will be expected to provide the APT with a short report (20 pages), written in
English, in concise language and well-structured.
Professional requirements o Postgraduate degree or higher in human rights, law, or development;
o Professional experience in project design, implementation, and evaluation;
o Previous experience in evaluations of human rights projects a must;
o Knowledge of human rights in Latin America a plus;
o Demonstrable report writing competencies;
o Fluency in English and Spanish a must.
To apply A CV, a description of previous relevant evaluation experience and a short proposal outlining
the methodology and the budget (excluding travel costs) should be sent by e-mail to
[21]
[email protected], quoting the following reference “Evaluation of 5 year project APT-LA”. Proposals
must be submitted at the latest on 16 December 2012.
Please refer to our website for further information about the organisation: www.apt.ch
[22]
ANNEX 2
PROGRAMME AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Programme’s Documents APT Project Proposal Support Programme for Effective Prevention of Torture in Latin America, January 2009 APT – LA Work Plan (2009 – 2013), 28 September 2010 Interim Narrative Reports, 2009, 2010, 2011 Programme Evolution Timeline APT – LA Plan of Activities 2010, 2012 APT Informe de Misión a Paraguay, 01-09.10, 2010 APT Misión de Cabildeo, (Briefing) Bogotá – Colombia, 27.02-02.03, 2012 APT Mission Report, Bogotá – Colombia, 28.02 - 02.03, 2012) APT Mission Report, Mexico City – Oaxaca, 26,29-30.08, 2011 APT Financial Report to Liechtenstein, 2009, 2010
APT Publications and Reference Documents APT El Protocolo Facultativo de la Convención de Naciones Unidas contra la Tortura, Manual para su implementación APT Prevención de la Tortura Guía Operacional para las Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanos APT Monitoreo de Lugares de Detención, una guía práctica, Ginebra, diciembre 2004 APT Visitas a lugares de detención, ¿Qué función deben cumplir los médicos y otros profesionales de la salud?, Ginebra, 2008 APT Foro Mundial sobre el OPCAT, Informe de Resultados APT – LA Boletines Electrónicos No. 2, 3, 4 APT Informes sobre el Protocolo Facultativo, Junio 2010, Junio 2012 APT Statement on Argentina, 22 October 2012 APT News: New Law regulates prison system in Honduras, 07 January 2013 APT Vision, Mission and Strategic Objectives for 2010 – 2012 APT Strategic Plan 2011- 2012 APT Guidelines on Country Engagement, November 2007 APT, Carver, R. Evaluation Report Preventing Torture through the Promotion of the Convention Against Torture in six target Countries, January 2012 SPT Consideraciones para la selección de candidatos y elección de sus miembros SPT Orientación sobre la elección de candidatos a nivel nacional
Other Reference Documents and Publications Basombrio Iglesias, Carlos What have we accomplished? Public Policies to address the increase in violent crime in Latin America, Wilson Center, Latin America Program, Washington D.C., November 2012 Carranza, Elías(ed.) Criminalidad, Cárcel y Justicia Penal en América Latina y el Caribe, ILANUD/Raoul Wallemberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, San Jose Costa Rica/Lund, Sweden , 2009 Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos – CIDH, Informe sobre los derechos de humanos de las personas privadas de libertad en las Américas, 31 diciembre 2011
[23]
Corporación Latinobarómetro, Informe Latinobarómetro 2011 CONAPREV, Leyes y Reglamentos Nacionales Referentes a la Prevención de la Tortura, MNP, Honduras Cruz, J.M. The impact of violent crime on the political culture of Latin America. Challenges to Democracy in Latin American and the Caribbean. Evidence form the AmericasBarometer 2006-2007; Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), Vanderbilt University, 2008 Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura – Defensoría de los Habitantes de Costa Rica:
Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33568-RE-MSP-G-J, febrero 2007 Anteproyecto de Ley Creación del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención contra la Tortura y otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes Informe Anual de Labores 2011 Alerta sobre el Sistema Penitenciario Nacional, octubre 2012 Plan Anual Operativo 2013
United Nations Development Program/Organization for the American States, La Democracia de Ciudadanía: Una Agenda para la Construcción de Ciudadanía en América Latina, 2009
Methodological Resources APT, Guiding Principles for the application of ATP’s Human Rights Based Approach Policy, September 2011 International Evaluation Group –IEG, Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnerships Programs, World Bank and the DAC Network on Development Evaluation, Washington, D.C. 2007 Organisations for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Assistance Committee – OECD-DAC, Evaluation Quality Standards. OECD – DAC, Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, Paris 2002 United Nation Evaluation Group – UNEG, Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation, New York, 2011
[24]
ANNEX 3
Evaluación Externa del Programa Apoyo Efectivo para la Prevención de la Tortura en América Latina
Cuestionario para recoger percepciones y valoraciones de actores claves
Objetivo General del Programa: Prevenir la tortura y malos tratos en América Latina, a través del establecimiento de un sistema de prevención efectivo, legítimo y sostenible, en apego al Protocolo Facultativo de la Convención de Naciones Unidas Contra la Tortura. Objetivos Específicos:
1. Promover la ratificación del Protocolo Facultativo en aquellos Estados que aún no lo han hecho; 2. En los Estados que ya lo han ratificado, facilitar y apoyar la designación y establecimiento de los
Mecanismos Nacionales de Prevención; 3. Dar apoyo al funcionamiento del Subcomité de Naciones Unidas para la Prevención de la Tortura –
SPT, tanto en relación a las visitas de país como en su rol de asesoría a las MNPs 4. Abogar para que los autoridades estatales cumplan con sus obligaciones internacionales para prevenir
la tortura y los malos tratos; 5. Fortalecer las capacidades de la Sociedad Civil para participar en los sistema de prevención de tortura; 6. Aumentar el conocimiento y sensibilidad hacia el sistema de prevención de tortura entre las
autoridades vinculadas a su aplicación; 7. Activar una red dinámica y sostenible de actores comprometidos con la prevención de la tortura, en
los niveles internacional, regional y nacional.
Nota: Las respuestas solicitadas a continuación serán agregadas e incluidas en el Informe de Evaluación sin identificar a la persona que las proporciona. a) En el transcurso de los tres últimos años ha observado usted algún cambio (positivo o negativo) en
relación a: • el proceso de implementación del sistema preventivo establecido por el Protocolo Facultativo?
• nivel de conocimiento y sensibilidad hacia el sistema de prevención de la tortura entre las autoridades nacionales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil?
b) Como explicaría usted los cambios observados? c) Según su opinión, en el momento actual, cuales son los principales desafíos para la consolidación del
sistema de prevención de la tortura? Identifica usted alguna oportunidad específica para hacer avanzar el sistema?
[25]
d) Podría por favor describir brevemente su vinculación con el Programa que APT ejecuta en América Latina? e) Teniendo en cuenta los objetivos del Programa arriba señalados,
• Considera usted que dichos objetivos responden a las necesidades nacionales/a nivel de estados federados para consolidar el sistema preventivo del Protocolo Facultativo?
• Desde su experiencia, cómo describiría usted el grado de eficacia del Programa en el alcance de dichos objetivos?
• Como valoraría usted el apoyo técnico, capacitaciones y publicaciones del Programa APT en términos de calidad, utilidad y oportunidad?
f) Tiene usted alguna recomendación o sugerencia sobre cómo sería posible mejorar el desempeño del
Programa? g) Quisiera anotar algún comentario adicional?
Lugar y fecha: __________________________ Muchas gracias por su tiempo y sus valoraciones.
[26]
Avaliação Externa do Programa Apoio Efetivo para a Prevenção da Tortura na América Latina
Questionário para obter comentários e valorações por parte dos atores chaves
Objetivo Geral do Programa: Prevenir a tortura e os maus-tratos na América Latina, através do estabelecimento de um sistema de prevenção efetivo, legítimo e sustentável, em consonância com o Protocolo Facultativo da Convenção das Nações Unidas contra a Tortura. Objetivos Específicos:
8. Promover a ratificação do Protocolo Facultativo naqueles Estados que ainda não o tenham ratificado; 9. Nos Estados que já tenham aderido a este instrumento internacional, facilitar e apoiar a designação e
estabelecimento dos Mecanismos Nacionais de Prevenção; 10. Apoiar o funcionamento do Subcomitê para a Prevenção da Tortura das Nações Unidas (SPT), tanto
em relação as visitas aos países, como quanto em seu papel de assessor dos Mecanismos Nacionais de Prevenção;
11. Incidir para que as autoridades públicas cumpram com suas obrigações internacionais para prevenir a tortura e os maus-tratos;
12. Fortalecer as capacidades da sociedade civil para participar nos sistemas de prevenção da tortura; 13. Aumentar o conhecimento e a sensibilidade quanto ao sistema de prevenção da tortura entre as
autoridades vinculadas a sua implementação; 14. Ativar uma rede dinâmica e sustentável de atores comprometidos com a prevenção da tortura em
âmbito internacional regional e nacional.
Observação: As respostas solicitadas abaixo serão incluídas no relatório de avaliação sem identificar a persona que as proporcionam. h) No transcurso dos últimos três anos você observou alguma mudança (positiva ou negativa) em relação ao:
• processo de implementação do sistema preventivo estabelecido pelo Protocolo Facultativo?
• nível de conhecimento e sensibilidade quanto ao sistema de prevenção da tortura entre as autoridades nacionais e organizações da sociedade civil?
i) Como explicaria as mudanças observadas? j) Em sua opinião, quais seriam atualmente os principais desafios para a consolidação do sistema de
prevenção a tortura? Você identifica alguma oportunidade específica que contribua para avançar o sistema?
[27]
k) Poderia, por favor, descrever brevemente sua vinculação com o Programa que a APT executa na América
Latina? l) Tendo em consideração os objetivos do Programa indicados acima,
• você considera que tais objetivos correspondem às necessidades nacionais / em âmbito dos estados da federação para consolidar o sistema preventivo do Protocolo Facultativo?
• a partir de sua experiência, como descreveria o grau de eficácia do Programa quanto aos seus objetivos?
• como você avalia o apoio técnico e os treinamentos e publicações do Programa da APT no que se refere a sua qualidade, utilidade e oportunidade?
m) Alguma recomendação ou sugestão de como se poderia melhorar o desempenho do Programa? n) Algum comentário adicional?
Lugar e data: __________________________ Muito obrigada por seu tempo e sua contribuição.
[28]
ANNEX 4
INTERVIEWS AND GROUP DISCUSSION FIELD VISIT COSTA RICA, HONDURAS, PANAMA
(22.01 – 04.02, 2013)
COSTA RICA
STATE INSTITUTIONS
Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura – NPM Roger Víquez Gairaud Esteban Vásquez Patricia Montero Defensoría de los Habitantes de la Republica Luis Gerardo Fallas Acosta Ministerio de Justicia y Paz Eugenio Polanco H. Guillermo Ugalde Víquez Defensa Publica Marta Iris Muñoz Dora Trabado Diana Montero Tatiana Rodriguez Zhuyem Molina Órgano Judicial Roy Murillo
Coordinador MNP Miembro MNP Miembro MNP
Defensor Adjunto
Vice Ministro de Justicia Director, Dirección General de Adaptación Social – Policía Penitenciaria Directora Nacional de la Defensa Publica Coordinadora de la Defensa Penal Juvenil Supervisora Privados de Libertad Directora Ejecución de la Pena Asistente de Proyectos Especiales Juez de Ejecución de la Pena
REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos – IIDH Roberto Cuellar Víctor Rodriguez Rescia Instituto Latino Americano de las Naciones Unidas para la Prevención del Delito y Tratamiento del Delincuente - ILANUD Elías Carranza
Director Ejecutivo IIDH Ex Vicepresidente SPT Director
HONDURAS
STATE INSTITUTIONS
Comité Nacional de Prevención contra la Tortura NPM-CONAPREV
[29]
Odalis Nájera Fernando Morazán Ministerio Publico German Edgardo Enamorado Rita Soriano Defensoría Pública Nacional Eidelman Mejía Portillo Cindy Andural
Comisionada CONAPREV Comisionado CONAPREV Fiscal Especial de Derechos Humanos Analista de Investigación, Fiscalía Especial de Derechos Humanos Sub Director Nacional Sub Coordinadora de la Defensa Publica, Zona Central
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS Juan Almendarez Bonilla
Padre Marcos Sánchez
Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de Comayagua Nelsy Gabriela Irías Maria Chavarría Guerrero Marta Zulema Martínez Maria Consuelo Savillon Glenda Xiomara Baquedano Claudia Silva Suazo Damaris Estela Cáceres Maria Silvia Redondo Aurora Vásquez Jose Bonilla Elizabeth Hernández Delia Rosa Hernández García Ingrid Chavarría Nolvia Argueta Aguilar Juan de la Cruz Baca Cabrera Oscar Alexi Cruz Flores
Director Centro de Prevención, Tratamiento y Rehabilitación de Víctimas de Tortura - CPTRT Pastoral Penitenciaria, Tegucigalpa
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
Embajada de España – AECID, Oficina Técnica de Cooperación en Honduras Miriam Arredondo Garrido
Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo – PNUD Vincenzo Placco
DanchurchAid Klavs Wulff Lucas Valderas Martos
Responsable de Gobernabilidad y Genero Oficial del Programa, Unidad de Gobernabilidad Director Oficina en Honduras Oficial de Programa
[30]
PANAMA
STATE INSTITUTIONS Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores Portugal Falcón Defensoría del Pueblo Javier Mitil Rafael Perez Jaramillo Rodrigo García
Departamento de Desarrollo Social Humanitario. Miembro de la Subcomisión Interinstitucional para diseñar el MNP Defensor Adjunto Director Escuela de Formación en Derechos Humanos Miembro de Subcomisión Interinstitucional para diseñar el MNP. Participa en el Grupo de Trabajo con OSC para el diseño del MNP
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS Comisión Justicia y Paz, Arzobispado de Panamá
Lissette Henríquez
Responsable del Área de Derechos Humanos
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS Oficia Regional de la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos – OACNUDH Francesco Notti
Representante Adjunto
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS (07 – 12.03, 2013)
ARGENTINA
STATE INSTITUTIONS
Procuración Penitenciaria de la Nación • Francisco Mugnolo • Alberto Volpi Congreso de la Nación • Victoria A. Donda Perez CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS • Paula Litvachky SUB NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS/PROVINCES Defensoría Publica de la Provincia de Neuquén • Fernando Diez
Procurador Penitenciario de la Nación Director, Dirección Legal y Contencioso Diputada de la Nación Directora Programa Justicia Democrática - CELS Defensor Público
[31]
CHILE
STATE INSTITUTIONS
Corte Suprema de Chile • Mónica Maldonado CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS • Ana Siufi
Fiscal Judicial Observatorio de Derechos Humanos, Provincia de Rio Negro
MEXICO
STATE INSTITUTIONS • Andres Aguirre Aguilar
CNDH-NPM
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS Centro Pro-Derechos Humanos • Stephanie Erin Brewer
Coordinadora Área Internacional
PARAGUAY
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS • Carmen Coronel Prosman
Secretaria Ejecutiva CODEHUPY
URUGUAY
STATE INSTITUTIONS • Javier Miranda CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS • Ana Juanche
Director de Derechos Humanos, Ministerio de Educación Coordinadora Latinoamericana Paz y Justicia en América Latina – SERPAJ
ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS
• Claudia Gerez Czitrom • Emilio Ginés Santidrian • Maria Silvia Guillen • Nicolás Boeglin
Human Rights Officer , Americas Section Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Former programme officer for the Americas at the APT Member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture of United Nations – SPT Member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (2009 – 2011) Profesor de Derecho Internacional, Universidad de Costa Rica
[32]
WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRES ANSWERED
BRASIL
STATE INSTITUTIONS • Luciano Mariz Maia SUB NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Taiguara Souza ,Fábio Simas, Isabel Mansur, Patricia Oliveira, Renata Lira, Taiguara Souza e Vera Lucia Alves (one questionnarie answered colectively) CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS Estado Minas Gerais • Nivia Monica da Silva
Sub Procurador General de la Republica, Ministerio Publico Federal Equipe do Mecanismo Estadual de Prevenção e Combate à Tortura do Rio de Janeiro Promotora de Justicia
ANNEX 5
SUPPORT PROGRAMME FOR EFFECTIVE PREVENTION OF TORTUREIN LATIN AMERICA ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE – APT
(2009 – 2013) Logical Framework /Expected Results*
General Objective (Expected Area of Impact) To prevent torture and ill-treatment in Latin America, through the establishment of an effective, legitimate and sustainable torture prevention system under the OPCAT Indicators/Means of verification: A more open and transparent management of detention centres in accordance with the international human rights system/national and international monitoring reports
Lines of intervention
Activities
Outputs
Outcomes
1. Advocacy and Lobbying
2. Advisory Services
3. Training
Advocacy Missions, Interviews and letters to authorities, inter-ministerial working meetings, media campaigns, participation in political forums Advisory Missions, Technical Assistance/Comments to draft laws and proposals Training workshops, distance learning, tutoring , training of trainers, including practical component of visiting detention facilities
Increased knowledge and awareness among national authorities and CSOs on OPCAT’s content and scope.
Specialised knowledge and best practices incorporated within the legal and institutional frameworks. Specialised knowledge and best practices systematically applied into the national preventive system
OPCAT Signatures OPCAT Ratifications SPT expanded to 25 members Informed SPT visits Civil Society involved in decisions to designated NPM NPM formally designated and funded NPM operational Greater informed and qualified presence of CSOs in monitoring detention facilities
[34]
* The proposed Logframe is based on the activities, general and specific objectives contained in the Project Proposal and Work-Plan documents; it follows the Results Based Management categories of activities → outputs → outcome → expected area of impact in order to represent in a more explicit manner the Theory of Change underpinning the Programme. The activities have been categorised by lines of intervention to offer a clearer representation of the implementation strategy adopted by the Programme.
4. Research and Analysis
5. Dissemination
6. Exchanges and Networks
Bibliographical review, surveys with victims, relatives, activists and experts; Thematic Seminars Specialised and updated website in Spanish (with some documents in Portuguese); publication of specialised guidelines and other material for broad dissemination Regional conferences, study visits and internships, on line forum (regional OPTCAT platform)
Continued knowledge development and new monitoring instruments designed National authorities and the public more sensitive to the need for torture prevention Knowledge generation through dialogue on policies and experiences
More effective preventive system in place Human Rights of Person Deprived of Liberty incorporated in the National Human Rights Policies and Action Plans Joint strategies for torture prevention implemented by committed actors; increased productive dialogue between national authorities and CSOs
