The African peer review mechanism and human rights: The first reviews and the way forward

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 41-75

  Killander, Magnus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HUMAN RIGHTS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

AFRICA; CENTRAL AFRICA; EAST AFRICA; GHANA; KENYA; RWANDA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; WEST AFRICA;

EID: 39749200282     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2008.0011     Document Type: Review

References (192)

1. AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM, COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA 29 (2006), available at http://www.nepad.org/2005/ files/aprm/APRMKenyareport.pdf [hereinafter KENYA REPORT].
2. See, e.g., IAN TAYLOR, NEPAD: TOWARD AFRICA'S DEVELOPMENT OR ANOTHER FALSE START? 63 (2005).
3. At the time of writing, September 2007, APRM country review reports had only been completed on five of the twenty-seven participating countries. The country review reports of Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda were all published during 2006. As of September 2007, the reports on Algeria and South Africa had not yet been officially published.
4. For an overview of the institutional framework for human rights under the African Union see Christof Heyns & Magnus Killander, The African Regional Human Rights System, in INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES (Felipe Gómez Isa & Koen de Feyter eds., 2006).
5. The New Partnership for Africa's Development, (NEPAD), available at http://www.nepad.org [hereinafter NEPAD Framework Document]. At its adoption the NEPAD was known as the New African Initiative (NAI). See Declaration on the New Common Initiative AHG/Decl.1 (XXXVII), 2001 (Lusaka). The name was changed to the New Partnership for Africa's Development at the first meeting of the Implementation Committee in October 2001. On the origins of NEPAD, see TAYLOR, supra note 2. In 2002 the OAU was replaced by the African Union (AU).
6. Ross Herbert, NEPAD And the Many Challenges of Africa, in SOUTH AFRICA 2014: THE STORY OF OUR FUTURE (Guy Lundy, Steuart Pennington, & Brett Bowes eds., 2004).
7. NEPAD Framework Document, supra note 5, ¶ 26.
8. Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance (Declaration on Democracy and Governance), AHG/235 (XXXVIII) Annex 1, art. 7. This Declaration, adopted by the NEPAD Implementation Committee in June 2007, was endorsed by the AU Assembly in July 2002. Declaration on the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), ASS/AU/Decl.1 (1).
9. African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): Base Document, NEPAD/HSGIC/03-2003/ APRM/MOU/Annex II, adopted at the 6th Summit of the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee, 9 Mar. 2003, Abuja, Nigeria, (2003).
10. G8 AFRICA ACTION PLAN ¶ 7 (2002).
11. See, e.g., Africa/OECD Ministerial Consultation Big Table II, Amsterdam, 14-16 October 2001, Summary Report, available at http:// www.uneca.org/eca_resources/major_eca_websites/TheBigTable/ bigtable2.htm. On OECD peer review, see Fabrizio Pagani, Peer Review. A Tool for Co-operation and Change - An Analysis of an OECD Working Method (OECD, 11 Sept. 2002).
12. On open method of co-ordination (OMC), see Armin Schäfer, A New Form of Governance? Comparing the Open Method of Co-ordination to Multilateral Surveillance by the iMF and the OECD, 13 J. EUR. PUB. POLICY 70 (2006).
13. WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism.
14. For a comparison of some of these reviews with the APRM see Zein Kebonang, African Peer Review Mechanism: An Assessment, 61 INDIA Q. 138 (2005).
15. Declaration on the Implementation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, ASS/AU/Dec. 1(1) ¶ 12, available at http:// au2002.gov.za/docs/summit_council/audecis1.htm#dec12.
16. Communiqué issued at the end of the fifth summit of the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSIC) of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, Abuja, (Sunday, 03 November, 2002) ¶ 20 [hereinafter HSIC Fifth Summit Communiqué].
17. HSIC Fifth Summit Communiqué, supra note 16, ¶ 19.
18. HSIC Fifth Summit Communiqué, supra note 16, ¶ 14.
19. State of the nation address of the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, Houses of Parliament, Cape Town (14 Feb. 2003), available at http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2003/03021412521001.htm. Plans for obligatory peer review under the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA) were developed in 2002, but this process has not been implemented and the CSSDCA unit in the AU Commission has been transformed to the African Citizens' Directorate (CIDO) dealing with the relationship with civil society organizations. AFRIMAP, AFRODAD & OXFAM, TOWARDS A PEOPLE-DRIVEN AFRICAN UNION - CURRENT OBSTACLES & NEW OPPORTUNITIES 29 (2007). On the planned CSSDCA process, see Bronwen Manby, The African Union, NEPAD, and Human Rights: The Missing Agenda, 26 Hum. RTs. Q. 983, 992-94 (2004) [hereinafter Manby].
20. Communiqué issued at the end of the Sixth Summit of the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, 9 Mar. 2003, ¶ 24 [hereinafter HSGIC Sixth Summit Communiqué]. Memorandum of Understanding on the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM MOU), 9 Mar. 2003, NEPAD/HSGIC/ 03-2003/APRM/MOU.
21. HSGIC Sixth Summit Communiqué, supra note 20, ¶ 24.
22. Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.
23. See, e.g., TAYLOR, supra note 2, at 68.
24. Objectives, Standards, Criteria, and Indicators For the African Peer Review Mechanism, Adopted at the 6th Summit of the NEPAID Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee, 9 March 2003, Abuja, Nigeria, NEPAD/HSGIC/03-2003/APRM/Guidelines/OSCI.
25. Prevention and reduction of intra- and inter-state conflicts; Constitutional democracy, including periodic political competition and opportunity for choice, the rule of law, citizen rights, and supremacy of the Constitution; Promotion and protection of economic, social, and cultural rights, civil and political rights as enshrined in African and international human rights instruments; Uphold the separation of powers, including the protection of the independence of the judiciary and of an effective legislature; Ensure accountable, efficient and effective public office holders and civil servants; Fight corruption in the political sphere; Promotion and protection of the rights of women; Promotion and protection of the rights of children and young persons; Promotion and protection of the rights of vulnerable groups including internally displaced persons and refugees. It should be noted that some of the APRM documents, such as the Questionnaire, refer to "good political governance" instead of simply "political governance."
26. Promote macroeconomic policies to support sustainable development; Implement sound, transparent and predictable government economic policies; Promote sound public finance management; Fight corruption and money laundering; Accelerate regional integration by participating in the harmonization of monetary, trade and investment policies.
27. Promote an enabling environment and effective regulatory framework for economic activities; Ensure that corporations act as good corporate citizens with regard to human rights, social responsibility and environmental sustainability; Promote adoption of codes of good business ethics in achieving the objectives of the corporation; Ensure that corporations treat all their stakeholders (shareholders, employees, communities, suppliers and customers) in a fair and just manner; Provide for accountability of corporations, directors and officers.
28. Promote self-reliance in development and build capacity for self-sustaining development; Accelerate socioeconomic development to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication; Strengthen policies, delivery mechanisms, and outcomes in key social areas including education and combating of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases; Ensure affordable access to water, sanitation, energy, finance (including micro-finance), markets, ICT, shelter, and land for all citizens, especially the rural poor; Progress towards gender equality in all critical areas of concern, including equal access to education for girls at all levels; Encourage broad-based participation in development by all stakeholders at all levels.
29. The official title of the eighty-eight-page Questionnaire is Country Self-Assessment for the African Peer Review Mechanism [hereinafter Questionnaire]. At its February 2004 meeting the Forum requested that the Questionnaire should be sent to all participating countries as soon as possible. See Communiqué issued at the end of the First Summit of the committee of participating heads of state and government in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APR Forum) Kigali, Rwanda, 13 Feb. 2004, ¶ 21 [hereinafter APR Forum Communiqué].
30. See, e.g., SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, APRM LESSONS LEARNED, REPORT ON THE SAIIA CONFERENCE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY, PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCHERS, 10-12 (2006) (here- inafter, APRM LESSONS LEARNED]; IMPLEMENTING THE AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM - CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES, REPORT OF THE SIXTH AFRICA GOVERNANCE FORUM (AGF-VI), KIGALI, RWANDA, 9-11 May 2006 (2006). The APRM Secretariat has indicated that a review of the APRM base documents, including the Questionnaire, is planned. See THE AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM (APRM): AFRICA'S INNOVATIVE THINKING ON GOVERNANCE 3 (2007).
31. The institutions listed in the footnotes that follow are examples of some of the main international institutions involved in monitoring compliance with international commitments, both soft law and hard law.
32. AU Peace and Security Council, UN Security Council (including sanction committees and the counter-terrorism committee).
33. The AU and sub-regional organizations often send electoral observation missions to member countries. in addition, overseas countries and organizations such as the EU often send missions to African elections.
34. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, Pan-African Parliament, courts of sub-regional organizations, UN Human Rights Council and treaty bodies, World Bank Inspection Panel.
35. IMF Article IV consultations, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).
36. The AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption entered into force in August 2006. It provides for the establishment of an Advisory Board on Corruption. UN initiatives include the UN Convention against Corruption and the Global Program against Corruption of the Centre for International Crime Prevention.
37. South Africa is the only African member of the Financial Action Task Force on Money-Laundering (FATF), but FATF-style sub-regional bodies have been established: the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG) and the Inter-Governmental Action Group Against Money- Lau nderi ng in Africa (GIABA).
38. International Labour Organization (ILO), available at http://www.ilo.org/ global.lang--en/index.htm.
39. World Bank Inspection Panel and various institutions established under international environmental law treaties, available at http:// web.worldbank.org.
40. WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism, available at http://www.wto. org/English/tratop_e/tpr_e.htm.
41. Reports on implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the annual UNDP Human Development Report, available at http:// hdr.Lindp.org, and World Bank World Development Report, available at http://www.worldbank.org/wdr.
42. Guidelines for Countries to Prepare for and to Participate in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), NEPAD/APRM/Panel3/guidelines/ 11-2003/Doc8, adopted by the Panel Nov. 2003, ¶ 37, [hereinafter Guidelines].
43. AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM (APRM): APRM Base Document, NEPAD/ HSGIC/03-2003/APRM/MOU/Annex II, adopted at the 6th Summit of the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee, 9 Mar. 2003, Abuja, Nigeria, ¶ ¶ 18-25 (2003).
44. Guidelines, supra note 42. See also civil society initiatives such as THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PLANNING AN EFFECTIVE PEER REVIEW - A GUIDEBOOK FOR NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS (2007).
45. APR Forum Communiqué, supra note 29, ¶ ¶ 24-25.
46. Guidelines, supra note 42, ¶ 18 (v).
47. See, e.g., APRM LESSONS LEARNED, supra note 30, at 4-6.
48. AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM, COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA XI (2005), available at www.nepad.org/2005/files/ aprm.php [hereinafter GHANA REPORT]. The same report but with slightly different pagination has been posted on other web sites including the Government of Ghana. References to the Ghana Report is therefore given to chapters/paragraph numbers, which seemingly are the same in all versions.
49. Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (democracy and political governance) available at http://www.cddghana.org; Centre for Policy Analysis (economic governance) available at http:// www.cepa.org.gh; Private Enterprise Foundation (corporate governance) available at http://www.pefghana.org; and Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (socioeconomic development), available at http://www.isser.org.
50. Francine Rutazana, Evaluation du processus du mécanisme africain de revision par les pairs au Rwanda (MAEP): Présentation à la rencontre de Banjul du 26 au 28 juin 2006 at 5, available at http://www.saiia.org.za.
51. Id. at 6-7.
52. African Centre for Economic Growth (democracy and political governance), Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis (economic governance), Centre for Corporate Governance (corporate governance), Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi (socioeconomic development).
53. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 38.
54. Information on the early stages of the South African APRM process is available at http://www.aprm.org.za.
55. Ross Herbert, SA's Peer Review Tactics Dishonest, CAPE ARGUS, 20 May 2007. See also Ross Herbert, Mismanaged From the Start?, THE STAR, 25 Jan. 2007, available at http://www.saiia.org.za.
56. Rapport du MAEP, l'Algérie est sur la bonne voie, LA TRIBUNE (Algerie), 3 July 2007; M. Messahel: Le rapport d'evaluation sur la gouvernance en Alg6rie est Pun des "plus transparents," MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGÈRES, 16 July 2007, available at http://193. 194.78.233/ma_fr/stories.php?story=07/07/15/0443837.
57. Communiqué conjoint à l'issue de la mission cle soutien du mécanisme africain d'évaluation par les pairs (MAEP) au Bénin, 14-17 Nov. 2005, available at www.nepad.org/2005 /files/aprm/CommuniqueFinal-v2.pdf.
58. Guidelines, supra note 42, ¶ 22.
59. Ghana 4-16 Apr. 2005; Rwanda 18-30 Apr. 2005; Kenya 3-14 Oct. 2005, 10-14 April 2006; South Africa 9-25 July 2006,- Algeria 10 Nov-5 Dec. 2006, 3-14 March 2007; Benin 18 July-7 Aug. 2007.
60. Provisional list of partner institutions for the APRM, NEPAD/APRM/ FORUM/02-2004/listPls/Doc7.C, attached to APR Forum Communiqué, supra note 29.
61. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48. The report is 153 pages, with a five-page government response and a 127-page Program of Action attached.
62. AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM, COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA (June 2006), iavailable at http://www.afrimap.org/ english/images/documents [hereinafter RWANDA REPORT]. Though it is dated June 2006, it was written directly after the country review mission in April 2005. The report is 131 pages long, with a forty-page government response and a thirty-page Program of Action. This version of the report was replaced with a new version which included some changes to the appendixes in September 2006. However, the substance of the report remained the same. See COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA (Nov. 2005), available at http://www.nepad. gov.rw/docs [hereinafter RWANDA REPORT II].
63. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at V-VI. The report is 258, pages, with a sixty-eight-page government response and an eighty-one-page Program of Action.
64. In the case of Rwanda, the Panel included an appendix setting out its response to the comments made by President Kagame at the Forum. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, at 172. This appendix was removed from the final report. RWANDA REPORT II, supra note 62.
65. Ghana National Program of Action 2005-2008 (June 2005); Rwanda's Program of Action 2005-2008; The Kenya Program of Action (June 2006).
66. See, e.g., His Excellency Hon Mwai Kibaki, C.G.H., M.P., President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kenya, at the African Peer Review Forum in Banjul, The Gambia (30th June 2006), available at http://www.statehousekenya.go.ke/speeches/kibaki /June06/2006300601.htm. The power point presentation of Graca Machel, the Panel member responsible for the Kenya review is available at http:// www.aprmkenya.org/index.php.
67. http://www.nepad.org; http://www.aprmkenya.org; http://www.naprm-gc.org; http://www.nepad.gov.rw. Some of these web sites are unfortunately not regularly updated. At the time of writing the country review reports on Algeria and South Africa had not yet been published.
68. Communiqué issued at the end of the 7th Summit of the Committee of Heads of State and Government Participating in the African Peer Review Mechanism [APR Forum], 1 July 2007.
69. RWANDA REPORT II, supra note 62, appendix IV, 185-87.
70. Id. at 187.
71. APRM Base Document, supra note 43, ¶ 25.
72. It is noteworthy that copies of the country review reports were not available for the parliamentarians.
73. See, e.g., Christof Heyns & Waruguru Kaguongo, Constitutional Human Rights Law in Africa, 22 S. AFR. J. Hum. RTS. 673 (2006).
74. Constitutive Act of the African Union, art. 3(h), available at http:// www.au2002.gov.za/docs/key_oau/au_act.htm.
75. See, e.g., Heyns & Killander, supra note 4; Amanda Lloyd & Rachel Murray, Institutions with Responsibility for Human Rights Protection under the African Union, 48 J. AFR. L. 165 (2004).
76. NEPAD Framework Document, supra note 7, ¶ 67.
77. Manby, supra note 19. See also Sabelo Gumedze, The NEPAD and Human Rights, 22 S. AFR. J. Hum. RTS. 144 (2006).
78. See, e.g., AMARTYA SEN, DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM (1999), UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2000 (2000).
79. This follows the list of instruments included in OSCI and the Questionnaire. These also include many non-binding instruments. The distinction between binding and non-binding instruments is not always clear in the reports.
80. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 256.
81. Id.
82. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant, U.N. GOAR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 83d Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/83/KEN, ¶ 18 (2005) [hereinafter Concluding Observations].
83. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 84.
84. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2 ¶ 13.
85. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 61.
86. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ ¶ 13, 54.
87. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 61.
88. Id. at 257. For information on state reporting see the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at www.ohchr.org, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, available at www.achpr.org. Kenya has never submitted reports to the CERD and CAT Committees. Kenya submitted its first report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee) in 1993, but the Committee requested a new initial report prepared according to the guidelines. To date no such report has been submitted. Kenya has submitted two reports to the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the latest in 2004. HRC published its concluding observations on the report in April 2005 and requested further information within a year. Kenya submitted the requested follow-up report in June 2006. Kenya has submitted three reports to the CEDAW Committee, the latest in March 2006. Kenya's 2000 report was examined in January 2003. Kenya has reported twice to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee). Its initial report was examined in September 2001. Examination of its second periodic report, received in September 2005, is pending. Kenya submitted its initial report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in 2006, fourteen years after ratifying the Charter. Ghana has never submitted reports to the HRC or the CESCR and CAT Committees, but has reported twice to the CEDAW Committee. The third to fifth periodic report, submitted in February 2005, was examined by the Committee in August 2006, almost fifteen years after Ghana's previous report had been examined. Ghana's latest report to the CERD Committee was examined in March 2003. Ghana's second periodic report to the CRC Committee was submitted in March 2004 and examined by the Committee in January 2006. The previous report had been examined by the Committee in 1997. Ghana's second report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights was examined by the Commission in April 2001. Rwanda has not reported on implementation of ICCPR and ICESCR since 1987. The latest report to the CEDAW Committee was an exceptional oral report in January 1996. The latest report on CERD was examined in March 2000. The second periodic report of Rwanda to the CRC Committee was examined in May 2004. Rwanda has submitted four reports to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. The latest report is dated March 2005.
89. A 2003 UN interagency meeting on human rights considered that development programming should be ιnformed by the recommendations of international human rights bodies and mechanisms." See The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards a Common Understanding Among the UN Agencies, cited in Philip Alston, Ships Passing in the Night. The Current State of the Human Rights and Development Debate Seen Through the Lens of the Millennium Development Goals, 27 Hum. RTS. Q. 755, 801 (2005).
90. Ghana is the only of the three countries that allows its citizen the right to complain to the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture, though no such complaints have been considered. However, all state parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights allow for individual complaints to the African Commission, which has decided cases against more than thirty African countries, including Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda. The APRM reports do not consider these cases. One reason could be that the most recent decision, available at the time of the reviews, finding a violation by any of the countries date back to 2000.
91. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights encourages countries to extend a standing invitation to the UN special procedures. Of African countries, only Sierra Leone and South Africa have done this. Kenya received a visit from the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing in 2004 and the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights in 2006. However, the government has not yet responded to requests from three other special rapporteurs to visit the country, one of whom requested a visit in 2003. Ghana was visited by the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women in July 2007 and has received two requests for visits to which it has not responded.
92. Questionnaire, supra note 29.
93. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 66-67.
94. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. ¶, 1 26.
95. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 88.
96. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 67.
97. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2006 weighs five factors that affect the degree of democracy in a country: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties. Laura Kekic, The Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy, in ECONOMIST, THE WORLD IN 2007 (2006).
98. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 34. The recommendations and PoA in this context only deal with support to governance institutions with regard to civic education.
99. Id. ch. 2, ¶ 42. See also PoA, Objective 3.
100. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 31.
101. Id. ch. 2, ¶ 41.
102. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 103.
103. Id. 106.
104. Id. 107.
105. It should be noted that Rwanda did not present a PDA sorted under objectives. For "purpose of clarity and analysis" the APRM Secretariat arranged the PoA by objective.
106. Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ, Ghana), available at http://www.chrajghana.org; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, available at http://www.knchr.org; National Human Rights Commission (Rwanda), available at http://www.hri.ca.
107. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, box 2.3.
108. Id. ch. 2, ¶ 36.
109. Noteworthy is the omission of peoples' rights despite their importance in the main African human rights instrument, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
110. The Ghana Report and Rwanda Report both devote three pages to this objective and the Kenya Report devotes eight pages. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ ¶ 43-54; RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ ¶ 108-117; KENYA REPORT, supra note 1 at 77-84.
111. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 44.
112. Id. ch. 2, ¶ 46.
113. Id. ch. 2, ¶ 54.
114. The following issues are listed under Objective 3 in the PoA: access to justice, safety and security of life and property, capacity of CHRAJ to prosecute its mandate, cultural practices harmful to women, child trafficking and child labor, under representation of women in public life, violations of the rights of the disabled.
115. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ch. 2, box 2. 1.
116. Id. ¶ 116. The Gacaca tribunals, which have been set up to speed up the genocide trials, are based on a traditional dispute settlement mechanism.
117. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 82.
118. Concluding Observations, supra note 82, ¶ 16.
119. Id. ¶ 18.
120. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 84.
121. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 119.
122. Id. ¶ 121.
123. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 91.
124. Id. at 331.
125. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 64.
126. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 140.
127. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 96.
128. Id. ¶ 89.
129. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 107.
130. Id. at 336.
131. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 149.
132. Id. at Appendix III, Objective 8.
133. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 2, ¶ 105.
134. Id. ¶ 106.
135. On the response of UNHCR to the situation for refugees in Ghana see s UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, GLOBAL REPORT 221-26 (2005). As stated in the report, Ghana hosts more than 50,000 refugees, mainly from Liberia. Id. at 222.
136. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 156.
137. Id. ¶ 153.
138. See, e.g., PATRICK BOND, LOOTING AFRICA 125-28 (2006).
139. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 133-34.
140. Id. at 135-37.
141. International Monetary Fund, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP), available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/prsp.asp.
142. Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Gabon, Mauritius, South Africa, and Sudan.
143. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 134.
144. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 3, ¶ ¶ 33-35.
145. Id.
146. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 194.
147. Id. ¶ ¶ 185-86.
148. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 3, ¶ 82. This recommendation is not given in the Rwanda and Kenya Reports.
149. Objective 4: Fight corruption and money laundering.
150. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 214. See also Id. ¶ 134.
151. Economic governance and management, Objective 5.
152. The Rwanda Report notes the likelihood of fiscal losses. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 219. The PoA includes cost-benefit analysis concerning regional integration, following a recommendation of the Panel. Id. ¶ 222. See also Aimable Twahirwa, Controversy Over Plan to Join East African Economic Community, IPS NEWS, 5 Nov. 2006, available at http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=35374.
153. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ ¶ 314-25.
154. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 184-93.
155. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 5, ¶ 53,
156. Id.
157. Id. ¶ ¶ 8-9.
158. Id. ¶ 41.
159. Id. ¶ 51.
160. Id. ¶ 54.
161. By 2006 teachers should be paid at least US$ 2 per day. Id. ¶ 236.
162. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 109.
163. Id. ¶ 110.
164. Id. ¶ ¶ 394, 397.
165. Id. ¶ 204.
166. Id. ¶ ¶ 394, 397.
167. Id. ¶ 397.
168. Id. ¶ 410.
169. Id. ¶ 397.
170. Access to land was not included in OSCI, but is included in the Questionnaire.
171. GHANA REPORT, supra note 48, ch. 5, ¶ 67.
172. Id. ¶ 68.
173. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 234.
174. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 422.
175. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 239.
176. Id. at 251.
177. Robert Mukombozi & Ignatius Ssuuna, APR Recommendations to Cost US$ 95 Million, NEW TIMES, 16 July 2006, available at http://www.rwandagateway.org/ article.php3?id_article=2271.
178. Kojo Busia, Ghana's APRM: Processes and Preliminary Outcomes (2006), available at http://www.pacweb.org/e/images/stories/ documents/aprm%20update%20for%20ghana.pdf.
179. Guidelines, supra note 42, ¶ 18(v).
180. KENYA REPORT, supra note 1, at 96.
181. Id. at 97.
182. For such recommendations see DRAFT KEY ISSUES, supra note 68.
183. In dealing with the rights of children, the Panel recommends that Rwanda ratify the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. This is despite the fact that Rwanda ratified this treaty already in May 2001. RWANDA REPORT, supra note 62, ¶ 149; see also Id. ¶ ¶ 145-46. The fact that Rwanda has ratified the treaty is clear from the country review report itself, id. ¶ 81, but no one in the country review mission seems to have taken note of this.
184. See, e.g., His Excellency Hon Mwai Kibaki, supra note 66.
185. Guidelines, supra note 42, ¶ 12.
186. The Panel recommends that Ghana adopt an action plan for ratification of international human rights treaties. This is reflected in the PoA, but a national human rights action plan obviously entails much more.
187. See, e.g., GORAN HYDEN, AFRICAN POLITICS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES (2006).
188. Douglas Cassel, Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference?, 2 CHI. J. INT'L L. 121, 124 (2001).
189. The current guidelines for state reporting to the African Commission are not adequate. It is suggested that the African Commission would keep the APRM process in mind in the long overdue process of revising the guidelines. See African Commission on Human Rights, supra note 88.
190. On state reporting under the African Charter see, for example, Kofi Quashigah, The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: Towards a More Effective Reporting Mechanism, 2 AFR. HUM, RTS. L. J. 261 (2002); Malcolm Evans, Tokunbo Ige & Rachel Murray, The Reporting Mechanism of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, in THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS: THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE , 1986-2000 at 36 (Malcolm Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2002).
191. Under African Charter art. 62, every state party is required to submit a report on its implementation of the Charter every second year. The African Commission could declare that APRM reporting as suggested here would be in compliance with the requirements of the Charter.
192. Each participating country must pay a minimum of US$ 100,000 to the APRM Secretariat. In addition, all national costs for the process are paid by the participating country, even though some donors, for example the UNDP, offer assistance. For more information on the financing of the APRM process see THE AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM (APRM): AFRICA'S INNOVATIVE THINKING ON GOVERNANCE, supra note 30, at 5-6.