Nicole De Silva ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Concordia University apporte des fonds en tant que membre fondateur de The Conversation CA.
Universitié Concordia apporte des fonds en tant que membre fondateur de The Conversation CA-FR.
Voir les partenaires de The Conversation France
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has decided to conduct a special review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). A coalition of civil society organizations, including the Black Class Action Secretariat, Canadian Association of Public Employees, and others, requested the review.
As the international body that accredits national human rights institutions, GANHRI will evaluate the CHRC’s level of compliance with the United Nations’ Paris Principles that set minimum standards for national human rights institutions to uphold.
The review may draw attention to issues of racial discrimination at the CHRC and the coalition’s proposed reforms, but GANHRI’s record indicates that it will most likely decide that the CHRC is still complying with the Paris Principles at the highest level.
To increase public pressure for action from the CHRC and Canadian government, the coalition has widely publicized its request for, and GANHRI’s decision to conduct, the special review.
In its press conference, the coalition’s spokesperson said GANHRI’s “landmark” decision puts Canada “among the ranks of nations like Russia, Iraq and Venezuela, who have faced a special review.” The coalition focused on states with weak human rights records to shame the CHRC, but national human rights institutions in states with stronger human rights records, like the United Kingdom, have also undergone special reviews.
The coalition also strongly emphasized how GANHRI could downgrade the CHRC’s status from A to B and, by extension, revoke key privileges. However, those familiar with GANHRI’s past practice will expect that it will maintain the CHRC’s top-level status.
The vast majority of GANHRI’s members (90 out of 118) have A-status. Also, with the example of the UK’s national human rights institution, two special reviews did not produce any downgrade in status.
The CHRC’s response to GANHRI’s committee could detail how it has undertaken various initiatives on the issues of concern. While those initiatives might be inadequate for the coalition, they will probably be adequate for the GANHRI committee to maintain the CHRC’s A-status.
Therefore, the coalition’s threats of a downgrade in status for the CHRC are unlikely to materialize. Still, the committee’s review may produce recommendations for improvements, which could more subtly assist the coalition’s advocacy.
Overall, the coalition’s turn to the international level has served its domestic agenda by drawing attention to issues of racial discrimination within the CHRC and the coalition’s desired reforms. However, GANHRI’s review will generate minimal international pressure for reforms if it maintains the CHRC’s top-level status as a national human rights institution, so the coalition will need to once again alter its advocacy strategy.
