Vladlen Stefanov, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
November 2010: The new head of OHCHR’s National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section has spent much of the last decade working in different countries to strengthen human rights protection systems.
Vladlen Stefanov heads up OHCHR's National Institutions & Regional Mechanisms Section
When Vladlen Stefanov arrived in Montenegro at the beginning of 2000, he was greeted by the sobering sight of tens of thousands of people living in makeshift camps, having sought safety from the crisis in Kosovo the year before.
Given the responsibility to establish a small United Nations human rights office in the country, his initial focus was on ensuring that basic protection measures were put in place.
“It was a very complicated situation in Montenegro at that time and there was a lot of fear and uncertainty among the communities of internally displaced people,” he recalls.
“There was a clear need, first of all, to protect these people, to ensure that there could be an orderly return and, most importantly, that they could live in safety and dignity when they did return home.”
Stefanov spent the next three years in the country and, as the situation stabilised, he turned his attention to the important work of helping to establish and strengthen key national institutions.
“It was across the entire range – from the government to the law enforcement agencies, the judges and the prosecutors, right through to the civil society and, of course, the national human rights institution.”
In 2004 he was posted to the Caucasus to head up the human rights work of the UN’s peacekeeping operation and, in 2007, he took on a regional role working with the Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
After nearly ten years working in the field for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Stefanov says the experiences have significantly shaped his understanding of the skills required to work in complex environments.
“Firstly, you need a strong legal background in order to give meaningful and useful advice to your partners,” he says.
“On top of that you have to appreciate the history, the traditions and the cultures of the place where you work. And you also have to be tolerant and to understand the reasons behind people’s grievances, even if they don’t necessarily coincide with your own views.”
Strong institutions
In June this year, the former Bulgarian foreign official was appointed to lead OHCHR’s National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section (NIRMS).
“Strong and independent national human rights institutions are a key element of any effective national human rights protection system,” says Stefanov.
“Whether it’s investigating complaints of human rights violations, undertaking education and training programs or advising governments on law reform, they can be powerful agents for change.”
He identifies a number a key elements of effective national human rights institutions (NHRIs), including a strong legal foundation, clear organisational rules and guidelines and an adequate budget.
“Most importantly, they need to be committed to promoting and protecting the rights of vulnerable communities. They need to know who these communities are, the issues they face and the protection they need.”
As well as fostering cooperation between NHRIs at the regional and global level, Stefanov says one of his priorities is to support new and existing national human rights institutions comply with the Paris Principles and be accredited with ‘A status’.
“We do that not by lowering the bar or making the accreditation process less rigorous, but through building their capacity to meet the standards set out in the Paris Principles,” he says.
“This support can take many different forms, from reviewing draft legislation to conducting training programs, hosting study trips and facilitating an exchange of information and ‘best practice’ among national human rights institutions.”
Participation
Stefanov says he would also like to bolster participation of ‘A status’ NHRIs in the work of the United Nations human rights system, including the treaty bodies, the special procedures, the universal periodic review (UPR) mechanism and meetings of the Human Rights Council.
He notes that in 2009, 69 of the countries examined by treaty bodies had a national human rights institution, with 37 of them participating in the review process.
Similarly, 22 out of the 48 countries reviewed under the UPR in 2009 had a national human rights institution, with half of them submitting information for the stakeholders’ report.
“National human rights institutions have up-to-date and reliable information about what is going on in the country. So they can greatly assist the work of the UN mechanisms when they consider human rights issues in a particular country and formulate recommendations to the government,” says Stefanov.
“In return, clear and focused recommendations from the UN mechanisms can reinforce and strengthen the work of national human rights institutions and help bring about genuine changes that assist vulnerable and marginalised groups.”
But in order for NHRIs to use these mechanisms, they first need to know about them and how they work, adds Stefanov.
“This is where we can make a positive contribution to support national human rights institutions,” he says
“Our goal is to serve as a bridge between the national human rights institutions and the United Nations mechanisms by coordinating a useful and timely flow of information between them.”
