Invitees
Great importance was attached to inviting persons to attend the expert consultation who come from very diverse professional and cultural backgrounds.  Therefore, there were among the invitees a number of civil society experts from countries in which there is, or has been, an international human rights operation, such as Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Liberia and East Timor. International and regional organisations were represented by human rights officers/advisers working in field missions in all regions of the world, current and past heads of such missions, desk officers and senior staff in the headquarters supporting these missions, as well as training specialists.  Institutional affiliations of invitees included OHCHR, other UN bodies, such as OCHA, DPKO, UNDP and UNICEF, and regional organisations such as OSCE, OAU and OAS.  Other invitees included experts from academic institutions, training centres and international NGOs (including Human Rights Watch, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Center for Transitional Justice).

The Meeting

After an introduction to the goals and methods of the expert consultation and a plenary discussion in which the participants explained what they expected from the consultation process, the remainder of the agenda was devoted to four main subject areas: (1) The professional identity of the HRFO, (2) the regulation of the profession, (3) the training of the profession, and (4) the formulation of recommendations "to and through" the High Commissioner regarding the further professionalisation of the sector.  Each of these sessions consisted of introductory comments by specialists in the respective fields, discussion of the relevant issues in three alternating working groups, and presentation and discussion of the findings of the working groups in the plenary (see Agenda of the Expert Consultation).  The recommendations were finalised in plenary session.

Representatives of the UN and an international NGO opened the session on the professional identity of HRFOs by addressing questions as to whether it is possible (and desirable) to identify core functions of a HRFO, what partnerships an officer should maintain in the field, and what methodological guidance and support exists. 

In the discussions in the working groups, the participants attempted to identify the most important goals of human rights field work, the main obstacles to achieving these goals, and different options to overcome them.  The working groups generally agreed that the key functions of a human rights officer include the protection of the rights of individuals through monitoring and reporting, the promotion of human rights and, in the longer term, the building up of national human rights communities.  The participants identified several major challenges which human rights operations have to face in the course of this process: the diversity of the political contexts in which international standards have to be translated into practice; the different problems presented by pre-conflict, conflict, and post-conflict situations; the common lack of understanding how to translate certain policies (such as the rights-based approach) into practice; shortcomings in terms of strategic thinking and problem-solving skills within human rights missions; inter-agency competition; and different skill levels of persons working in the respective missions.  Furthermore, several participants stressed that human rights operations can create false expectations that may eventually weaken civil society and warned that human rights officers should not take over the role of national institutions. 

As far as a basic profile is concerned that HRFOs would have to fulfil to be able to address these challenges, there was agreement that they need to base their work upon consolidated standards, mechanisms and methods.  Yet at the same time it was stressed that HRFOs must be flexible enough to adapt to the particular context of their work and to make use of partnerships as appropriate, including of partnerships with other in-mission actors.  Finally, the importance of a number of other personal competencies and skills, including cultural, gender and political sensitivity, inclusiveness and communication skills were highlighted.

In the second session of the first day, the need to regulate the profession and different ways of doing so were dealt with.  A representative of the UN and a specialist from an academic institution introduced the subject by addressing issues concerning the central ethical problem areas related to human rights field missions, the underlying values guiding the profession, the desirability of establishing a code of conduct for human rights field professionals and the definition of sites of accountability. 

Accordingly, discussions in the working groups focused on principles and standards underlying the work of HRFOs, in particular the question as to what degree human rights norms themselves can serve as a value system guiding professional activity, indicators regarding professional performance, different systems of accountability and the development of a system of professional accreditation. 

As far as a code of conduct for human rights officers is concerned, a UN participant pointed out that the OHCHR had in fact developed a basic code in earlier years (albeit the code seems to have been overlooked in practice).  That code of conduct was identified and brought to the attention of the participants on the following day of the consultation meeting; it informed further discussions on the subject.  

In terms of the desirability of regulating the profession, one of the working groups pointed to the following fundamental advantages: enhanced recognition and protection of the profession, clarification of entrance requirements to the profession, unified assessment of qualifications, facilitation of professional support and creation of a forum for the sharing of experiences.  Yet, according to this working group, these benefits contrast with a number of downsides:  Systems of regulation tended to emphasise the values of the regulators; there is a danger that the required qualifications could be reduced to a set of very formal criteria which are not necessarily relevant for the work in the field; and the enforcement and implementation of any system of regulation is problematic (who regulates and evaluates according to what criteria?).  Moreover, there was the fundamental challenge that a HRFO's work depends to a large extent on the specific mandate and the particular political context of a mission.  Therefore, whereas the participants generally welcomed the idea of reviewing and improving existing rosters of HRFOs, most considered a formal accreditation system as premature.  By contrast, there was wide support for an informal ‘association’ of human rights field professionals. 

As far as fundamental standards that should guide the work of HRFOs are concerned, the participants highlighted the following principles: impartiality and independence, universality and indivisibility, non-discrimination, non-substitution for national actors, partnership between various actors, and operation within the framework of international human rights and humanitarian law.  Finally, the participants agreed that frameworks of both institutional and personal accountability, internally and externally, should be strengthened.  At the same time, it was stressed that parameters for individual accountability should be matched by institutional support to HRFOs.

The first session of the second day of the Expert Consultation was opened by introductory comments from a UN representative and a specialist from a training institution, who both stressed the need for training initiatives targeted at HRFOs and which address different professional stages.  Discussion in the working groups centred on the content of existing and required training initiatives for human rights professionals, the methodologies to be used for such training modules and the range of relevant training materials.  The participants highlighted the importance of designing training initiatives that aim at different levels of specialisation: general human rights education at the pre-recruitment level (in universities and other educational institutions), training on core knowledge areas (e.g. knowledge of treaty system, Action 2, role of the ICRC, monitoring skills etc.) at the pre-deployment level and in-mission training that takes account of the specific mandate and the local situation. 

It was pointed out that any training modules and materials should be tested before dissemination and systematically evaluated and followed up by the headquarters for effectiveness.  In addition, end-of-mission debriefings could be used as a way of identifying training needs.  Specific suggestions for improving training approaches included the development of internship programmes in the field, designing training modules that include real life/case studies and the development of management training modules.  Furthermore, training initiatives should address skills of political analysis and inter-cultural communication.  Finally, the use of the expertise which exists both within the missions and in outside institutions should be coordinated more effectively, avoiding duplications. 

As far as training materials are concerned, one working group pointed out that the directory produced for the present project could serve as a good starting point but should be made more accessible (by being put on a website), expanded by including materials produced in other languages than English, and further developed and categorised. Moreover, it was suggested that a corresponding directory listing training institutions and modules should be developed.  Finally, participants identified a lack of training materials addressing important practical skills such as stress management, communication skills, intervening in violent situations, human rights advocacy and negotiating in human rights contexts.