Marrakech, 16 and 17 July 2009

Content

Introduction

I – States

II – Conventional Committees

III – Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education

IV. NGOs

V – Recommendations for the content of the Declaration on Human Rights Education and Learning

1. Preparing and drafting a Declaration on Human Rights Education and Learning presupposes an assessment of the rules planned for the treaty and especially an account of the practice of chief stakeholders: i.e., States, treaty bodies, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education and, finally, non-governmental organisations. For the projected Declaration to exert a significant influence and make human rights education (hereinafter, HRE) truly effective, it is necessary to think of all participants and procedures as forming a single system, in which elements interact and influence one another.

2. The rules are quickly reviewed. States have committed to setting up human rights education in numerous treaties. The chief texts to include some form of it are the following: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 26.2), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (art. 7), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 13.1), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (art. 10 c), Convention on the Rights of the Child (art. 29. 1), UNESCO's Convention against Discrimination in Education (art. 5.1 a).

3. In consideration of the abovementioned texts and their interpretation by the various stakeholders, especially treaty bodies, human rights education should be taken to mean: 'a) "Human rights through education": ensuring that all components and processes of learning, including curricula, materials, methods and training, are conducive to the learning of human rights; b) "Human rights in education": ensuring the respect of the human rights of all actors, and the practice of rights, within the educational system.' HRE is thus human rights through education and human rights within education. It is by considering both sides of the HRE coin that we can assess the practice of the various actors.

I – States

4. Let us give credit where credit is due. Let us turn first to States. They are concerned in two ways. First, they have made a commitment to implement HRE. Second, they are the guarantors of treaties. On the Human Rights Council, it is their duty to enforce compliance among other States with the rules of the Universal Periodic Review (UPC) framework.

5. As for the first point, to judge by reports on the application of the various treaties, adherence to HRE is far from strict. States diverge broadly in their practice, displaying partial or total ignorance (especially of human rights within education), and/or confusing HRE with civic education or even patriotism, and/or reducing HRE to a sprinkling of existing subjects, and/or limiting HRE to the Convention of the Rights of the Child. It is exceedingly rare for States to grasp HRE's dual nature, as described above. Their reports within the UPC framework reveal the same trend.
6. Things are scarcely better with regard to the second point: States as guarantors. It is hardly worth noting that no State has taken advantage of the provision allowing States to present a communication to the corresponding committee to report another State's non-compliance. This option is provided for in certain treaties that include a clause on human rights education. We should also specify that no such communication has ever been introduced before any committee in the UN system.

7. The same goes for the UPC, which is supposed to provide peer assessment. Systematic analysis of the first two sessions, surveys conducted during subsequent sessions, and an examination of final reports reveal that HRE figures only marginally in the UPC. When it does, moreover, recommendations tend to be vague and aimed at States that, to judge by their reports, already have HRE in place. What makes this state of affairs even more deplorable is the Human Rights Council's stated purpose: the UN General Assembly founded it to "promote human rights education and learning".

II – Conventional Committees

8. The practice of these committees can be examined from two perspectives. First, to what degree do they take HRE into account in their directives to States for the drafting of periodic reports? This is an important question, for it has, or should have, a direct impact on the content of those reports. Second, what importance does the Committee itself grant HRE in examining the reports and formulating its recommendations and observations?

9. The first question gets a nuanced reply. Two of the committees concerned (the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Rights of the Child) have developed directives that delve deeply into the matter, showing a willingness to comply with the letter and spirit of the treaty. The two other committees (the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) have produced somewhat terse directives. They are content to refer back to the treaty in question, thereby giving States considerable room for manoeuvre.

10. An exhaustive reply to the second question would require systematic analysis of the various committees' recommendations on HRE, which is outside the scope of this document. Nevertheless, a study conducted by the World Association for the School as an Instrument of Peace (EIP) on the Committee on the Rights of the Child for 2006 and 2007 shows: 1) that the Committee bases its assessments exclusively on reports submitted by States and only under exceptional circumstances draws on other sources ; 2) that it does not systematically note the frequent conflation of HRE with civic or even religious education; and 3) that when it comes to the organisation of education its attention to HRE wavers.

11. Yet many of the documents on which the UPC is based form part of the High Commission compilation, which is drawn from the reports of conventional bodies. It is worth mentioning that the UPC is nowhere to be found in the compilations for the first two sessions. Through this interaction we see the importance of the work of committees in the assessment of the application of treaties.

III – Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education

12. This mandate, put in place in 1998 by the Commission on Human Rights, has been regularly renewed. It has also been assumed by the Human Rights Council since that body's creation. The Special Rapporteur's various reports have by and large focused on making the right to education a reality. Change is nevertheless on the horizon, thanks to the nomination of Mr Vernor Munoz Villalobos, who seems willing to make HRE a more important part of his work. His first annual report and his reports on visits to Morocco and Bosnia-Herzegovina are cases in point.
13. For this work to be useful, however, the conclusions drawn from it must be absorbed into the framework of various procedures. To take an example at random, the compilation on Morocco prepared for a UPC by the High Commission on Human Rights contains no reference to the Special Rapporteur's remarks on the right to education on HRE — remarks included in the Rapporteur's report on the country visit.

IV – NGOs

14. NGOs play an important role, notably as alternative sources of information on the state of human rights worldwide. They are of direct importance to Conventional Committees and other thematic procedures, and of indirect importance within the framework of the UPC. However, while they sometimes take an interest in the right to education, in most cases they consider only the quantitative aspects. This is particularly evident in developing countries. As a result, there seems to be an implicit hierarchy at work: access to education first, content of education later. For example, remarks on the matter in the High Commission's compilations for the first two sessions of the UPC concerned only France and Switzerland.

V – Recommendations for the content of the Declaration on Human Rights Education and Learning

- It should adhere to a definition of HRE that embraces both human rights through education and human rights in education.
- It should point out that HRE is a conventional obligation incumbent on almost all States.
- It should serve as a reminder that HRE is an autonomous obligation and in no way subject to availability of resources.
- It should invite States to comply with the obligation, adhere to the concept as promoted by the Declaration and lend it great importance in their reports to the various committees as well as during the UPC.
- It should also invite States to make HRE a priority in their recommendations during the UPC.
- It should incite the High Commission for Human Rights to take HRE into account when preparing documents for the UPC.
- It should incite the various bodies concerned, and especially the committees, to pay greater attention to HRE both when preparing directives for States' periodic reports and when examining those reports.
- It should encourage NGOs to grant HRE greater prominence in their activities.
CIFEDHOP, Geneva, July 13, 2009

Top