HRCSL Newsletter

HRCSL Commissiners, Moses Khanu and Jamesina King Receiving the A-Status Certificate from Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

HRCSL's Commissioners King and Khanu, and the Executive Secretary, Francess Alghali pose for the camera after recieving the A-Status certificateThe International Coordinating Committee of NationalInstitutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) in theNational Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section of the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva,Switzerland, has formally presented the A-Status Accreditation Certificate to HRCSL.
The certificate was presented by Navi Pillay, UnitedNations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Tuesday, March 20, during the 25thSession of the ICC held at the UN Building in Geneva, Switzerland.
This status qualifies the HRCSL to participate inHuman Rights Council meetings, vote and be voted for, and hold positions oftrust within the international human rights arena.
The accreditation certificate confirms HRCSL’s fullcompliance with the Paris Principles governing the establishment and operationsof National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). It is also a testament to the work of Commissioners and Staff who servedat the Secretariat from 2006 - 2011. The HRCSL delegation comprised CommissionersJamesina King and Rev. Moses Khanu, and the Executive Secretary, Mrs FrancessAlghali.
The ICC Bureau and Regional Network Meetings,including the Africa Network, preceeded the Sessions.  Other key issues discussed included NHRI’sBest Practices in following up on the Universal Periodic Review’s (UPR)recommendations,  NHRIs and Business andHuman Rights, the Role of NHRIs in Monitoring, NHRIs and Indigenous Peoples’Rights, Transitional Justice and the Rights to Development and the Environment.
A side event on the theme “Strengthening NHRIs: TheParis Principles and the ICC Accreditation System”, organised by the ICC incollaboration with OHCHR formed part of the Session. This event informed abroad understanding of the Paris Principles, the accreditation process andICC’s and OHCHR’s activities in supporting compliance by NHRIs of thePrinciples’ requirements. The 1993 UN Paris Principles provide internationalbenchmarks for the establishment and operations of effective and independentNHRIs. The ICC with support from OHCHR reviews and accredits NHRIs on the basisof the UN Principles every five years.   Thestatus of HRCSL will be reviewed again in 2016. 
The Commission therefore calls on Government toadequately provide resources for the implementation of HRCSL’s mandate asstated in the UPR recommendations and also take the necessary steps required bythe HRCSL Act to recruit the remaining three Commissioners to fill in thecurrent vacancies, in order to consolidate the gains of the Commission.  

The HRCSL eastern regional office in Kenema was engulfed in fire on Wednesday morning, April 4, 2012. The source of the fire outbreak is yet unknown.
The Sierra Leone Police have launched a full scale investigation into the unfortunate incident.
A team has already been dispatched to Kenema from HRCSL’s Headquarters in Freetown to obtain first hand information and assess the extent of damage caused.
The office in flames

Chairperson, Hon Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, other members of the high table, members of Green Scenery and SL Network on the Right to Food, land owners and users distinguished ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, an independent national institution established by law to promote and protect human rights, may I commend the organizers of this program and thank them for inviting the Commission to participate in this very special occasion. Sierra Leone is part of the international human rights community and has an obligation to respect and protect human rights. As you know Sierra Leone was recently reviewed by the U.N. Human Rights Council.


Large scale land acquisitions or leases for agriculture has accelerated in developing countries including Sierra Leone following the 2008 global food crisis. The arrival of investors in agriculture may present certain opportunities, but there are also important human rights challenges, and investments that can affect the rights of land owners and users, and are particular source of concern. Land scale investments in farmland can work to the benefit of all parties concerned if appropriate, efficient and effective institutional framework is in place and regularly reviewed.


In the recent past in Sierra Leone, the Commission’s attention has been drawn to some of the human rights challenges and concerns some of which have resulted in dissatisfaction and conflicts within host communities. Concerns include lack of informed prior consent and participation, inadequate compensation, threats to farming livelihoods and the environment, drying up of water sources, food insecurity and violation of labour rights. Women who are primary land users for wood collection, growing of vegetables, collection of water and plants for food and medicinal purposes have been tremendously affected as in most of these communities they are not given the right to participate in decision making regarding these large scale land investments, even where it affects their livelihood. 


This national conference is therefore appropriate and timely, promoting understanding of the issues, reviewing national and international, standards and will foster a constructive engagement between landowners and users and policy makers which will make such investments beneficial for everyone particular the host communities. 


The U.N. Human Rights Council has unanimously endorsed the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework and its Guiding principles that requires businesses to adopt rights based approaches in their operations both at national and regional levels. The Framework clarifies the roles and responsibilities of governments and business in relation to human rights underpinned in three pillars: the State’s duty to protect; the corporate responsibility to respect; and access to remedies for victims of corporate related human rights violations.


The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to food has also developed a set of minimum principles and measures for host countries and investors to address the human rights challenges associated with large scale land acquisition and leases. Their main aim is to ensure that negotiations for land comply with procedural requirements including the informed participation of local communities, ensure adequate benefit sharing and that under no circumstances should such transactions be allowed to trump the human rights obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfill human rights.


These principles cover free prior informed participation of local communities, the need to balance advantages of such proposed agreement against the opportunity costs involved taking into consideration the long term development needs of communities concerned and the full realization of their human rights, adequate compensation and alternative resettlement or access to productive land and the provision of effective legal remedies and procedures. Local population should benefit from the revenues generated. States and investors should ensure that farming systems contribute to employment creation and provide access to a living wage for the local population, agricultural production must respect the environment, and obligations of investors should be clear and enforceable, and should not increase food insecurity.


The principles further require that impact assessments should be conducted prior to the completion of the negotiations on (a) local employment and incomes, disaggregated by gender and where applicable by ethnic group, (b) access to productive resources by local communities (c) the arrival of new technologies and investments in infrastructure (d) the environment including soil depiction, the use of water resources and (e) access, availability and adequacy of food. The principles further states that waged agricultural workers should be provided with adequate protection and their fundamental human and labor rights should be stipulated in legislation and enforced.


These international principles can strengthen the content and implementation of our national legal and policy frameworks as experience so far suggests that we need to do more to make sure that large scale investments in agriculture are sustainable and protects the economic, social and cultural rights of Sierra Leoneans. This is a long journey and requires collaborative and sustained efforts of investors, their countries of origin, international financial institutions, host communities and CSOs, our traditional leaders, national institutions and of course the government. 


We need empowered and proactive communities, increased transparency and accountability by government and high standards of business practice and ethical behavior by investors. It is hoped that resolutions from this conference will provide practical suggestions and directions to make such investments equally beneficial to investors as well as land owners and users. 


I wish you all very honest, frank and participatory deliberations during this conference and assure you of HRCSL’s commitment and support.


Thank you for listening to me.


Delivered by Commissioner Jemesina King, HRCSL

Mr Chairperson, Hon Speaker of Parliament, other members of the high table, colleague human rights advocates and defenders, members of the fourth estate, political party representatives, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
On behalf of the HRCSL, let me first of all commend the Society for Democratic Initiative (SDI) and the Freedom of Information Coalition (FIC), for organising this interactive conference on the theme “Passing the FOI Bill before or after the 2012 Elections – Prospects, Implications and Challenges”.
Being the National Human Rights Institution with the overall mandate to protect and promote human rights nationwide, we feel obliged to be in attendance and to talk on the topic “Is FOI a Human Rights Issue”.  
This is in view of the fact that the functions of HRCSL include reviewing existing legislation and advising Government concerning their compliance with international obligations; and to advise Government concerning draft legislation, which may affect human rights. The Right to Access Information Bill of Sierra Leone, which is still at the Legislative Committee level in Parliament, is no exception.
FOI, like freedom of movement and freedom of expression (FOE), is a fundamental Civil and Political Right, which makes it justiciable. It is important at this point to underline the fact that ensuring the realisation of such rights is an obligation on the state; and infringement on these rights contravene international human rights instruments to which Sierra Leone is a signatory.
The FOI, which is also referred to as “right to information”, “access to information” and “the right to know”, gives the right to individuals or groups to request information held by public bodies and sometimes private authorities carrying out government functions, the duty on them to disclose the requested information in a timely fashion and also to publish information that is of general public interest without the need for requests from citizens.
It is recognised in international as well as human rights instruments to which Sierra Leone is a signatory. At international level, the UN General Assembly recognises FOI as “a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated”. The right to access information is one of the most essential elements of Freedom of Expression and is guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth to which Sierra Leone is a member also regards FOI as a legal and enforceable right and encourages its entire membership to promote the culture openness in governance. 
At continental level, FOI is guaranteed in Article 9 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Banjul Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, adopted by the Africa Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2002. 
The right to access information is not only essential for transparency, accountability and efficiency in governance, but for the enjoyment of other human rights including economic, social and cultural rights, such as affordable health care, quality education and social security. FOI builds trust and guarantees popular participation in social policy development and governance decision-making processes at local as well as international levels, as access to information increases openness and public interest and participation in the governance and development processes of the country. 
Therefore, it goes without saying that the realisation of FOI in any society is not only a governance accomplishment, but also a human rights achievement.
Countries in Africa that have already adopted FOI laws include Nigeria, Uganda, South Africa and neighbouring Liberia.
It is worth noting that although FOI is considered vital for a well functioning and open democracy, like other basic rights earlier highlighted, the right to FOI is not absolute. In limited/exceptional circumstances, this right may be restricted where giving out requested information may harm key interests that genuinely need to be protected or compromises public safety or security.
Examples include information on very sensitive state security matters or on the personal health of private individuals, even though this must be defined by law, and done strictly within the law with the sole purpose of maintaining the balance between individual rights and collective security of the state or community.
This aspect of FOI is therefore a protective mechanism to clear any misconception hindering the enactment of the bill and allay the fears of anyone concerned about the perceived negative effects on governance of promulgating the Right to Access Information Bill in Parliament into law.
As human rights practitioners, advocates and defenders, it is imperative for us to engage in enlightened advocacy and sustained lobbying efforts geared towards the speedy passage of the FOI bill into law.
Fully aware of the synergies that exist between the enactment of the FOI Bill and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, the HRCSL has made it a core recommendation in all its annual State of Human Rights in Sierra Leone (SOHR) Reports.
Therefore, the Human Rights Commission remains committed to working with the organizers of this conference and other like-minded institutions in ensuring the passage into law of the Right to Access Information Bill, which will be beneficial to not only journalists, civil society activists and human rights defenders, but also to Government and the public. 
At this juncture, let me crave your indulgence to permit me to use this opportunity to appeal to Government once more to adhere to the call by the Commission in its SOHR Reports for repeal of the criminal and seditious libel provisions in Part 5 of the Public Order Act of 1965 which limits the exercise of FOE, which, as I have already indicated, is also essential for the full realisation of FOI.
Mr Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by applauding the organisers once more for this creative step and encouraging them not to relent in their lobbying and advocacy efforts for adoption of the bill as emphasised by the Speaker of the House this morning; and to also extend such engagements to the provinces, where the lack of information about the workings of Government is more appalling.
I thank you all for your attention.
Delivered by Mustapha M.K Sesay, Director of Education, Communication and Training, HRCSL

The Editorial Team is appreciative of the good reviews and accolades it received from the HRCSL staff and the public when it produced and widely disseminated  the maiden edition of this Newsletter. 

This second edition is produced at a time when the Commission’s relevance as a credible and independent NHRI has been underlined by the International Coordination Committee (ICC) with the award of an ‘A’  status accreditation, in recognition of its commitment to its core mandate, which is the promotion and protection of human rights for all in Sierra Leone.

With such a prestige comes a heap of responsibilities. The editorial team is committed to ensuring that this newsletter continues to be a vehicle through which the HRCSL will continue to propagate  human rights messages that will contribute to changing the human rights landscape of this country, from one in which disregard for human rights tenets was the norm, to one in which respect for the  rule of law and fundamental freedoms is the vogue. 

This will certainly not be actualized in the absence of  sustained and rigorous public education and outreach endeavors. This is why the editorial team takes seriously its role as an additional outlet through which the Commission reaches out to its reading public.

We invite our partners and the public to send in articles or share experiences with the wider audience in Sierra Leone and beyond.

Since the last publication, a lot has happened in the human rights arena of Sierra Leone. The Commission operationalised it quasi-judicial function, which culminated into the holding of its maiden public hearing involving 311 Ex-Combatants who made a complaint of discrimination.      Underscoring the Commission’s  commitment to institutional strengthening is the  fact that the Commission operationalised its Research and Monitoring Directorate and has put in place modalities for the establishment of a Resource Mobilization Unit.     A number of employees were sent for specialized international trainings both within and outside of the country of the country.     The Commission is proud to highlight  the supportive role it played that led to the positive achievements of Sierra Leone during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Process in Geneva in May.     The Commission eagerly awaits the implementation of the adopted recommendations and continues to express its willingness to support the government in fulfilling its backlog reporting obligations, with particular reference to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR).     The Commission is concerned about the delay in enacting the Sexual Offences Bill and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill amongst other legislations. HRCSL is also becoming increasingly concerned at the snail pace in establishing the TRC follow-up Committee and  the implementation of the remaining imperative recommendations.     The Commission commends Government for its commitment to improve the lives of Persons’ living With Disabilities (PWDs) in this country, with the passage of the PWD Act of 2010.     Whilst HRCSL appreciates the support it continues to receive from the Government of Sierra Leone, it will also like to remind government of its obligation to fully support and adequately resource its National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).     The Commission appreciates its relocation to the NEC building at OAU Drive in Freetown, but calls on government to consider providing it with its own permanent office structure  to match the increased demand for our services and status as a prestigious NHRI.     The Commission values the collaboration of development partners and  the Civil Society as we strive to  fulfill our statutory  mandate.

Professor Thomas Reed, formerly of the University of Kentucky in United States of America and a  visiting Professor at the Department of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Sierra Leone, delivered an educative and insightful public lecture on Criminal Justice to the HRCSL  on Thursday, March 11, 2011. Underscoring the need and importance of  protecting the fundamental human rights and freedoms of all in Sierra Leone,  Professor Reed drew  synergies between the civil rights movements led by Malcolm X and others in the United States and the establishment of HRCSL..He also used illustrations to link human rights and psychology, whilst emphasizing the returns on investment a nation that invests in the education of the girl child would yield. Prof. Reed further intimated that this is particularly true for a country like Sierra Leone which is  still struggling to consolidate its peace and fast-track its economic recovery and development aspirations.He discussed a number of psycho-social theories that he related to criminal justice and human rights. Prof. Reed also underlined the fact that for any society to be cohesive and socio-politically stable, it should endeavour to strengthen its social construct and stay true to the social contract theory, which simply states that the citizens have responsibilities but also have  obligations  which they ought to fulfil.
He shared a lot of experiences and life lessons from the United States that have relevance to the human rights situation in Sierra Leone .The Vice Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, Commissioner Yasmin Jusu-Sheriff expressed appreciation to the Professor and the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, Mr. Weeks for the lecture. She  stated that  the Commission has made “Goal 6” of its strategic plan  which has to do with institutional strengthening and staff capacity enhancement central to its operations. Commissioner Jusu-Sheriff further  stated that that was the reason why the Commission considers this a laudable gesture and one worth emulating. The Chairperson of the Commission, Edward Sam highlighted the fact that the  U.S.A ought to take the lead on a range of human rights issues, which is why it is critical that they  establish their human rights commission.He applauded them for their first ever participation in the Universal Periodic Review process. The Lectures was climaxed by an interactive session in which the  HRCSL Executive Secretary, Francess Alghali presented Professor  Reed  with copies of the Commission’s State of Human Rights (SOHR) Reports  for 2007 to 2009 and the Commission’s maiden newsletter. The TRC Liaison Officer at the Human Rights Commission, Josephine Thompson-Shaw moved  the vote thanks.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded its mandate in 2004, custody of its archives and artefacts were handed over to the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone as  it recommended . To popularize the 250 TRC National Vision exhibits that were contributed by people across the country, HRCSL engaged  in a nationwide public outreach drive that targeted  primary and secondary schools in the country.In one of the schools in Freetown, the TRC Liaison Officer of the Human Rights Commission, Josephine Thompson-Shaw told the pupils that the TRC was created to produce an impartial historical record of the conflict. She also said , it was to address impunity, respond to the needs of victims, promote healing and reconciliation and to prevent repetition of the violations  and abuses.  She also explained that the TRC gave opportunities to victims as well as perpetrators and witnesses to vent out their grievances and to also reconcile. She therefore informed them that the National Vision was one way the TRC sought to fulfil the fifth objective of its mandate, which was to prevent a recurrence of the violence and abuses suffered.The HRCSL takes the responsibility of the follow up Committee for the TRC seriously, as it views the TRC report as a critical peace consolidation mechanism. At Dele School Freetown, the Monitoring and Research Officer of HRCSL, Mrs. Patricia Narsu-Ndanema said HRCSL was created as a result of the recommendations of the TRC report, to promote and protect human rights in the country and reiterated that the Commission is the custodian of the 250 visions contributed by the people of Sierra Leone from all walks of life to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. She disclosed that the 250 contributions  contained drawings and paintings from the public signifying the national vision for Sierra Leone. Mrs Ndanema further explained that the need for such exhibition was to discuss and chart the way forward towards the realization of the vision.In each of the Schools where the exhibition was held, the pupils  were also encouraged to present their own visions and comment on some of the visions in custody of HRCSL after it had been explained to them by the TRC Liaison Officer. Mrs Thompso-Shaw concluded by reaffirming the Commission’s commitment to popularising the national vision throughout the country in order to ensure that the bulk of the population is aware of the significance of the  work of the TRC and the national vision for Sierra Leone.

Barely four and half years of operation, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (HRCSL) has been awarded “A Status” by the UN International Coordinating Committee (ICC) for the promotion of National Human Rights Institutions (HFRI) in Geneva.
“A Status” is accredited to NHRIs applicants that comply with the Paris Principles in their establishment and operation. 
The Paris Principles, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993  requires NHRIs to have a clearly defined and broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, independence guaranteed by legislation or constitution, autonomy from government, adequate powers of investigation, security of tenure of its members, pluralism in membership that broadly reflects the society and adequate funding to support its operations.
The ICC during its deliberations in May 2011 commended HRCSL for the work done so far in pursuing its mandate to promote and protect human rights nationwide, appreciating the particular challenges that exist in post-conflict States. 
It also welcomed the annual reports on the state of human rights in Sierra Leone published by HRCSL and encouraged the Commission to include more information on the measures undertaken by the government to implement specific recommendations or decisions in a practical, systematic and timely manner, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Human Rights Commission Act 2004.
The ICC also noted the efforts of the Commission to secure adequate resources from the government of Sierra Leone and  international donors, including the development of a fundraising strategy, to support its functions and operations.
As an “A Status” NHRI, HRCSL is now qualified to engage in the promotion of human rights at not only national level, but also at regional and international levels and to work with U.N. human rights treaty bodies, special procedures and mandate holders through the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva.         Moreover, HRCSL can now speak at sessions of the U.N. Human Rights Council, vote at ICC sessions and hold leadership positions in U.N. human rights bodies.  HRCSL was able to exercise  the privilege to address the United Nations Human Rights Council in September during Sierra Leone’s final review under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
With this achievement, HRCSL Commissioners and staff have recommitted themselves to continuously work hard to be able to retain the new status as an “A Status” NHRI and also to make human rights real for the people of Sierra Leone.
HRCSL  hopes it will continue to receive the required support from the government of Sierra Leone, its international partners, civil society, the media and the Sierra Leonean populace.
As a Commission, we extend our sincere  gratitude and appreciation to the Government of Sierra Leone, UNIPSIL, civil society, donor agencies, and development partners, for their continued cooperation and support to the Commission, which has been very crucial in attaining such a laudable international  status, a status some holder NHRI have been struggling to achieve for over a decade.  

Madam President,

Members of the Human Rights Council, The Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone welcomes the UPR process and its outcome report and recommendations.  We are delighted  that Sierra Leone was able to participate in the entire process with a high powered delegation consisting of  Government, Civil Society and the HRCSL.  HRCSL holds the view that indeed positive steps will now be taken to use this process to begin to remedy our  poor record of reporting on international human rights instruments.

The review gives the country a unique opportunity to move forward  its agenda in the promotion and protection of human rights.

We welcome the recommendations proferred by member states,  especially those accepted by the government and those that the government is already working on.   HRCSL  remains committed to providing the necessary technical support and monitor government's implementation of these recommendations.

In particular, we welcome recommendations on:

1. accession and ratification of international instruments which have not yet been ratified or acceded to ;and

2.  sign and ratify the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the death penalty, in addition to others, such as the Freedom of Information Bill which are critical for the promotion and protection of human rights particularly those  for the advancement of women and children’s rights.

Sierra Leone and  HRCSL looks forward to supporting and  establishing strategic partnerships  with  members of the working group and the international community during the course of implementation so that the progress  made in the area of promoting and protecting human rights can be reported at the next review of Sierra Leone.

We  look forward to the follow up visits to Sierra Leone by the various Special Rapporteurs.

We hope that the development of the national action plan on human rights and the rights of children which have been recommended by the Council will include measures to implement the new U.N.Human Rights Council Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights which we think is relevant in addressing some of the recommendations of the Council.

As you know, we will be having presidential and parliamentary elections next year.  We call on government to prioritze the implementation of those recommendations that will facilitate the conduct of a peaceful, free and fair election.

The Council's recommendations relating to HRCSL recognizes the role the Commission has played and can  continues to play  as a  fully compliant Paris Principle NHRI.

HRCSL hopes that this will  be reflected not only in  increased support by the government but also in government's response to HRCSL's recommendations and activities for the protection and promotion of human rights.

In conclusion, we are honoured to be part of the UPR national and international process and we remain grateful to all those countries, agencies, and the working group who have made this process a rich and meaningful experience for Sierra Leone.

We shall continue to support Government beyond the Conclusions and Recommendations to ensure that the promotion and protection of human rights continues to improve in our post-conflict country.

After months of engagements of government and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) by the HRCSL and UNIPSIL Human Rights Section, Sierra Leone was finally reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva.
The UPR is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of each of  the  192 UN Member States by fellow states, once every four years. It provides opportunity for each state to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situation in their individual countries.  That is to respect, protect and fulfill human rights.
Sierra Leone was reviewed on 5th May 2011 during the 11th Session of the UPR. Four Commissioners of the HRCSL namely Edward Sam Chairperson, Yasmin Jusu Sheriff, Vice Chair, Jamesina King , Commissioner and Rev. Moses B. Khanu, Commissioner went to Geneva to observe the process. 
The actual review was a buildup of several engagements and activities by the Commission and UNIPSIL Human Rights Section culminating into the submission of three sets of reports, namely, the report by the Government of Sierra Leone, a number of reports by stakeholders, including a report by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) report.
A total of 129 recommendations were received. The government answered positively to 101, claiming that 57 of them had  already being implemented and committing on the implementation of 44 others subject to review. 
After the review, 28 recommendations were reviewed by government, and a position sent on its implementation which culminated to the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council in September 2011.
The recommendations included the need to report on ratified international instruments, the Abolition of Death Penalty, Abolition of Female Genital mutilation (FGM), implementation of the TRC Recommendations including the operationalization of the Follow-up Committee, repeal of the Criminal Libel laws, and increased support to the National Human Rights Commission.
The Human Rights Commission plans to disseminate these recommendations  to the wider public and build a formidable foundation towards effective implementation. The Commission calls on all stakeholders to do every thing necessary and possible to ensure the full implementation of the recommendations.

Section 18 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2000, makes provision for the establishment of ‘a committee or other body, including representatives of the Moral Guarantors of the Lome Peace Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “the follow-up Committee” to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission and to facilitate their implementation’. 
This is an imperative recommendation and the TRC, in its report, recommended that HRCSL should be appointed by the Government to fulfill this role and keep the Moral Guarantors informed of the process through regular reports.  The report also recommended that at least four civil society representatives be included in the committee. 
To date, the establishment of this committee is still outstanding. The role of the Follow Up Committee (FUC) in the implementation process is very significant and goes beyond  merely facilitating and monitoring the implementation of the recommendation.
According to Section 18 (3) of the TRC Act, the role of the FUC includes: submitting ‘quarterly reports to the public evaluating the efforts of the Government and those of any other person or body concerned with the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission’. 
Although the HRCSL has been designated FUC by government, this has not been formally approved, nor have the four CSO representatives been appointed  However, HRCSL has been acting in that capacity since its inception, and in the process,  continues to call on Government to expedite the setting up of this committee.  HRCSL has been monitoring the implementation of the recommendations by line ministries, departments and agencies, especially the implementation of the Reparations Programme. 
In November 2007, HRCSL in collaboration with UNIOSIL and civil society organizations, organized a National Consultative Conference on the Status of Implementation of the TRC recommendations. A report of this conference, which included the communiqué and recommendations on how to fast track the implementation process, and a matrix on the Status of implementation of the TRC recommendations were presented to the President in 2008. 
In readiness for the eventual setting up of the Secretariat of the Follow-Up Committee, in 2008, HRCSL recruited a Truth and Reconciliation Liaison Officer who, among the other duties of monitoring the implementation and working closing with MDAs, was to be Secretary to the FUC.
In 2009 the HRCSL developed Reparation’s Monitoring Strategy, for monitoring the implementation of the Reparations Programme.
A second National Consultative Conference on the Status of Implementation of the TRC recommendations was co-organized in October 2010 and the matrix on the status of implementation is being updated by HRCSL and UNIPSIL
On the reporting aspect, the Commission has two sections in its ‘State of Human Rights Report’ (a report issued annually in compliance with Section 7(g) of the HRCSL Act 2004) on the implementation of the recommendations. In the section, ‘Support to the Implementation of the TRC Recommendations’, the Commission reports on its activities and under the sections ‘Important Events / Programmes in Furtherance of the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights’ the Commission reports the recommendations implemented in that particular year. 
In each of these reports, HRCSL recommends to the government and its line ministries to fast-track implementation of the recommendations, in order to put an end to all outstanding issues in the country’s sad past. 
The Presidential apology to women, an imperative recommendation by the TRC, which was made in March 2010, could be partly attributed to the relentless calls by HRCSL for it. 
HRCSL has however  realized that due to the absence of an official FUC, many of the recommendations being implemented through reforms, are not being linked to the TRC recommendations.
The implementation of the Reparations Programme is faced with a lot of funding challenges. Therefore  government, the Board of Trustees of the Special Fund for War Victims, Sierra Leoneans and the international community need to class it as an emergency and double their efforts to raise funds to sustain the Trust Fund for War Victims.
As a result of advocacy efforts by the HRCSL, in April 2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation was assigned the responsibility of setting up the FUC.  HRCLS worked with officials at the Ministry to send out letters of appointment to the Moral Guarantors of the Lomé Peace Agreement that should be part the FUC. 
The Commission will therefore continue to press for the implementation of this very important imperative recommendation of the TRC, that will ensure and eventual lead to the full implementation of all the recommendations of the TRC.

The Directorate of Monitoring and Research has been established as part of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone  overall strategy to strengthen its capacity to monitor and report on human rights in Sierra Leone.
The strategy supported, by the Human Rights Section of UNIPSIL ,also entails building the capacity of the Commission to effectively monitor and report on human rights for which a training in Human Rights Monitoring, Research and Reporting was delivered in April.
During his opening remarks at the commencement of  the training, the Chairperson of HRCSL, Edward Sam noted that; “the HRCSL remains committed to strengthening the capacity of the Monitoring and Research Directorate and consolidating the gains made, because we believe that with the absence of a fully fledged Directorate of M & R, the commendable progress made in human rights protection and promotion in the country could be eroded”.
The Directorate is expected to  play a reciprocal function and move together with the commission’s efforts to strengthen its Quasi-Judicial as well as other functions.
The Monitoring and Research Directorate spearheads the key aspects of the commission’s mandate provided under Section 7 (2) c, d, e, f and g of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone Act (2004), which include Monitoring and advising government on compliance with  human rights standards, monitoring and documentation of human rights violations and issues as well as publication of the State of Human Rights and other thematic reports.
With a full fledged directorate, it is expected that the HRCSL will effectively discharge its monitoring, research and reporting mandate and thus promote the rights of the people of Sierra Leone. 

 –  By Bankole C.E. Morgan, Regional Human Rights Officer, Western Area
In a country where tenets of the rule of law, human rights, democracy and good governance are upheld, the state has the primary responsibility  to ensure that fundamental rights and freedoms of all its citizens are  jealously guarded.Also, for the full  enjoyment of human rights, duty bearers must ensure that they adopt and utilize the  rights- based approach in the execution of their duties.
State parties, by signing and ratifying human rights conventions, must at national level commit themselves to avoiding any action that would violate or lead to the violation or abuse of human rights. Also, most treaty obligations require states to take positive steps to adopt assenting measures to create the conducive atmosphere for the enjoyment of human rights. In most cases, countries create human rights enforcement systems, which may include a human rights commission to monitor or investigate claims of violations.
The respect and observance of fundamental human rights by government allows an individuals and communities to fully develop. These rights include life, liberty and security of the individual, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, freedom of opinion and expression, rights to political participation and representation, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and association,  right to education, right to health, right to food, right to shelter, and the  right to employment with reasonable pay among others.
At this point, let me define what a human rights Violation is. A violation of  human right  occurs when a state’s actions, or failure to act, do not conform with that state’s obligation to respect, protect or fulfill recognized human rights of persons under its jurisdiction.
According to the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone Act, 2004 (Act No.9 of 2004) “VIOLATION” includes a negation, neglect or negligence by a public officer in the prevention of the violation of a person’s human rights. Violation could also be interpreted as a circumstance where state actors trample upon the rights of an individual or group.
Distinguished readers, to facilitate this discourse that “human rights violations  are no longer swept under the carpet”, I consider the tripartite categorization of violations as very significant.
The first category includes state violations resulting from government actions, policies, and legislation. The second contains violations related to patterns of discrimination and the third includes violations related to the state’s failure to fulfill minimum core obligations of the enumerated rights.
Violations in the first category are principally acts of commission, which are activities of government that contravene the  International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) standards for example. Others are policies or laws that create conditions unfavorable to the realization of recognized ESC rights.
Labeling these failures of state policy as violations of the ICESCR, the language of Article 5 should be borne in mind: “Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein”.
A violation related to patterns of discrimination, in the second category represents a fundamental breach of the ICESCR. Article 2(2) calls on states parties to guarantee that the rights catalogued in the covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or status.
Article 3 further amplifies that state parties are required “to undertake to ensure the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social, and cultural rights set forth in the present covenant.”
Violations in the third category represent government failure to fulfill minimum core obligations. The application of these minimum core obligations to ensure the satisfaction of all rights is incumbent upon every state party.
Similarly, even in times of severe resource constrains the vulnerable members of society “can and indeed must” be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programs. The state has obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill provisions of instruments they have signed.
In other words, the state has a duty to abstain from acts that deny the integrity of the individuals or infringe on his/her human rights.
When a state refuses to perform its obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, it may degenerate into violating the rights of its citizen. This can be manifested in diverse areas in society, which might take a form of  arrest as a violation of the individual’s right to liberty or prohibition  of rallies or public demonstrations as violation of the right to freedom of association.
In addition to the obligation to respect, the state has the obligation to protect human rights. When a state relinquishes its obligation to protect the rights of her citizens, violations of several rights occur.
This follows therefore that the state has the primary duty to take measures necessary to prevent other individuals or groups from infringing on the rights of other individuals or groups.
Another level of obligation expected of the state includes that of the obligation to fulfill certain measures that would avail opportunities to obtain satisfaction on needs that cannot be secured through personal efforts such as adopting basic health care systems or implementing free education system on primary education, good roads, shelter, employment with reasonable pay, etc.
In conclusion, it is quite obvious from the above discourse that violations of human rights are no longer “an internal affair”; government could be held accountable for contravening international and or regional human rights instruments of which it is a party.

The Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone in a bid to function at full capacity and enhance its ability to effectively promote and protect the human rights of all in Sierra Leone, has approached Irish Aid to support the establishment of a Resource Mobilization Unit.  This idea is consistent with goal six (6) of HRCSL’s 2009-2011 Strategic and Operational Plan, the achievement of which requires increased levels of funding and technical support. HRCSL has a mandate that allows the Commission to rationally mobilize and manage resources for its programs and activities. The Commission deemed it appropriate to engage in a coordinated and holistic resource mobilization effort that goes beyond the conventional solicitation of financial and logistical support, to partnership strengthening, strategic positioning to attract new funding frontiers and the exploration of non-traditional support mechanisms (technical support quickly comes to mind).  With support from Irish Aid, the Deputy Executive Secretary, Bob Katta and  Director of Finance and Administration, Ebun Thorpe attended a Grant Formulation and Management training organized in East Legon, Ghana, by the West African Civil Society Institute (WACSI) to enhance their capacity in the highlighted area.  To expedite the setting up of the unit and development of an effective Resource Mobilization Strategy, Resource Mobilization Consultants, Daniel Andoh and Gilbert Attah-Boakaye were recruited from Ghana and paid a 10-day working visit to Sierra Leone to map out a resource mobilization strategy and ensure that all deliverables were accomplished. HRCSL’S   eagerness to enhance its resource mobilization capability was, and still is, propelled by the fact that its mandate is broad and public expectations are high.  To successfully implement its mandate, and meet, if not exceed public expectation, it is essential that the Commission finds alternative sources of funding to augment the Government subventions it receives to offset its operational costs.  Although the Paris Principle stipulates that governments should fully support and adequately resource their National Human Rights Institutions, the level of financial commitment by government to the Commission remains inadequate given the weight of responsibility heaped on the Commission.

As part of their traditional civic  award ceremony  held annually, the Bo District Descendant Association (BODDA) have awarded the Human Rights Commission  of Sierra Leone for its role in protecting and promoting human rights in the district. BODDA which is both a London and  Bo based  organization presents civic awards every year to deserving institutions which over the years play  significant role in the development of Bo district  in particular.
Presenting the award on behalf of BODDA,  Samuel Haffner, Home based Chairman of BODDA, stated that they have been closely monitoring the work of the Commission in the South and were very appreciative of its achievements. He said prior to the establishing of the Regional Office, human rights violations were committed and most times with impunity. He added that the south and especially Bo District had seen a turn around since the Commission was established in the South with its regional headquarters located in Bo City.
Receiving  the award on behalf of the  HRCSL, Cyphas Williams, Regional Officer South expressed gratitude on behalf of the Commission. He further to stated that the Commission was just fulfilling its statutory mandate which is to protect and promote human rights in the country. He stressed that the Commission will never relent in its vision where we want to see a Sierra Leone in which a culture of human rights prevails and the people respect the rule of law and live in peace and dignity.

The Human Rights Commission  has successful reconciled some workers at the Bo/Kenema Power Services  (BKPS) with some Presidential bodyguards attached to His Excellency, Ernest Bai Koroma, President of the Republic of Sierra Leone.
In February, 2010, there were media reports that a group of Presidential Bodyguards had assaulted, arrested and detained some employees of BKPS during a Presidential Visit to the Eastern city of Kenema.
Following the receipt of a formal complaint on the matter, the Human Rights Commission under the powers conferred on it by Section 7 (2) of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (Act, No.9 of 2004) instituted an investigation to ascertain whether the reported incident violated any human rights or freedoms of the persons allegedly assaulted, arrested and detained.
The findings and conclusions of the investigation revealed that the complainants’ rights to protection from arbitrary arrest and detention, rights to personal liberty, contrary to Section 17 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No 6 of 1991); equally; protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment – right to be treated with dignity, contrary to Section 20 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No 6 of 1991); were violated.
In accordance with Rule 22 (2) of the Human Rights Complaints Investigation and Inquiries Rules (2008), a Conciliation Meeting was held in Kenema on 19th March, 2011 where the findings, conclusions  and recommendations were disclosed to the parties and discussions held to reach a consensus.
The Commission at that meeting was able to get both parties to resolve the matter amicably and the following agreement reached.
Firstly, the Sierra Leone Police accepted the Human Rights Commission’s findings and conclusion, and took full responsibility for the incident of 7th February 2010 at the Presidential Lodge, Kenema and therefore apologized to the Complainants for the violations and the apologies accepted by the complainants.
Secondly,  the parties agreed to jointly host  a radio program announcing the resolution of the matter and the police shall publicly apologize to the Complainants with a view to restoring the Complainant’s dignity and appeal to the public to desist from using the incident to threaten and provoke the complainants.
Furthermore, to prevent a recurrence of such an incident, the parties agreed that the Sierra Leone Police in collaboration with the Human Rights Commission should conduct a corrective training for all of the Presidential Bodyguards. 
Also, it was agreed that all pictures and records in police custody incriminating the Complainants and in particular pictures taken of the Complainants by Police with the label, “saboteurs” will be destroyed and confirmation provided to the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone.
Finally, the Sierra Leone Police will make a symbolic payment to the complainants, which shall remain confidential, to the Complainants, as evidence of this reconciliation.  The Complainants should distribute the said amount among themselves as a traditional way of accepting the Sierra Leone Police’s apology and to signify closure of the matter.
Both parties expressed appreciation to the Human Rights Commission for their timely intervention and in amicably resolving the matter.

The Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (HRCSL)  on Monday 27th June, 2011 ended its first public hearing   on a matter relating to 235 ex-soldiers of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) who were referred to as chronically and mentally imbalanced by the Ministry of Defence and the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces, at the YWCA New Hall in Freetown. The 235 ex-soldiers lodged a complaint to the  Commission on April 23, 2009. They claimed that they were recruited into the RSLAF on various dates and served for periods ranging between 3 and 40 years up to 2008.
During their services with the RSLAF, the complainants alleged to have  been involved in active combat duties of various kinds in the period of the civil war in Sierra Leone. In 2008, they were discharged from the RSLAF as being chronically ill and mentally imbalanced.
The complainants were not happy with the nomenclature “chronically ill and mentally imbalanced” which they considered to be inappropriate and therefore insulting. They claimed that  with that nomenclature, they were facing difficulties in securing jobs with potential civil employers. They also complained that some of them were initially placed in the  Wounded in Action (WIA) category but they were later placed in the chronically ill and mentally imbalance category hence got less benefit.
They also claimed that they were forced to take medical examination only to be later categorized as chronically ill and mentally imbalanced and that they felt disowned by their former employers considering the type of services they had rendered to their country. They viewed the action of their authorities as unfortunate and for failing to adequately articulate the breakdown of their discharge packages.
Among the witnesses that testified at the tribunal were the Defence Minister, Alfred Paolo Conteh; Brigadier Kestora Kabia; Brigadier Jah-Tucker, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff -Personnel and Training; Col. Dr. Sahr, Chief Medical Officer at the 34 Military Hospital; Dr. Edward Nahim, Consultant Psychiatric;  Alhaji Baniyila Sesay, Deputy Financial Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development; and the IMATT Medical Advisor.
According to RSLAF Colonel I.M Koroma who was lead defence counsel, the Ministry of Defence and the RSLAF did not breach any of the complainants’ rights to privacy as they were each given a discharge book. He continued that when service personnel were about to retire, a full medical examination is carried out to assess the state of health of that individual at that particular time and that the physical and mental status of the ex-soldiers was a testimonial of their service.
“The MOD/RSLAF have an obligation to the rest of society to state the correct state of health of the individual holder of a discharge book…to state otherwise is not only unprofessional but plain dishonesty and disservice to the general public’,’ he stressed.
Col. Koroma argued that the classification of the ex-soldiers as chronically ill and mentally imbalanced was done because of administrative reasons and since the ex-soldiers failed to report on time, they could not receive the wounded in action package as they were considered late. Counsel representing the ex-soldiers, Editayo Pabs-Garnon argued that the soldiers were referred to as wounded in action only to be classified as chronically ill and mentally imbalanced. He stated that it was clear that a decision was being consciously made to exclude the complainants from the Disability Pension in March 2010 after they had initially been included.
Magdalene Kioko, also representing the complainants, stated that the question to answer was whether the complainants got fewer benefits because they were categorized as chronically ill and mentally imbalanced or not. She said, if the answer was in the affirmative, then the complainants were discriminated against on the basis of disability. Such discriminations, she argued, violate Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability as well as Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
At the end, the tribunal established the following and made the following decision: The tribunal found that the Complainants were less favorably treated in comparison with WIA1 and 2.This treatment amounts to discrimination in law and in fact.
The Tribunal, in consideration of the foregoing, found that the Complainants were discriminated against, contrary to Article 26 of the ICCPR and Section 27 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991.
Secondly, the Tribunal found that given the kind of  treatment that the Complainants were subjected to as they sought to pursue their claims against the  RSLAF, amounts to degrading treatment, contrary to Section 20 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
The Tribunal also  found that other aspects of the right to privacy were violated by categorizing and stating in the Discharge Books of the Complainants that they were Chronically Ill and Mentally imbalanced.
In view of the above, the Tribunal  recommended that  the RSLAF and MOD take immediate steps to ensure that the Complainants receive same payment as WIA1& 2. This includes the DFID supported package and the Enhanced Disability Pension. These payments are to be made by the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL). The Ministries of Finance, Defence, and NASSIT are to work together to ensure this is done without further delay.
Secondly,  RSLAF and MOD  re-issue revised Discharge Books to the Complainants that  make no reference to the label “Chronically Ill and Mentally Imbalanced” or  to fitness for employment.
Further, RSLAF and MOD effect medical boards to re-examine the Complainants who so request to confirm their  current mental health status. Also,  RSLAF and MOD should ensure that ex-servicemen that continue to suffer from mental illness or other illness should continue to receive  free  medical treatment. This policy should be publicized and steps taken to encourage ex-servicemen to take up this medical care.
The RSLAF and MOD were also urged to review their capacity to identify, treat and manage mental illness of its personnel even after they are discharged from active military service. The Commission also recommended that such a review should include equipping and keeping a proper register that would track the lives of those affected, in addition, RSLAF and MOD seek to gain more understanding and reconsider their attitudes towards mental illness through education and counseling.
HRCSL reminded the MOD and RSLAF that under Section 13 of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone   Act 2004,  the government should respond publicly within 21 days to the specific case as well as the findings, recommendations and other decision that the Commission may issue as a remedy for a human rights violation.
All things being equal, each of the 235 ex-soldiers will receive Le: 12,000,000 (twelve million Leones) an equivalent   to about  3,000 United States dollars.

- By Cyphas Williams, Regional Human Rights Officer  South
Initiation into secret societies is a traditional practice that spans many generations, with methodologies that slightly vary from culture to culture. In Sierra Leone, amidst sustained contentious debates, the two powerful secret societies: the “sande” or  “bondo” for women and girls and the “poro” for men have remained widespread, especially in the rural areas.
Inter alia, the bondo society was considered a right of passage to adulthood for   females. For most girls who did not have the good fortune of attending formal education, the skills and concepts acquired from that non-formal educational setting in the initiation bush was their only source of social and life skills coaching.
For women, they were given trainings on home economics, financial management and generally becoming good spouses.
For men, the poro served as an institution that taught them survival skills, gave them vocational training and inspired and challenged them to be brave in the defence of their families and communities.
Regrettably, the values these previously revered institutions espoused no longer form the basis of their existence; as such, they have become subject to intense public scrutiny and sometimes even ridicule.. 
In the past, initiation of children ages 3-6 was not widespread, and eligibility for initiation typically required parental consent. Sadly, today, children in the earlier referenced age bracket are in some instances being conscripted for initiation without the implied or expressed consent of their parents.
It is now an open secret that the South and North  are the main culprit regions of forced initiation. The surge in this unacceptable practice has become even more worrying, as it undermines international laws and conventions and domestic legislations protecting the rights of the child.
For instance, Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of 1989 gives children the right to be consulted, be heard and to express themselves. Similarly, Articles 31 and 33 of the 2007 Child Rights Act of Sierra Leone; both protect children against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and any cultural practice which dehumanises and injures the physical and mental wellbeing  of a child.
Whilst it is true that societies have right to their cultural and traditional practices, the concomitant truth is that they also have a responsibility to their societies to carry out these practices within the parameters of both domestic and international human rights instruments. Make no mistake, the full enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the law books of this country eclipses all other considerations.
HRCSL has become increasingly concerned about the increased number of complaints lodged regarding forced initiation and its related issues.
It is even more troubling to learn that when these complaints are lodged with traditional leaders and the Provincial Secretary’s Office, they hardly take any action as they misconstrue the entire process, regardless of how inhumanely it is conducted, as cultural.
Also it is a common belief  that certain law enforcement agents renege on their constitutive obligations to investigate these incidents and offer protection and remedies primordially because they fail to divorce their personal cultural beliefs from their professional obligations.
The same is true with the Customary Law Office, which in a number of instances has reverted to traditional rulers who administer justice on such happenings even in  the Western Area. Needless to say that the failure of  some law enforcement agencies to prosecute perpetuators of these heinous crimes against vulnerable children in a timely fashion could be partly responsible for it being rampant and spreading rapidly like a duty to promote and protect the human rights of all in Sierra Leone, including children.
That being the case, the onus is on us to highlight these gross violations/abuses, educate communities on the implications on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms and the fine line that exists between legally initiating individuals that have consented and illegally conscripting under-aged children into secret societies.

The HRCSL has demonstrated key interest in strengthening and sustaining its working relationship with the Sierra Leone Human Rights Working Group.
According to the Executive Secretary of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, Mrs. Francess Piagie Alghali, the Directorate of Communication, Education and Training will be working closely with the group in various advocacy engagements towards the successful and meaningful implementation of the UPR recommendations expected to come out of the review process of Sierra Leone by the UN Human Rights Council.
The Human Rights Working Group is a consortium of international development partners and organizations working in the area of human rights, as well as relevant UN agencies. The group was established in 2010 and has been meeting bi-monthly since.
It was established by UNIPSIL and the Commission in a bid to enhance coordination, collaboration, advocacy and information sharing on the various human rights issues, and also network with key actors and strategic partners in interventions to address the human rights challenges in the country.
The Commission views the working group as crucial to its work in advocating and lobbying for policy alternatives and legislative reforms on human rights.
HRCSL particularly acknowledges the human rights working group for its demonstrated commitment towards enhancing the Commission’s leadership role of promoting and protecting human rights in the country.
The Commission together with UNIPSIL Human Rights Section and its partners received some forms of support from development partners for activities such as the 16 Days of Activism, that climaxed with the International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2010 as well as some work on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
It is expected that the human rights working group will serve as a strong pillar for human rights defenders.