From Peer Support Groups to a Jury of Peers
I am not an expert in legal mechanisms, but I can value a system of justice that offers a fair trial by a jury of peers. Peers are likely to share backgrounds, values and understandings. A trial by peers offers a trust or at least hope of fairness. Down on my level, we have learned that people who get involved in peer support groups trust in the group and find strength in this confidence. When they have problems or complaints, it is easier to present these troubles to peers, as opposed to people higher up on the status scale.
I am not an expert on UN mechanisms, but if the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is mandated to be a 'Jury for Complaints and Violations' (and last resort for justice for many people), then I think it fair that some of our peers should be on this committee too. Having three seats out of 21 for civil society and the affected peoples is a small step towards building trust in human rights justice between UN institutions and the the people of all nations. It would be a big step towards accountability. /Anya
- anya.menon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Accountability
Accountability - This is what this is all about. Human rights bodies MUST be accountable to the population, not the governments who too often are the problem, not solution. Special provisions must be made, such as adding seats to this ESCR Committee, which can help assure that these bodies are highly transparent and can be held to account on their decisions. This has made big advantage in the right to health drive for universal access for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria - we have a long way to go but at least we can better see where we are because civil society participates in the navigation.
Clearly common concerns
Looking over the many blogs and comments these last few weeks on the UN Committee on ESCR, it seems that the current lack of accountability and absence of transparency on this UN body is the common concern. Also, the process of governments selecting their 'independent expert' is a big problem, and the proposal to bring the best practices over from UNAIDS and others is a good way to address these problems and concerns. It seems we agree, and should move forward to action.
Accountabilty is the goal
The comparison to a 'jury for complaints' is interesting but may be confusing. The Committee on ESCR should be a very INDEPENDENT review panel, while a jury is dependent on the judge and the court, regardless of whether its members are peers or non-peers. There are other differences as well. The problem with the Committee is not by peer or non-peer, but in its highly questionable 'independence' and lack of accountability as the 'election' process is closed, secretive, and gov't controlled. Either all the Committee should be constituted through an open and transparent electoral process, or then civil society should have a few seats filled through model systems of free, fair and open elections. Accountable to all who have ESC rights (that's everyone!).