ToR

ToR Evaluation of OHCHR’s support to National Human Rights Institutions

EVALUATION OF OHCHR SUPPORT TO NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
At the country level, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) play a role in the protection and promotion of human rights. Anchored in a constitutional or legislative framework, NHRIs advocate for legal and institutional reform following international human rights obligations of the State. Many of them monitor places of detention and security institutions, and publish regular reports on the human rights situation in their countries. There is a number of NHRIs which have their own complaint handling mechanisms enabling them to provide remedies to victims of human rights violations.
At the international level, they are stakeholders in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, both in terms of reporting and implementation of recommendations. NHRIs report to treaty bodies and, as State bodies, are involved in the follow-up to treaty body recommendations. They also play a role regarding special procedures contributing to the preparation, implementation and follow up action to country visits and thematic reports.
NHRIs meet at the regional and global levels; cooperate, exchange information and experiences through their global association, the International Coordination Committee (ICC), as well as through regional and sub-regional networks.
OHCHR’s support to National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) is a mandated activity provided for by a number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) and the Human Rights Council (HRC) in the last decade. The most recent ones are GA resolution 68/171 of 18 December 2013 “National institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights” and HRC resolution 23/17 of 13 June 2013 under the same title. In o.p. 20 of its resolution 68/171, the UN General Assembly “commended the high priority given by OHCHR to work on national human rights institutions, and encouraged the High Commissioner, in view of the expanded activities relating to national institutions, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made and budgetary resources provided to continue and further extend activities in support of national institutions”.
The number of NHRIs has rocketed from less than 10 by the beginning of 1990-ies to 106 accredited institutions by now. One of the most frequent recommendations emanating from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and accepted by Governments is about the establishment or strengthening of NHRIs in accordance with the Paris Principles (PP), which were endorsed by the UN General Assembly.
Since the planning cycle 2008 – 2009, OHCHR has defined eleven results or expected accomplishments (EA) to which it seeks to contribute on the basis of recurrent gaps that have been identified in the course of its work and by the international human rights mechanisms.
In relation to national protection systems, OHCHR seeks to ensure that duty-bearers uphold their human rights obligations by supporting efforts to ensure compliance of national legislation, policies, programmes and institutions with international human rights standards (EA 1). In terms of support to NHRIs, the global indicator 1.1 is the “Number of countries of engagement where NHRIs have been established or have improved compliance with international standards (Paris Principles)”.
More specifically, OHCHR:
Supports efforts for the establishment and strengthening of NHRIs worldwide, inter-alia with and through OHCHR geographic desk officers and field presences, other UN agencies, funds and programmes and regional networks of NHRIs, including through technical cooperation and capacity-building projects for NHRIs;

Reviews draft laws concerning NHRIs and advises on compliance with the PPs;

Establishes guidance notes, methodological tools, best practices and lessons learned on issues related to NHRIs;

Acts as Secretary of the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs, including its Subcommittee on Accreditation and its Bureau;
facilitates partnerships between NHRIs and UNCTs;
supports the interaction of NHRIs with the international human rights system, including treaty bodies, special procedures mechanisms, the HRC/UPR;
supports regional and sub-regional networks on NHRIs;
drafts the Secretary-General’s reports to the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council on OHCHR NHRI-related activities;
At the International Conference held in Tunis in 1993, NHRIs established the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC) with the aim to coordinate the activities of the NHRI network.
The ICC has established an accreditation procedure to regularly review NHRI’s compliance with the Paris Principles. NHRIs which are found to be fully compliant (“A status”) benefit from a higher visibility and a strengthened role in the UN Human Rights Council, including speaking rights in plenary meetings, circulation of papers as official UN documents, and a separate section in the UPR’s stakeholders report on their country.
The ICC is incorporated as a legal entity under the Swiss law, and has a Bureau consisting of 16 “A status” NHRIs representing the four regions of the ICC. General annual meetings of the ICC, meetings of the ICC Bureau and of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, as well as international conferences of the ICC are held under in cooperation with OHCHR in its capacity as the ICC secretariat.
Current efforts by OHCHR are focused at four major strategic objectives, namely (1) country engagement, through which OHCHR supports efforts by governments to establish or strengthen NHRIs; (2) monitoring and advice, through which OHCHR assesses compliance with the Paris Principles and strengthens the capacity of NHRIs to work effectively and independently; (3) assisting the interaction between NHRIs and the international human rights system; and (4) strengthening partnerships, especially with UN agencies and programmes on the ground, the ICC, regional organizations as well as regional coordinating bodies of NHRIs.

2. EVALUATION JUSTIFICATION, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

OHCHR’s support to National Human Rights Institutions has been selected as an issue to be evaluated for the following reasons:
OHCHR has invested resources over a number of years in the establishment and/or working of NHRIs and this area has not been evaluated since 2003;
The whole office is involved with NHRIs from various points of view and is interested in collecting evidence about OHCHR’s results so far;
The role of OHCHR supporting NHRIs at a national, regional and international levels requires a strategic, coordinated and comprehensive approach by the office, based on an independent assessment;
The Senior Management has recommended to assess the impact and relevance of OHCHR work on this area;
Since 2008 there has been an indicator of performance related to NHRIs in OHCHR’s planning documents, and since 2010 there is detailed information available both in the Performance Monitoring System and offline on the theory of change behind OHCHR’s interventions related to NHRIs.
The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess the contribution of OHCHR’s support to NHRIs on the achievement of institutional, legislative or behavioural changes on human rights issues, in terms of:
Effectiveness – the degree to which planned results and targets related to NHRIs have been achieved, at outcome and output levels;
Impact orientation – the extent to which the strategic orientation of OHCHR’s support to NHRIs points toward making a significant contribution to broader, long-term, sustainable changes on human rights issues;
Sustainability – the degree to which changes achieved in relation to NHRIs (establishment and/or working) last in time;
Gender equality mainstreaming – the degree to which gender has been mainstreamed in all the activities of OHCHR in support of NHRIs, and the degree to which the results obtained in this area have contributed to the goal of gender equality.
The objectives of the evaluation are:
To identify the existence of evidence to point to the impact of OHCHR’s support to NHRIs in improving the enjoyment of rights at national level;
To produce useful lessons learned and good practices that illustrate successful and unsuccessful strategies in the achievement of results in support of NHRIs, including in the area of gender equality; and that can help identify areas were policy or structural changes are required;
To produce clear and actionable recommendations identifying concrete actions and responsibilities for OHCHR to undertake towards these ends.
The evaluation will therefore take both a summative and a formative approach, in that it will look at results achieved or not achieved so far (summative) with a view to inform OHCHR’s work in support NHRIs in the future (formative). This approach will therefore increase OHCHR’s accountability and learning, as per OHCHR’s Evaluation Policy.

3. SCOPE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Based on OHCHR results-based framework, the evaluation will mainly look at the achievement of expected accomplishments1 in the area of support to NHRIs since the planning cycle 2008-2009, when a global level indicator on NHRIs first appeared in the SMP. Therefore, the evaluation will cover four planning cycles: 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and the programming stage and first
1. Expected accomplishments are OHCHR’s outcome level results, and they refer to changes in behaviour, institutions and legislation year of 2014-2017. It will also focus on the strategies that led or did not lead to the achievements of the expected accomplishments, and by doing so will tangentially investigate the achievement of outputs.
2.Geographically, the evaluation will look at OHCHR’s work in support of NHRIs at the global, regional, sub-regional and national level, including all the regions covered by the Office: Africa, Americas, Europe and Central Asia, Asia Pacific, and Middle East and Northern Africa.

The following set of evaluation questions, framed along the OECD/DAC criteria, will guide the evaluation in pursuit of its stated objectives and purposes.
3:EFFECTIVENESS
What evidence of positive results obtained by OHCHR in the establishment and strengthening of NHRIs can be found? To what extent were planned results actually achieved?
Where positive results of OHCHR’s support to NHRIs have been achieved, what were the enabling factors and processes? Are there notably differences in the results obtained in some particular geographical zones or thematic areas of intervention? What lessons have been learned?
What prevented OHCHR from achieving results in this area? What lessons can be drawn from this?
What have been the roles of local stakeholders, partners or other UN agencies in the achievement of results in the area of support to NHRIs? What has been the strategy and methodology used to work together, communicate and disseminate results among them?
Did OHCHR plan results in support to NHRIs that contributed to challenge unjust power relations in the area of gender? To what degree were such results achieved?

IMPACT ORIENTATION
What has been the relevance of the work of NHRIs supported by OHCHR to the national situation and the needs of the duty-bearers and right-holders.
What, if any, evidence is there that OHCHR’s work in support to NHRIs has resulted in improvements in the enjoyment of rights? What has been the contribution of OHCHR to the achievement of these results?
To what extent is OHCHR making a significant contribution to broader and longer term enjoyment of rights through its support to NHRIs? Or how likely is it that it will eventually make this contribution? Is OHCHRs strategy and management in this area steering towards impact?

SUSTAINABILITY
Are the results, achievements and benefits of OHCHR’s work in support of NHRIs likely to be durable?
1. Are NHRIs able to effectively contribute to the continued achievements of specific results after the support of OHCHR has concluded?
2. Outputs are defined in OHCHR as changes in knowledge, capacity, awareness, etc. and/or as products and services.
3. It is expected that the questions will be reviewed by the evaluators in the course of their inception work and may therefore be modified to reach a final form after the inception report has been approved by the Evaluation Management.

Are NHRIs willing and committed to continue working on the promotion and protection of human rights? How effectively has OHCHR built national ownership?
Are NHRIs able to continue working on human rights issues? How effectively has OHCHR built necessary capacity?
Has OHCHR successfully built or strengthened an enabling environment for NHRIs (laws, policies, people’s attitudes, etc.)?

3.1 Evaluability
Determining evaluability means assessing the situation to see if the evaluation is feasible, affordable and of sufficient value to proceed. It includes determining whether the intervention’s outcomes are adequately defined and verifiable.
A global level indicator on NHRIs first appeared in the Strategic Management Plan (SMP) 2008 – 2009 (“Number of national human rights institutions accredited ‘A’ status or improving their accreditation status by the International Coordinating Committee”); and since 2010 remained in its current format: “Extent to which NHRI has been established and/or worked in conformity with international standards (Paris Principles)”.
For the planning cycles 2010 – 2011, 2012 – 2013, and 2014 – 2017, the Performance Monitoring System (PMS) allows the tracking of the use of this indicator for field presences (FPs).

3.2 Stakeholder Involvement
The Terms of Reference have been finalised in participation with the Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division (through the National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section) and other units in OHCHR’s headquarters related with the support to NHRIs. It is expected that a stakeholders’ analysis – including gender-related issues – will be conducted at the beginning of the evaluation and that stakeholders identified will be meaningfully involved in the conduct of the evaluation, in the validation of findings, and in the follow-up to recommendations.
The main stakeholders of the evaluation includes, at least:
• Internal stakeholders:
o Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, including the National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section (NIRMS)
o Field presences
o Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division
o Human Rights Treaty Division
o Research and Right to Development Division
o Executive Direction and Management
• External stakeholders:
o International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
o Regional and sub-regional networks on NHRIs
o National human rights institutions
o Duty-bearers and rights-holders
o Partners, including UN agencies and UN Country teams
4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Overarching approach to conducting utilization-focused evaluations:4
The evaluation’s overall approach will be guided by the principle of credibility – that is, ensuring that the best evidence available is harnessed, and that it is analysed appropriately, so as to generate
findings, conclusions and recommendations that resonate and that management can therefore feel
confident acting on. This approach presumes four main pillars, depicted in the figure below. These
include:
a. Consultation with and participation by key stakeholders, in the form of a Reference Group
(see below) and other venues (e.g. on-going communications and updates), so as to ensure
that the evaluation remains relevant, and that the evidence and analysis are sound and
factually accurate;
b. Methodological rigour to ensure that the most appropriate sources of evidence for
answering the questions above are used in a technically appropriate manner;
c. Independence to ensure that the analysis stands solely on an impartial and objective
analysis of the evidence, without undue influence by any key stakeholder group;
d. Evaluation team composition to ensure that the foregoing three pillars are adequately
understood and followed, and that the appropriate evaluation skills and appropriate subject
matter expertise to make the analysis of the evidence authoritative and believable.
It will be the responsibility of OHCHR’s PPMES to ensure that each of these elements is adequately
attended to throughout the evaluation, and the Reference Group’s responsibility to support PPMES
in achieving each.

4. This section and section 6 below have been liberally adapted from UNICEF Terms of Reference for evaluations, as best practices shared through the United Nations Evaluation Group.

Methodology:
The evaluation will be conducted by a team composed of three external consultants. They will use as far as possible, considering the specificities of OHCHR’s work, a mixed-methods approach – quantitative and qualitative, with rigorous triangulation of information. It is expected that evaluators will be using the following methods (to be further defined by the evaluation team in the inception report):
Desk Reviews (informal, for general background; and formal, on OHCHR’s and external documents such as reports, evaluations, legislation adopted, etc.);
Focus group discussions either in person or virtually with stakeholders identified in the analysis;
Surveys, questionnaires and interviews (conducted in person or by Skype) with stakeholders;
Direct observation, through field trips to OHCHR’s regional and/or country offices;
Secondary data analysis of existing data sets, particularly monitoring information contained in OHCHR’s Performance Monitoring System (PMS) and available in-country statistical information, when relevant.
The evaluation methodology includes missions to Geneva (OHCHR headquarters), and other cities where OHCHR’s field presences are located for desk reviews, direct observation and face to face interviews with stakeholders.
If some of the stakeholders (e.g. former staff members) can’t be interviewed in person, Skype will be used.
Results related to OHCHR’s support to NHRIs were planned/reported in 24 countries during both planning cycles 2010-11 and 2012-13. Based on that list of countries (see Annex) and taking into consideration logistical constraints, these locations of OHCHR’s field presences have been selected to be visited by the evaluation team during the field work phase of this evaluation:
Africa:
– Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Regional Office for Eastern Africa)
– Yaoundé, Cameroon (Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa)
– Kampala, Uganda (Uganda Country Office)
America:
– Panama City, Panama (Regional Office for Central America)
– Bogotá, Colombia (Colombia Country Office)
– Quito, Ecuador (Human Rights Adviser in Ecuador)
Europe and Middle East and Northern Africa:
– Geneva, Switzerland (OHCHR Headquarters)
– Beirut, Lebanon (Regional Office for the Middle East)
– Pristina, Kosovo (Stand Alone Office in Kosovo)
The evaluation will follow the UNEG Standards5 and Norms6 for Evaluation in the UN System, including the UNEG Handbook “Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation –Towards UNEG Guidance”7.
5 http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/561
6 http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/562

5. MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
OHCHR’s Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Service – PPMES is in charge of managing the evaluation through its Evaluation Officer, who will act as the Evaluation Manager. This will include recruiting the evaluators; serving as the main port-of-call for evaluators, as well as for internal and external stakeholders; recording the feedback of the reference group and effectively integrating it into the evaluation exercise; monitoring the budget and the correct implementation of the work-plan; organizing missions to Geneva and to the field – participating in them on an ad hoc basis to ensure quality assurance; etc.
The Evaluation Manager will be supported in this task by the OHCHR Network of Evaluation Focal Points (NEFP), composed by OHCHR staff members from all Divisions and Services. The Network will be used to facilitate the finalisation of the Terms of Reference, the organization of meetings between the evaluation team and their respective Divisions and Services, internal communication, etc.
A Reference Group (RG) will be constituted for this evaluation and it will serve in an advisory capacity to help strengthen the evaluation’s substantive grounding and its relevance to the Office. The Reference Group shall be chaired by the Chief of PPMES with the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer as alternate, and include representatives of relevant divisions and services, including field presences, as well as representatives of relevant external stakeholders and of the Evaluation Focal Points Network, as determined by the Chair.
The Reference Group is responsible for advising the Chair on the following:
The Terms of Reference;
Oversight of the consultants short-listing and selection processes;
Approval of key aspects of Evaluation design and processes and any adjustments to TOR;
Ensuring the Evaluation process (internal and external phases) involves key stakeholders adequately, to ensure ownership of analysis and recommendations;
Approval of Evaluation products;
Decision on a post-Evaluation dissemination strategy;
Approval of the final draft report for submission to OHCHR Senior Management Team;
Issuance of a draft management response in response to the Evaluation findings and recommendations for submission to OHCHR Senior Management Team.

6. DELIVERABLES AND TIMEFRAME
The evaluation will produce the following major outputs, all of which will be grounded in UNEG Norms and Standards and good evaluation practice, to be disseminated to the appropriate audiences:
An Inception Report (maximum 20 pages), informed by an initial scoping mission, that outlines the selected evaluation team’s understanding of the evaluation and expectations, along with a concrete action plan for undertaking the evaluation. It will spell out the specific methods and data sources from which it will garner evidence to answer each evaluation question and to
http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/1294 assess attribution/contribution of results to OHCHR’s efforts (i.e., an analytical framework); a validated logic model for use in the evaluation and the precise performance indicators against which OHCHR’s interventions in support to NHRIs will be assessed; a more thorough internal and external stakeholder analysis and sampling strategies; any proposed modifications to the evaluation questions, further thoughts on any other areas (e.g., risks, country case study selection, and so on). The Inception Report will be reviewed by the Evaluation Manager and the Reference Group for feedback before finalization;
A comprehensive Data Collection Toolkit that translates all of the methods agreed in the Inception report into specific data collection instruments;
A Draft Report (maximum 50 pages) generating key findings, useful lessons learned and good practices, and clear and actionable recommendations for concrete action, underpinned by clear evidence (for review by the Evaluation Manager and the Reference Group for factual comments), and an Executive Summary of no more than 5 pages that weaves together the evaluation findings and recommendations into a crisp, clear, compelling storyline;
A second Draft Report that incorporates the first round comments and feedback from the Evaluation Manager and the Reference Group;
A Final Report that incorporates final comments from the Evaluation Manager and the Reference Group on the second draft report; and
A presentation of the major findings, lessons learned, good practices and recommendations of the evaluation to the Reference Group and SMT in headquarters, delivered by the Team Leader.
The draft and final reports will follow the outline suggested in Annex 1. The timeline proposed for the conduct of the evaluation is the following:
ACTION
TIMELINE Constitute Reference Group August 2014
Circulate and finalize Terms of Reference
August – September 2014 Select consulting team October 2014
Recruit consulting team
November 2014 Kick off evaluation December 2014
Scoping mission to Geneva
December 2014 Deliver inception report, including data collection toolkit January 2015
Field trips
February 2015 Undertake data analysis and draft report March 2015
Deliver first Draft Report
April 2015 Circulate and finalize first Draft Report
April 2015
Deliver second Draft Report
May 2015
Circulate and finalize second Draft Report May 2015
Deliver Final Report
May 2015

7. EVALUATION TEAM PROFILE
A three-person team will be recruited to conduct the evaluation, including:
One senior-level Team Leader responsible for undertaking the evaluation from start to finish in accordance with the timelines agreed upon and in a high-quality manner.
One mid-level Team Member responsible for supporting the Team Leader, particularly in the phases of data collection and review in the Americas, and report writing.
One mid-level Team Member responsible for supporting the Team Leader, particularly in the phases of data collection and review in Africa, and report writing.
Specific Terms of Reference for the three positions are attached in Annex 2.

8. BUDGET
The budget for this evaluation comes from PPMES.

Annex 1 – Outline of Draft and Final Report
1. Title Page with key data of the intervention and the evaluation
2. Table of Contents and lists (appendices and tables)
3. List of Abbreviations
4. Executive Summary
4.1. Background and context
4.2. Main findings and conclusions
4.3. Lessons Learned, Good Practices, and Recommendations
5. Body of Report
5.1 Intervention Background
5.2 Evaluation Background
5.3 Methodology
5.4 Main Findings presented according to evaluation criteria
6. Conclusions
6.1. Conclusions
6.2 Lessons learned
6.3 Good practices
6.4 Recommendations
7. Appendices
7.1 Terms of references of evaluation
7.2. List of stakeholders interviewed
7.3. Data collection tools

Annex 2 – Evaluation Team Terms of Reference
Team Leader
1. Introduction
OHCHR is conducting an evaluation of its work in support to National Human Rights Institutions. The evaluation team will consist of three persons: one senior-level team leader and two mid-level team members.
This document contains supplemental TOR that will be used as the basis for contracting the senior-level team leader. It does not duplicate the information found in the TOR for the evaluation.
2. Profile
– Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in law, political science, international relations, economics, or related field. A first level university degree in combination with a qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree.
– Minimum of 12 years of experience conducting evaluations of projects, programs or policies in the UN or international context.
– Experience conducting evaluations in human rights or related field (humanitarian assistance, peace operations).
– Fluency in oral and written English.
– Based in Europe.
– Knowledge of French and/or Spanish is an advantage.
– Knowledge of OHCHR is desirable.
3. Scope of work
Specifically, the Team Leader will be responsible for undertaking the evaluation from start to finish in accordance with the timelines agreed upon and in a high-quality manner, including:
– Preparation of inception report (5 days)
– Data collection and review (15 days)
o Conduction of field missions to Geneva, Pristina and Beirut
– Preparation of the drafts and final evaluation reports (20 days)
– Conduction of a presentation of the evaluation results (1 day)
4. Supervision of the work
The Team Leader will report to OHCHR’s PPMES, and will be responsible for the supervision of the two mid-level team members.

Team Member responsible for the Americas
1. Introduction
OHCHR is conducting an evaluation of its work in support to National Human Rights Institutions. The evaluation team will consist of three persons: one senior-level team leader and two mid-level team members.
This document contains supplemental TOR that will be used as the basis for contracting with the mid-level team member responsible for data collection and review in the Americas. It does not duplicate the information found in the TOR for the evaluation.
2. Profile
– Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in law, political science, international relations, economics, or related field. A first level university degree in combination with a qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree.
– Minimum of 8 years of experience conducting evaluations of projects, programs or policies in the UN or international context, including evaluations in the Americas.
– Fluency in oral and written English and Spanish.
– Based in the Americas.
– Experience conducting evaluations in human rights or related field (humanitarian assistance, peace operations) is desirable.
– Knowledge of OHCHR is desirable.
3. Scope of work
Specifically, the team member will be responsible for supporting the Team Leader, particularly in the phases of data collection and review in the Americas, and report writing, including:
– Support to team leader on preparation of inception report (5 days)
– Support to team leader on data collection and review (15 days)
o Completion of field missions to Panama City, Bogota and Quito.
o Preparation of a regional report including major findings, conclusions, lessons learned, good practices and recommendations for the Americas.
– Support to team leader on the preparation of the drafts and final evaluation reports (15 days)
4. Supervision of the work
The team member will report to the team leader.

Team Member responsible for Africa
1. Introduction
OHCHR is conducting an evaluation of its work in support to National Human Rights Institutions. The evaluation team will consist of three persons: one senior-level team leader and two mid-level team members.
This document contains supplemental TOR that will be used as the basis for contracting with the mid-level team member responsible for data collection and review in Africa. It does not duplicate the information found in the TOR for the evaluation.
2. Profile
– Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in law, political science, international relations, economics, or related field. A first level university degree in combination with a qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree.
– Minimum of 8 years of experience conducting evaluations of projects, programs or policies in the UN or international context, including evaluations in Africa.
– Fluency in oral and written English and French.
– Based in Africa.
– Experience conducting evaluations in human rights or related field (humanitarian assistance, peace operations) is desirable.
– Knowledge of OHCHR is desirable.
3. Scope of work
Specifically, the team member will be responsible for supporting the Team Leader, particularly in the phases of data collection and review in Africa, and report writing, including:
– Support to team leader on preparation of inception report (5 days)
– Support to team leader on data collection and review (15 days)
o Completion of field missions to Addis Ababa, Yaoundé and Kampala.
o Preparation of a regional report including major findings, conclusions, lessons learned, good practices and recommendations for Africa.
– Support to team leader on the preparation of the drafts and final evaluation reports (15 days)
4. Supervision of the work
The team member will report to the team leader.

Annex 3 – List of Background Documents
– High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plans 2008-09, 2010-11
– OHCHR’s Management Plans 2012-13 and 2014-2017
– End of Year and End of Cycle Reports 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2012-13
– Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles)
– Belgrade Principles on the Relationship between NHRIs and Parliaments
– GA resolution 68/171 of 18 December 2013 “National institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights”
– HRC resolution 23/17 of 13 June 2013 “National institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights”
– A/HRC/27/39, Report of the Secretary-General of 30 June 2014 on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights
– Guidance note “National Human Rights Institutions and the work of OHCHR at Headquarters and field level”
– Guidance Note “OHCHR Secretariat to the ICC”
– OHCHR/UNDP Toolkit on NHRIs for UNCT staff
– Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions
– National Human Rights Institutions: History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities
– Handbook on the Role of NHRIs in the United Nations Treaty Bodies
– Preventing Torture – an Operational Guide for HNRIs
– The United Nations Treaty Bodies and National Institutions
– ICC Strategic Plan 2014-2016
– ICC Position Papers – National Human Rights Institutions and the UN Human Rights Council
– General Observations of the ICC’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation
Annex 4 – Selection of countries where results on indicator 1.1 have been planned/reported during the biennium 2010-11 and 2012-13
– Bahrain – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Cameroon – Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon)
– Central African Republic – Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon)
– Colombia – Colombia Country Office (Bogotá, Colombia)
– Democratic Republic of the Congo – Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon)
– Ecuador – Human Rights Adviser in Ecuador (Quito, Ecuador)
– Ethiopia – Regional Office for Eastern Africa (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)
– Gabon – Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon)
– Jordan – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Kosovo (Serbia) – Stand-alone Office in Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo)
– Kuwait – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Lebanon – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– México – México Country Office (México City, México)
– Oman – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Panamá – Regional Office for Central America (Panama City, Panama)
– Qatar – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Samoa – Regional Office for the Pacific (Suva, Fiji)
– Sao Tome and Principe – Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon)
– South Sudan
– Togo – Togo Country Office (Lomé, Togo)
– Tanzania – Regional Office for Eastern Africa (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)
– Uganda – Uganda Country Office (Kampala, Uganda)
– United Arab Emirates – Regional Office for the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon)
– Uruguay – Regional Office for South America (Santiago, Chile)