The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) deserves appreciation for the adoption of guidelines on the AICHR’s relations with civil society organizations (CSOs) in February 2015.
| Readers Forum | Sat, April 04 2015, 10:46 AM
The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) deserves appreciation for the adoption of guidelines on the AICHR’s relations with civil society organizations (CSOs) in February 2015.
However, we note several key weaknesses in the document.
First, we highlight that the guidelines must have mutual accountability, not only one-sided accountability as stated in Section III on the eligibility of CSOs to receive consultative status. CSOs are required to have some merits as defined by the AICHR to obtain consultative status, both in administrative and substantive criteria.
Secondly, we are afraid that the language of this provision will be excessively interpreted by the AICHR. As an example, paragraph 7 states: “The AICHR shall not have consultative relationships with CSOs and institutions operating under the clear instruction of a political party or foreign entity attempting to exercise external influence.” We are afraid that this unclear provision will be articulated to hinder any international organizations — both intergovernmental organizations like the UN or non-governmental organizations — to collaborate further in the communication mechanism with the AICHR.
Third, the guidelines should have a clearer transparent and non-discriminatory process of selection to receive consultative status, as well as a transparent and accountable process on the revocation of consultative status. There is a crucial weakness in paragraph 14, Section V, on the suspension of the consultative relationship, which states that any AICHR representative can request to revoke the consultative status of CSOs without a clear reason.
Fourth, the guidelines do not provide equal relations between CSOs and the AICHR, yet the output for each type of consultation is also unclear. We disagree with the provision in Section VI in the AICHR proceedings on consultation and types of consultative relationship, which states that only the AICHR can determine any other format of consultation.
We are afraid that if the document is not improved, the communication procedure between the AICHR and CSOs will be ineffective, while several CSOs will also have difficulties voicing their input and information based on the provisions in the document.
Haris Azhar, MA
Kontras executive coordinator
