Mirage, magic, or mixed bag? The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' Field Operation in Rwanda

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-55

  Howland, Todd ^a  

^a Human Rights Division

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGISLATION; UNITED NATIONS;

RWANDA;

EID: 0032897855     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.1999.0007     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. There have been three evaluations of the HRFOR, one initiated and performed by members of the office of the HCHR and two initiated and funded by the European Union (EU) and performed by independent experts. None of these reports are in public circulation. In addition, references to the early work of the HRFOR was included in a collection on human rights field operations. See Andrew Clapham & Meg Henry, Peacekeeping and Human Rights in Africa and Europe, in HONORING HUMAN RIGHTS AND KEEPING THE PEACE: LESSONS FROM EL SALVADOR, CAMBODIA, AND HAITI 129 (Alice H. Henkin ed., 1995).
2. Amnesty International performed an evaluation of the mission after extensive inquiry and study. Its recommendations included: that logistic support, planning, and recruitment be improved; that regular reports be established; that a systematic investigation of the genocide be undertaken and published; that the budget of the operation be stabilized and that at least six-month contracts be offered to the field officers; that rotating officers be kept to a minimum to avoid breaking hard to establish contacts with officials; and that funds be provided to the HRFOR for its small-scale projects in the area of justice and for human rights promotion activities. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, RWANDA AND BURUNDI: A CALL TOR ACTION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 3 (1995).
3. For a biting critique, see AFRICAN RIGHTS, RWANDA: A WASTE OF HOPE, THE UNITED NATIONS FIELD OPERATIONS IN RWANDA (1995).