Human rights at local level is, as a topic for the Council of Europe, not new, but has taken some time to come to the fore in its work. This document traces the development of the topic in the Council of Europe by collating the most relevant documents.

The item of Human Rights at Local Level that appears on the agenda of the 17^th Session of the Ministerial Conference was prepared by the CDLR on the basis of a report prepared by its Rapporteurs (Appendix 1).

A Seminar on human rights and local and regional government was held in Barcelona in July 2004, organised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the City-Hall of Barcelona and the Barcelona Forum 2004, but it was the 2007 edition of the Forum for the Future of Democracy and its conclusions that triggered wider attention to the issue in the Council of Europe (Appendix 2).

The subsequent 2008 Joint declaration of the SALAR (Swedish Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and the Congress of the Council of Europe, in co-operation with the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (Appendix 3), led to the presentation of a report to the Congress in spring 2010 entitled “The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights”, prepared by its Rapporteur, Mr Lars MOLIN (Sweden) (Appendix 4).

Further to this report, the Congress adopted its Resolution 296 and Recommendation 280 to the Committee of Ministers on the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights (Appendices 5 and 6 respectively). Two other Congress Resolutions are also relevant: Resolution (2010) 307 Procedures for monitoring the obligations and commitments entered into by the Council of Europe member States in respect of their ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-government (CETS No. 122) and Resolution (2010) 310 Priorities of the Congress for 2011-2012 (appendices 7 and 8 respectively).

The CDLR, for its part, at the invitation of the Ministers’ Deputies, adopted comments on Congress Recommendation 280 in October 2010 (Appendix 9) and the Ministers’ Deputies adopted their reply to the Congress in July 2011 (Appendix 10).

In the draft Kyiv Declaration, a draft Declaration on Human Rights at Local Level is included (see document MCL-17(2011)13).

APPENDIX 1

Human rights at local level

REPORT by the CDLR Rapporteur[1]

Introduction

It is recalled that the current attention to the issue of human rights at local level in the CDLR was initiated by the request from the Ministers Deputies to provide possible comments on Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) on the Role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights (Appendix 1). The CDLR adopted its comments in October 2010 (Appendix 2) and agreed to add the issue of the human rights at local level to the draft agenda of the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference.

This report has been drawn up by the CDLR Rapporteur to provide a basis for the CDLR at its meeting in September 2011 to prepare the discussion of human rights at local level at the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference on 3-4 November 2011 in Kyiv.

The protection of human rights is, of course, core business for the Council of Europe. The report aims both to provide some analytical elements on the specific topic of human rights at local level as well as to take a more operational perspective on the work that could usefully be done through the bodies of the Council of Europe, intergovernmental and other.

Given that the ministers responsible for local and regional government have competences encompassing responsibility for the legal framework, institutional structure, financing and supervision of local and regional government, it is clear they have an important role to play in the issue of “human rights at local level” at domestic level and also, should the Committee of Ministers so wish, at Council of Europe level.

As regards other Council of Europe bodies, notably the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress and the Conference of International NGOs, it must of course be underlined that they themselves, within the limits of the Statute and Committee of Ministers Resolutions, set their (political) agenda and decide the activities they undertake. This is only different in as far as monitoring is concerned, where the Congress has a specific mandate in respect of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, but no wider or other mandate. It is thus understood by all that the Congress cannot and does not intend to monitor, or on its monitoring visits to assess, the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities and that it will not duplicate the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

Before going into the more operational aspects of possible further work on human rights at local level, it is useful to recall some important legal and institutional aspects of the question of human rights at local level.

I. Legal and institutional aspects of human rights at local level

The question of human rights at local level touches on two important areas of work of the Council of Europe, both of which are at the heart of its mission. As in the field of human rights, the Council of Europe has developed an important pan-European “acquis” on local and regional government and it could therefore be said that the challenge of “human rights at local level” is to put into perspective these two important strands of work[2].

Though it could be thought surprising, it is nonetheless true that even today the issue of human rights at local level is still to a considerable extent a “terra incognita” for many of the 800 million Europeans, their local authorities and governments. Surprising, because, after all, it is so obvious that ensuring the day-to-day enjoyment of human rights depends strongly on the actions of local and regional authorities. It is through local and regional authorities that the great majority of public services are delivered and many of these public services are in fact essential for giving everyday meaning to human rights. One may think of housing, health-care, as well as education, policing and the conclusion of marriages to give but a few examples. Inversely, it is very difficult to imagine a situation of human rights being ensured and enjoyed where there are no local and regional authorities to provide the necessary services.

However, if one looks at the legal protection of human rights as provided by the Council of Europe, only two types of actors appear to be of relevance: states and individuals. Firstly, human rights are guaranteed in the form of treaties between states and secondly the principal object these treaties aim to protect is, albeit in different ways and notwithstanding also the existence of some collective rights, the individual human being.

The centre-piece of the pan-European legal acquis in the field of human rights is without doubt the European Convention on Human Rights to which all 47 member States of the Council of Europe are party. This convention and its protocols protect the civil and political rights of the individual, rights such as the right to life, the freedoms of expression and association, the right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture and of the death-penalty and non-discrimination. It also includes the obligation for states to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions that will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

Furthermore, all states have recognised the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to hear and decide cases brought by individuals asserting that their human rights have been violated. The status of this convention as a pan–European cornerstone for the protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy will be further enhanced when the European Union accedes to this instrument, a development currently actively pursued.

Of course, the Council of Europe’s acquis on human rights is not limited to the ECHR but extends to the field of social and economic rights as laid down in the European Social Charter, as well as to the rights of persons belonging to national minorities provided for in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Another instrument, less often mentioned in this context but important nonetheless, is the Convention for the participation of foreigners in public life at local level and for which the CDLR has a particular responsibility.

As said before, we must remember that international human rights are guaranteed by international treaties between states, and only states. This fact goes a long way to explaining the reasons why the role of local and regional authorities in the field of human rights has not yet been examined in depth from an international perspective. As a matter of international law, the state is one single entity and its internal administrative divisions a matter of its own sovereign power. It is for this reason that only states can be held to account before the European Court of Human Rights, only states are obliged to submit reports under the Social Charter, the Framework Convention and other international treaties and only states can be the subject of collective complaints under the Social Charter. Furthermore, it is well established as a matter of law that a state appearing before the Court of Human Rights cannot defend itself by claiming that a violation was committed by a local or regional authority. The state, as represented by the central government, is held liable under international law for the acts of all parts and levels of that state. Equally, a state cannot successfully defend itself before the European Court of Human Rights by arguing that the issues which are being complained about are as a matter of national or constitutional law outside its competence.

Thus, broadly speaking, the approach of international human rights law is that the institutional arrangements between different levels of government within a state are largely irrelevant. The individual’s rights are to be protected, against or by which part of the state is not to the point. Clearly, this approach easily combines with the rule of international law that leaves the division of competences between different levels of government to the state’s sovereign decision.

Should that approach be called into question?

Before trying to formulate an answer to this question, it is, having looked at human rights, time to examine a little more closely local and regional government, an area where the Council of Europe also has a considerable acquis.

As concerns local government, the Council of Europe’s main standards are set out in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The core concept in that instrument is the concept of local self-government, defined as follows:

“Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.” (Article 3 paragraph 1).

By providing that local authorities must have “a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility” the Charter ensures that notably central government (but the same may apply to higher regional authorities) may not limit the role of local authorities to mere executors of the decisions taken and policies elaborated without them. Of course, the degree and extent of competences entrusted to local authorities may and indeed does vary across Europe, also because of entirely objective factors such as the size of local authorities.

The Charter further provides, in Article 3 paragraph 3:

“Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibilities to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy."

Thus, the Charter in fact sets out the principle of subsidiarity. As the level closest to the citizens, local authorities are deemed to be best able to respond to the needs and priorities of the population, unless the size or nature of the task is such that it requires to be treated within a larger territorial area or there are overriding considerations of efficiency or economy.

In light of what was highlighted above, namely that as a matter of international law the institutional arrangements between different levels of government within a state are the sovereign domain of that state, it is easy to see the fundamental importance of the Charter’s provisions, because they actually do limit this sovereign freedom by the principle of local self-government and the principle of subsidiarity.

The question is now whether these principles have any bearing on the issue of human rights. So far we have seen that in legal terms the issue of local self-government has not been developed looking at the issue of human rights and that the protection of human rights has been developed without regard for the question of division of competences between different levels of government. Can it be that, upon reflection, these two simply have nothing to do with each other?

Let us have a closer look, by examining the role of the state. What is the role of the state in the field of human rights? Here we have to recognise the two possible faces of the state: the role of protector of human rights and the role of possible perpetrator of human rights violations. The law of human rights both poses prohibitions on the state in the way it conducts public affairs and imposes duties on the state to take measures in order to make the enjoyment of human rights possible. The state is not allowed to resort to torture or to abolish the freedom of expression, whilst it must also ensure there is a functioning judiciary, a system of education, a system of health care, protection against discrimination and so forth.

As regards the role of local authorities, it may be assumed that nobody would seek to argue that, as part of their right “to regulate and administer a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility”, local authorities should have the right to introduce torture as a practice, to suppress the freedom of expression or to introduce the death penalty. Such things have been outlawed and there is no reason why local and regional authorities should not conform to this.

In passing, it may be noted that there may be particularly thorny legal questions in the context of a federal state to ensure the respect of such minimum standards of human rights where, according to the constitution, the policy area concerned is under the exclusive competence of local or regional authorities. This is a question that may also need to be examined.

However, it is suggested that the main role of local and regional authorities comes out not when thinking of them as potential perpetrators of human rights violations, but when looking at all those measures that states, as a result of their international obligations, need to take in order to ensure the enjoyment of human rights, or what we would legally call positive obligations.

Such positive obligations arise from all the Council of Europe’s human rights instruments and it is these obligations that underlie, even though this is not explicitly recognised, very many of the functions and services provided by the state in general and by local and regional authorities in particular. This is also the area where there is most state discretion: international standards prohibit torture in all cases, but do not specify exactly the level of health care to be given, exactly what types and levels of language education should be provided, or the type of housing that is to be offered. It is therefore here that the actual enjoyment of human rights is most dependent on the efforts and choices made and it is here that for local and regional authorities “regulating and managing a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility” has most meaning. After all, it is they who are at the front-line of providing the great majority of public services in our member States. It is probably here that the connection between human rights and local and regional administration is clearest and strongest.

From the above it also follows that the ministers responsible for local and regional government with a remit encompassing the legal framework, institutional structure, financing and supervision of local and regional government have an important role to play in the issue of “human rights at local level”.

It is also clear that, to answer the question raised above, there is no need to change the approach of international human rights law in order to recognise a role for local and regional government in the field of human rights.

Following these more legal and institutional reflections, it is time to turn to the operational perspective

II. Human rights at local level – what is to be done by the Council of Europe?

The paragraphs above demonstrate clearly the link between human rights and local and regional (self-)government. It also shows that at the level of the individual state, local and regional authorities as well as ministers responsible for local and regional government have an important role to play. Indeed, as always it is at domestic level that the main work has to be done.

So what then of the role of the Council of Europe?

As set out in the introduction, the starting point for reflection must be that the various Council of Europe bodies decide for themselves if and what attention to give to the question of human rights at local level and how to go about it. Furthermore, it is clearly understood that the range of possible activities does not include monitoring or assessment of the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities nor duplication of the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

What should be done by the intergovernmental sector? That question, the apporteur suggests, should be discussed by Ministers at the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference in Kyiv. Indeed, that would be the central question for them to address under that item on the agenda and their discussions could result in recommendations to the Committee of Ministers.

In that approach it would be essential, of course, for Ministers to have at their disposal relevant information, notably concerning what has and is already being done in the area.

Without aiming to present an exhaustive list, it is suggested that Ministers attention should be drawn to the following:

1. As concerns the development of new standards, a draft for a Recommendation and Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on principles of good governance at local level were approved by the CDLR and sent to the Committee of Ministers for adoption. These principles crucially include as one of them “Human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion”.

At Kyiv Ministers could, depending on developments, welcome their adoption, or encourage the Committee of Ministers to adopt them.

2. The Ministers at their 15^th session in Valencia launched the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at local level, based on the principles of good governance at local level which are at the heart of the texts mentioned above.

Ministers could be given a presentation by one of the first cities in Europe to receive the European Level for Governance Excellence on the way this principle has been benchmarked in practice.

3. The Congress could be invited to provide information and make a presentation of its work on “the new local dimension of human rights”, including on its most recent report on human rights indicators which is currently still being prepared.

4. Ministers could be given a presentation of the joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission on Intercultural Cities.

5. Ministers could also be given a presentation by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union on the projects it is carrying out concerning human rights at local level.

6. Finally, it is suggested that to consider the question of possible follow-up to Congress Recommendation 280 (Appendix 1).

In this Recommendation the Congress recommended that the Committee of Ministers call on member States to take a range of steps and measures. In its comments on this Recommendation, requested by the Committee of Ministers, the CDLR recommended (Appendix 2): “that the Ministers’ Deputies invite the Congress to enter into a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities.”

In anticipation of such further dialogue the CDLR launched a survey among member States to see to what extent the measures envisaged by the Congress in its Recommendation 280 correspond to the existing situation in member States.

The results of this survey are appended (Appendix 3). They appear to show that few of the measures recommended by the Congress correspond to current practice in member States. This suggests there would still be quite a gap to bridge between what the Congress recommends and actual practice.

Meanwhile, the Committee of Ministers, on 6 July 2011, adopted its reply to the Congress in response to Recommendation 280 (Appendix 4). Whilst expressing interest and support for some of the measures recommended by the Congress, the Committee of Ministers does not envisage moving towards making any kind of recommendation to member States nor to take other action further to this Recommendation.

The suggestion by the CDLR to “invite the Congress to enter a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities” is not referred to in the CM’s reply. This raises the question whether a such dialogue is to be pursued.

In order to clarify this matter it is suggested that Ministerial Conference raises the question before the Committee of Ministers.

(Appendices 1, 2 and 4 appear later on as appendices 6, 7 and 10)

Appendix 3

Summary of replies to the questionnaire to member States

further to Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) on

the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights

I. GENERAL

A. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT[3]

1. Does your government have a policy view on or approach to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights, including making them aware of their responsibilities?

If so, please briefly describe the main features.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	Human rights coordinators at all federal ministries and all provincial government offices
Azerbaijan	X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X	But the Regional government does have targeted policies in key areas, (e.g.affordable housing, child care, inclusion of disabled persons)
Bulgaria	X		The National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria has become a full member of the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Issues and takes part in its meetings
Croatia		X	County human rights coordinating bodies; County and municipal commissions for gender equality
Czech Rep		X	LA’s implement specific central policy on national minorities, Roma and gender equality
Denmark		X
Estonia		X	HR addressed in many specific strategic documents
Finland		X	Public authorities at all levels shall guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights. A new national action plan is foreseen and will associate local and regional authorities.
France		X	Policy view not formally laid down, but local authorities are bound by international obligations on human rights and may, within their areas of competence take initiatives to promote human rights
Georgia		X
Ireland		X	No specific policy, but local authorities must act in manner compatible with ECHR.
Latvia		X	No specific policy, but local authorities must respect human rights
Lithuania	X		This approach is reflected in Government’s strategic planning documents
Luxemburg		X	Some specific topics (e.g. social assistance, foreigners voting, integration),
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But implementation of human rights through specific projects: FRA project
Norway		X	LA’s are bound by Norway’s international obligations in the field of human rights
Slovak Rep		X	There is Governmental council for Human Rights, National minorities and Gender Equality on which reps from LRA’s also sit
Slovenia		X	LA’s role clearly incorporated in policy views on HR topics such as Roma and national minorities
Spain	X		Role of Autonomous Communities and municipalities is part of the Human Rights Plan adopted in 2008
Switzerland		X	Centre de competence DH established 2011 – also for expert advice to LRA’s.
Turkey		X	But “Strategy on human rights” including LRA’s is being developed; Provincial and District human rights councils have been established

A2. Is or has the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights been the subject of any report, study or analysis carried out by your government?

If so, what were the main findings or conclusions?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	But measures at local and provincial level are included in state reports to UN and studies for FRA
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X
Bulgaria	X		The Ombudsman’s Reports including “New quality of life in municipalities. Good governance has respect for human rights”
Croatia		X
Czech Rep	X		For specific topics: Roma, gender equality
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X	But there are many reports, studies and analyses of a sectoral nature touching on human rights
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X	Implementation of human rights is analysed by ministries according to their competence
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia		X
Spain			As part of Human Rights Action Plan 2008
Switzerland	X		University study on Federalism as opportunity and challenge for implementation of human rights is being prepared (financed by public funds for research); periodic reports of Switzerland on the implementation of relevant conventions, particularly at the UN
Turkey

A3. Is or has the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights been a subject of discussion between your government and associations and/or representatives of local and regional government?

if so, which are the (main) points or issues addressed?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Often - has produced many measures
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X
Bulgaria		X
Croatia		X	Office for human rights meets with county coordinators
Czech Rep	X		On specific topics
Denmark		X	Not recently
Estonia	X		Education and securing basic public services have been discussed
Finland	X		Ongoing discussion of issues (health, social security) within local authorities’ competence. New and targeted dialogue related to preparation of national action plan on human rights.
France		X	Specific topics related to human rights can be raised in general framework of institutional dialogue
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia	X		Matters of adaptation of human rights are discussed with local authorities and their association
Lithuania	X		In the drafting of legal acts
Luxemburg	X		On specific topics mentioned above
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	Work with pilot cities
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia	X		Occasionally, when it affects local government Act, Act on local finance
Spain		X
Switzerland		X	There are regular contacts between LRA und LRG and the federal government. Issues of HR are discussed occasionally.
Turkey		X

B. ASSOCIATIONS OF LOCAL OR REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

Do the associations of local and regional authorities in your country have a policy view on or approach to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights?

If so, which are the (main) points or issues in this approach/policy view?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X	Association does inform LA’s about access to social services, housing etc local housing
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X	The Association encourages its members to take certain initiatives
Bulgaria		X	The National Association of Municipalities does work on application of the principles of good governance which includes human rights
Croatia		X
Czech Rep	X
Denmark		X
Estonia	X		Education and securing basic public services have been discussed
Finland	X		Association and local authorities have programmes and actions on equal treatment.
France			Associations take an interest in human rights, e.g. a recent agreement between the AMF (Association of Mayors of France) and the HALDE (High authority against discrimination)
Georgia	X		On specific topics: persons with disabilities and IDP’s.
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X	But association is aware of LRA role
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But developing tools on specific issues (non-discrimination, integration) and Roma platform. ELDW
Norway		X	Human rights issues mainstreamed into sectoral policies
Slovak Rep	X		implementation of human rights defined in the associations’ statutes
Slovenia		X	But encouraging LA’s to promote – working groups, dissemination of information
Spain		X
Switzerland		X	Such associations are involved in the committee of the Centre de Compétence for Human Rights; furthermore the implementation of HR is often achieved on a local and regional level.
Turkey		X

C. LOCAL OR REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

Are you aware of individual local and regional authorities in your country that have a policy on or approach to the implementation of human rights within their sphere of competence? If so, please give some brief information.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Graz human rights council; Salzburg: HR coordinators in Provincial offices
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Different LA’s e.g. as concerns children’s rights
Belgium - GS –		X	Some LA’s have a youth Council
Belgium – WA –		X	Provinces and local authorities act independently and focus on certain topics such as child welfare, housing etc.
Bulgaria	X		Bulgarian municipalities apply different measures and approaches for the implementation and protection of human rights within their sphere of competence
Croatia	X		Zagreb – protection of vulnerable groups
Czech Rep	X		On specific topics
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland	X		Association and local authorities have programmes to promote the integration of immigrants and on the reception of asylum seekers.
France	X		e.g. Paris and Bordeaux on non-discrimination and equality; more generally local authorities contribute to the realisation of human rights in the areas of their competence (e.g. social assistance, housing)
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X	But there is a general awareness
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But Min of Int is working on it with LA’s
Norway	X		e.g. 100 Mayors signed CoE Declaration against trafficking, 40 LRA’s adhered to CEMR’s Charter on Equality between Women and Men in Local Life, LA’s in Troms county work on implementation UN Convention on Childeren’s Rights
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia	-	-
Spain	X		Several Autonomous Communities include human rights in their Statutes; special policies and practices e.g. in Barcelona and Zaragoza.
Switzerland		x
Turkey		X

II. FUNDING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 3a)

In the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities (e.g. in the allocation of grants and/or the calculation of equalisation funding) is the proper implementation of human rights taken into account explicitly?

If so, in which way?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X	But in the context of specific actions the government may provide special financial support
Bulgaria	-	-
Croatia		X
Czech Rep		X
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	Central government earmarking not deemed desirable
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		Grants for inter alia enforcement, support and protection of human rights, prevention of discrimination, inter-ethnical/religious dialogue
Slovenia	X		Grants for national minorities and Roma
Spain		X
Switzerland		X	The allocation of resources is not top-down, but bottom-up, according to the principle of subsidiarity. As a result, local and regional authorities are themselves competent to levy taxes to implement human rights.
Turkey		X	General grants system

2. If not, have proposals to this effect ever been made, by the government, or by associations of local and regional authorities.

3. In the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities, is the cost of effectively carrying out the monitoring of compliance with human rights taken into account?

4. If not, have proposals to this effect ever been made by the government or by associations of local and regional authorities?

III. AWARENESS RAISING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 3c)

Does your government encourage local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights? In which way?

- for example through awareness-raising initiatives or

- through local and regional action plans

- through other instruments (please specify)?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Various facilities
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		By different agencies and authorities of the region
Belgium - GS –		X	But some specific campaign (e.g. on children)
Belgium – WA –		X	But Regional Government has ”specific structures” dedicated to the needs of different groups
Bulgaria	-	-
Croatia	X		Not directly, but county coordinators and OHR raise awareness
Czech Rep	X		Gvt Council for Roma, grants for social workers/Roma mediators
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland	X		A national human rights action plan is to be developed. Association and Ministry of Social affairs have given recommendations on prevention of domestic violence
France		X	promotional work and awareness raising is carried out by independent bodies (HALDE, Asce)
Georgia		X	HR awareness raising entrusted to Public Defender’s Office
Ireland		X	Support given to local authorities in sectoral programmes; awareness campaigns on voter registration held nationally; Irish Human Rights Commission provides training and education, including to local authorities
Latvia		X
Lithuania	X		Through local and regional action plans
Luxemburg		X	No need in general – some on specific topics
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands			Local Antidiscrimination Offices
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		LA’s can get grants
Slovenia	X		Through different documents, the ombudsman and the system of education
Spain	X		Through the Human Rights Action Plan
Switzerland	X		Centre (see above) supports LA’s in human rights field
Turkey	X		Awareness raising initiatives and training programmes

IV. INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS MECHANISMS

(See Congress Recommendation 280(210) under 3d)

Does you country have independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level, for example ombudspersons, able to find remedies in cases where human rights are not fully respected, including in the delivery of public services at the local and regional level?

If the local level is of a too small scale, how are such complaints mechanisms organised?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Office of Ombudspersons will have competence on human rights; also provincial ombudspersons
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Regional ombudsman and several local Ombudsservices
Belgium - GS –			Ombudsman – may deal with HR issues
Belgium – WA –	X		Mediator that reports to the Parliament, with offices in provinces. Cities of more than 60.000 inhabitants also hav a mediator.
Bulgaria	X		Ombudsman and municipal councils may elect a public mediator
Croatia		X	National ombudsman and specialised ombuds
Czech Rep		X	National ombudsman and courts
Denmark		X	Parliamentary Ombudsman
Estonia		X	Local ombudsman only in Tallinn; National Chancellor of Justice (=ombudsman) and Equal treatment commissioner, courts
Finland		X	Parliamentary Ombudsman and courts
France	X		Local authorities may establish mediation and counseling mechanisms; also unified national mechanism exists (Le Defenseur des droits)
Georgia		X	Public Defender has jurisdiction over LRA’s
Ireland		X	Protection mechanisms at national level: Irish Human Rights Commission, Equality Authority, Equality Tribunal and Office of the Ombudsman
Latvia		X	(national)Ombudsman, Administrative Courts, Constitutional Court
Lithuania		X	There is a Parliament Ombudsman for the investigation of activities of officials of municipal institutions and agencies
Luxemburg		X	Country is small – just one national Mediator
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands	X		Local anti-discrimination offices; also National Ombudsman; Children’s Ombudsman; Equal treatment commission: maybe: national Committee of Human Rights
Norway	X		Some municipalities have ombudspersons for certain administrative areas; also three national Ombudspersons: Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ombudsman for Children, Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud
Slovak Rep		X	Slovak National Center for Human Rights, Ombudsman and Centre of legal support: all have regional offices
Slovenia	X		Municipal complaints commissions; ombudsman healthcare (not all municipalities)
Spain	X		Big cities have (compulsory) Special Committee governing suggestions and complaints, some municipalities have an Ombudsman and there are regional Ombudsmen in 13 Autonomous Regions
Switzerland	X		Ombudsman; officers for the protection of data at cantonal and federal level; recourse can be had, ultimately, the Tribunal Federal
Turkey	X		Provincial and district committees of human rights

V. MONITORING AT LOCAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 4)

Does your country have ways of encouraging local and regional authorities to create appropriate structures and procedures in order to facilitate the monitoring of the human rights situation at local and regional level?

If not, has your country considered such an approach?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	No need
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X
Bulgaria	X		Public mediators eklected by municipal councils
Croatia		X	Monitoring done by county-coordinators
Czech Rep		X
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X	National bodies (HALDE and Asce) draw up reports and make recommendations
Georgia		X	Carried out by public defender
Latvia		X
Ireland		X
Lithuania		X	As part of the administrative supervision, the government representative in the county watches over implementation of human rights by local authorities
Luxemburg		X	Would be disproportionate to size of country
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X	support of monitoring concentrated on not-for-profit sector
Slovenia		X
Switzerland	X		Cantonal constitutions must be guaranteed by the Federal Assembly, this garantie is granted only if human rights are respected.
Spain		X
Turkey		X

VI. CITIZEN ADVISORY SERVICES

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 4)

Does your country have arrangements to provide citizens with sufficient support and advice to exercise their rights?

If so, please briefly describe the main features.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Provincial ombudspersons
Azerbaijan	X		Ombudsman, state and local bodies according to their activity
Belgium - FL -	X		By ombudspersons
Belgium - GS –	X		Ombudsman
Belgium – WA –	X		via mediation service (see above) and continuous readiness of local elected representatives to listen
Bulgaria	X		Ombudsman, public mediator, different non-governmental organisations
Croatia	-	-
Czech Rep	X		General responsibility and some LRA’s have specialized body
Denmark	X		Municipalities may establish and finance a position of consultative local citizen advisor
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France	X		National and local web-sites as well as mediation and other mechanisms provide citizens with information
Georgia	X		Task of Public Defender
Ireland	X		Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) and Office of the Ombudsman
Latvia	X		Local Authorities’ can be asked to give information about mechanisms for the protection of rights; Ombudsman and others give information on web-pages
Lithuania	X		Local authorities provide primary legal aid guaranteed by the State. Citizens can ask their municipal juridical unit for help.
Luxemburg	X		National Mediator
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands	X		Mechanisms under IV give advice
Norway	X		Mechanisms under IV give advice
Slovak Rep			“Ombudspot”-network of extrajudicial customer centers
Slovenia	X		All state and local organs obliged to give information necessary to implement human rights; Free legal assistance for those who cannot afford
Spain	X		Charter of Rights of Citizens to Justice and 2008 Human Rights Plan
Switzerland	X		Lawyers and other private and public institutions offer free consultation.
Turkey	X		District and Provincial Committees of Human Rights are responsible for guiding citizens. Most bars have special committees for guidance.

VII. ENSURING NON-DISCRIMINATION

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 5)

Do arrangements exist in your country to ensure that local and regional authorities comply with the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation of human rights?

If so, please briefly describe them.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Under general anti-discrimination law and supervision
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Supervision by Flemish region; citizen can go to court
Belgium - GS –	X		General principle of non-discrimination applies
Belgium – WA –	X		Government can exercise administrative control over local authorities act contrary to human rights (e.g. access to social housing, training for employment etc.)
Bulgaria	X		Constitution and Protection against Discrimination Act apply to LRA’s; Commission for Protection against Discrimination can deal with cases against local authorities.
Croatia	X		Anti-discrimination act applies to local and regional authorities
Czech Rep	X		HR Charter and Anti-discrimination Act applies to all LRA’s
Denmark	-	-
Estonia	X		LA’s under jurisdiction Equal treatment commissioner
Finland	X		Local and regional authorities must apply and respect the law
France	X		Protection provided by Le Defenseur des droits (see also iv above)
Georgia	X		LRA’s subject to the law
Ireland	X		LA’s must comply with national equality legislation
Latvia	X		Administrative appeal, court, Ombudsman
Lithuania	X		Non-discrimination principles defined in legal acts
Luxemburg	X		Law applies to LA’s; no specific mechanism
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands			Discriminatory decisions may be quashed by Royal Decree
Norway	X		Non-discrimination is monitored by national authorities within the framework of the legal system
Slovak Rep			Under anti-discrimination Act; General Direction for Human Rights and Equal Treatment of Governmental Office has main function
Slovenia	X		The principles of non-discrimination (as mentioned in A1) are also implemented at local level.Supervison by different state organs, including Advocate for promotion of equal opportunities.
Spain		X
Switzerland	X		Possibility to raise a judicial complaint
Turkey	X		District and Provincial Committees of Human Rights

VIII. TRAINING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 6b)

Is training on human rights provided to local and regional elected representatives and the staff of local and regional authorities? If so, please briefly describe the arrangements and content.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		By HR coordinators provincial offices
Azerbaijan	X		By Ombudsman and government bodies
Belgium - FL -	X		Some local authorities provide this for their staff
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium – WA –		X	But constant awareness raising through journals of the Association and by local associations
Bulgaria	-	-
Croatia	X		By county-coordinators
Czech Rep	X		By ministry of the interior
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X	No specific training; human rights are part and parcel of normal municipal action
France	X		Optional training on non-discrimination and human rights related issues is provided by/through the CNFPT (National Training Centre)
Georgia	X		By and in cooperation with donor organisations
Ireland	X		Training for civil and public service, including LA’s, made available by IHRC
Latvia		X
Lithuania	X		Lithuanian Institute of public administration gives training to municipal civil servants, including on non-discrimination and equal opportunities
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		Some training is available, but limited resources
Slovenia	?	?	Is part of civil servants training; also sometimes part of management training
Spain	X		An annual Human Rights course is open to officials from all levels of government
Switzerland	X		Human rights training is part of many professional curricula. Providing training to members and staff of authorities is also a role of the newly created Centre de compétences
Turkey	X		Provided by Ministry of the Interior and associations of local and regional authorities

APPENDIX 2

Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy
Stockholm/Sigtuna, Sweden 13–15 June 2007
Hosted by Sveriges Riksdag – the Swedish Parliament, the Government of Sweden and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions

Forum for the Future of Democracy
Conclusions by the General Rapporteurs

1. The Forum for the Future of Democracy is an inclusive process under the auspices of the Council of Europe, associating all main stakeholders of a genuine democratic society (parliaments, governments, local and regional authorities, civil society, media and academia), aimed at the promotion of democracy at all levels across the continent and furthering pan-European reflection on its multifarious aspects. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers, the Congress, the INGO Conference and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) play a leading role in this ongoing process. It is open to the active participation of the European Union, the OSCE and other international partners. Following the decision on its establishment by the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government in Warsaw, in May 2005, the Forum, with its annual sessions is steadily becoming a permanent feature of the European political landscape.

2. Since the previous session in Moscow, in October 2006, devoted to the role of political parties in the building of democracy, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution containing key elements for a Code of Good Practices for Political Parties and calling on the Venice Commission to elaborate such a code. Civic participation, which was the theme of the launch meeting of the Forum in Warsaw, in November 2005, has, for its part, been central to the current concerns of the INGO Conference of the Council of Europe.

3. The third session of the Forum, held in Stockholm and Sigtuna (Sweden), from 13 to 15 June 2007, under the general title “Power and empowerment - the interdependence of democracy and human rights”, addressed issues such as the role and responsibilities of the opposition, representative democracy at the local and regional level, empowerment of the individual and non-discrimination, respect for freedom of expression and association for civil society, and fostering democracy, human rights and social networks. This session has laid emphasis on new forms of dialogue and innovative methods.

4. The process will be carried forward at the next sessions of the Forum. It is essential that all stakeholders involved in this process combine their efforts to define the most efficient ways of transforming the output of the Forum’s sessions into concrete action.

5. The interdependence between democracy and human rights is enshrined in the Statute of the Council of Europe to which 47 European states have subscribed. This interdependence is underscored in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which is, today, a constitutional cornerstone of European public order.

6. Democracy is not only about casting a ballot every few years. Without an open debate and freedom for people to meet and organise, the formal requirement of free and fair elections would be meaningless. Human rights, such as freedom of expression and association, are not only conditions of a democratic system of governance based on the rule of law, but are also best protected within such a system. Civil and political rights interrelate with economic, social and cultural rights. They are part of the same whole; they are indivisible. Democracy is the best form of government for all human rights.

The role and responsibilities of the opposition

7. The Forum emphasised there could be no strong democracy without a strong opposition. The strength of opposition is an essential element for measuring the quality of democracy. Every country has a government; only democracies have an opposition.

8. Establishing a fair legal framework and material conditions enabling the opposition parties in parliament to have the means to fulfil their functions is a prerequisite for the good functioning of parliamentary democracy. Among the means of securing the existence of an effective and responsible opposition in parliament is the possibility for opposition parties to chair key committees with control functions, such as finance committees, as well as to set up investigative bodies, to initiate draft legislation, to contribute to the drafting of the order of business of parliament and to call the ruling majority to order.

9. The critical evaluation of government action is one of the essential tasks of the opposition and contributes to the quality of the political debate, thereby improving the capacity of the government and the majority to manage public affairs in the public interest as a whole.

10. Both the majority and the opposition have every interest to keep in mind that no one belongs to the majority or to the opposition for ever and that a majority will sooner or later be part of the opposition and vice versa. Hence, it is in the interest of the majority not to take decisions before the opposition has had the opportunity to scrutinise proposals and put forward alternatives. Conversely, the opposition should not perceive its role as a mere mechanism of obstruction and should contribute substantially to the decision-making process.

11. The lack of a strong opposition in parliament may lead to a form of extra-parliamentary opposition in which protests may be expressed in violent forms on the streets, thus diminishing the quality and relevance of the parliamentary debate and affecting the decision-making process as a whole. One means of avoiding situations in which opposition is essentially extra-parliamentary is to lower the thresholds for parliamentary representation. In a developed democracy, thresholds should be low, in order for the rights of all citizens and all political views and interests to be represented in parliament.

12. Opposition is not simply a question of party politics. In a healthy democracy, opposition cuts across party lines to embrace issues on which members of both the majority and the opposition have the courage to challenge their party’s main positions.

Systematic and structured work on Human Rights and Democracy

13. Respect for human rights cannot be dissociated from democracy and good governance. The Forum welcomed the initiative of the Parliamentary Assembly to hold the first annual debate on the State of Human Rights and Democracy in Europe, at its 2007 April part-session, and expected that the Resolution and Recommendation adopted on this occasion would be acted upon at both national and European levels.

14. Public authorities should seek ways to secure the systematic implementation and monitoring of human rights and democracy at the different territorial levels, in a structured and comprehensive approach.

15. National human rights action plans can be a tool for identifying problems and weak areas on a regular basis in order to address these in a constructive manner (possibly by means of indicators of performance), as well as identifying strengths and good practices which can be celebrated and disseminated. As such, they are a powerful instrument for mainstreaming a human rights perspective into governance, including the gender perspective and the empowerment of groups in vulnerable situations. Different actors, such as NGOs and national human rights institutions, should be involved in all such processes at an early stage and on a regular basis. The Council of Europe should contribute to these efforts by preparing a base-line study on the added value of national human rights action plans and the possible use of human rights indicators.

16. Council of Europe member states might usefully consider developing links between their own national human rights action plans and the Parliamentary Assembly’s annual evaluation of the State of Human Rights and Democracy, including mechanisms for feeding the results and findings back into the national processes. The Forum encourages national parliaments to hold regular debates on the findings of the Assembly’s assessments and identify appropriate remedial action.

17. Decentralisation processes and the transfer of competences from central governments are making local and regional authorities increasingly important actors for the defence of human rights. They place greater responsibilities on them to respect human rights in the exercise of their functions, in particular by responding to the people’s needs in terms of housing, education, health, environment etc. Therefore, it is important to mainstream a human rights perspective into governance at the local and regional level. In addition, local and regional authorities are urged to engage in action plans for human rights and to consider elaborating indicators for their implementation.

18. Independent national human rights institutions, including Ombudsmen and national Human Rights Commissions, are crucial partners in the development and implementation of national action plans. Their action could be amplified through the establishment of similar institutions at local and regional level, bringing them closer to the people. The Council of Europe, and particularly the Congress and the Commissioner for Human Rights, could further engage in promoting the creation of offices of local and regional ombudspersons and enhancing networking efforts and exchanges of experience between them.

19. The Forum pays tribute to the efforts of the Council of Europe and its Commissioner for Human Rights in promoting the establishment of national human rights institutions in member states as non-judicial means for the effective protection of human rights. It encourages the Council of Europe to further promote similar institutions with specific mandates, for example, for the protection of children or other groups in vulnerable situations.

20. The Forum calls on national policy-makers to enhance their democracy strategies. This would mark the beginning of a more systematic effort to structure national initiatives aimed at promoting democratic development and thereby ensure a more coherent and concerted approach. In this context, the proposal of the Parliamentary Assembly to draw up guidelines on the elimination of democratic deficits in the functioning of democratic institutions could offer a useful reference tool. The development of indicators for the quality of democracy should also be considered in this context. The Venice Commission is encouraged to pursue this matter.

21. People have the right to manage their own affairs at the local level. The European Charter of Local Self-Government lays down the fundamental principles governing the framework within which this right can be exercised. The Congress is encouraging elected representatives at the local and regional level to make a difference in enhancing human rights and democracy in their respective territorial communities.

22. The Council of Europe’s proposed new strategy for innovation and good governance at local level holds promise. It aims to place the individual at the heart of democratic institutions and processes and to incite local authorities constantly to improve their governance in accordance with twelve principles. The strategy should inter alia promote a more effective dialogue and consultation between civil society and elected representatives at all levels. In each member state an action plan for good governance at the local level should be drawn up. A quality label of good governance certifying respect of standards will recognise the efforts made by local authorities. The Forum, which involves all partners, could offer a useful platform for examining the progress achieved in the implementation of the strategy.

23. The sovereignty of the people should not be limited to the election day. Elements of direct democracy should therefore be integrated into the democratic process. At the same time, participation should not be limited to nationals as excluding a large number of people from democratic citizenship is highly detrimental to the representative character of democracy and thus to the democratic process as a whole.

24. The increasing difficulties of individual states to find solutions to the global challenges facing today’s societies, inevitably results in disappointment and further indifference towards democracy at local, regional and national levels. This can be countered by the development of transnational democratic processes which transcend the “nation state” and which would draw their legitimacy from the existing levels of power (local, regional and national). The Forum could serve as a platform for further reflection on that subject.

25. Education for democratic citizenship and human rights is an essential element for empowering the individual and for combating discrimination. All stakeholders of the Forum should actively participate in concerted action to promote education for democratic citizenship and human rights. The Council of Europe should intensify its efforts in elaborating instruments and tools to this effect, building on its earlier efforts in this field.

26. It is vital to promote a culture of democracy and human rights among children and young people, as attitudes and behaviour are shaped at an early stage and can be decisive in determining their future involvement in public affairs. The Forum calls on all stakeholders to implement the Council of Europe Charter on the Participation of Young People in Public Life at Local and Regional Level, which offers an excellent basis for such action.

27. Information and communication technologies can be a powerful tool for the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy. They have the potential to create more transparent and responsive government and to facilitate participatory democracy. Human rights should be respected in a digital as well as in a non-digital environment and should not be subject to restrictions other than those provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights simply because communication is carried in digital form. E-governance policies, embedded in an appropriate regulatory framework, should enhance democracy and respect human rights with a view to empowering all individuals, in particular those in vulnerable situations.

28. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that increased participation will not be brought about simply as a consequence of progress in information and communication technologies. The growing feeling of political discontent and disaffection among people must be addressed, if such technologies are to facilitate the empowerment and participation of individuals.

29. The Forum welcomed the proposal that the next session in Madrid, in 2008, should examine the issue of e-governance and e-democracy and further noted in this connection the ongoing work of the Council of Europe, including that of the Parliamentary Assembly, on e-democracy and e-voting.

Empowering the individual through non-discrimination

30. Equality between citizens is a fundamental principle of any genuine democracy. In reality, however, in Europe today not everyone appears to be given the same opportunities to get their causes heard and to have their interests represented in decision-making processes. Visible and invisible barriers of different kinds appear to make it difficult for persons in vulnerable situations - in particular on grounds of ethnic origin, religion, social condition, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or age - to plead their own case and to participate in public affairs on equal terms.

31. Efforts to facilitate and encourage participation by all persons in society must be based on a human rights perspective. People who are socially, economically, culturally or otherwise marginalised are usually less able to claim and exercise their civil and political rights. Realisation of all human rights is therefore crucial to people’s chances of assuming control of their own lives – to empowerment and effective participation in democratic processes. Therefore, concrete measures to overcome discrimination and to promote effective access by all to human rights should be central to human rights policies and action plans.

32. The Council of Europe has developed legal instruments, monitoring mechanisms and awareness-raising initiatives designed to underscore the central objective of combating discrimination. These include such instruments as Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR, the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the Campaigns “All Different – All Equal” and Dosta (for the rights of Roma communities), as well as the forthcoming White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. Member States should make the optimal use of these tools to consolidate their own action to eradicate all forms of discrimination.

33. The Forum invited the Council of Europe to pursue its ongoing efforts to combat all forms of discrimination by continuing its “All Different – All Equal” Campaign on a longer-term basis and by targeting it towards different groups of persons in vulnerable situations. It invited all stakeholders of the Forum process to contribute to this.

Representative democracy and civil society at local, regional and national level

34. Participatory democracy complements representative democracy in involving the people in decision-making processes. New forms of political engagement are not an alternative to elected representation but can contribute to empowerment and enhanced support to the democratic process as a whole. Authorities should respect and support the role of a broad and free civil society; they should engage in dialogue based on transparency.

35. The Forum calls on the INGO Conference of the Council of Europe to follow up actively the proposals made at previous Forum sessions to elaborate a Code of Good Practice for Civic Participation. The Code should be addressed to public authorities and civil society in all Council of Europe member states and should cover questions such as equal opportunities to set up NGOs, mechanisms for NGO participation in decision-making processes and other forms of citizens’ involvement.

36. The Forum expects that the Recommendation on the legal status of non-governmental organisations, to be adopted soon by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, will offer an effective framework for the smooth and equal development of the activities of the civil society sector in all Council of Europe member states. The INGO Conference could play a significant role in promoting and assessing the implementation of the recommendation in member states.

37. The Forum stressed the crucial importance of the work of human rights defenders in protecting and promoting human rights at the grass roots level and in engaging in human rights advocacy, sometimes at serious risk for their physical integrity and lives, as acknowledged by the Third Summit, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Congress and other actors. The Forum urged all competent national and international authorities to engage all necessary action to ensure that human rights defenders can perform their mission in full security and independence.

38. The Forum expressed its appreciation to the Swedish authorities for the excellent organisation and innovative methods of the 2007 session and its gratitude for their hospitality. The Forum welcomed the invitation by the Spanish authorities to hold the 2008 session of the Forum in Madrid.

APPENDIX 3

Joint declaration of the SALAR and the Congress of the Council of

Europe, in co-operation with the Commissioner for Human Rights of

the Council of Europe

We, local and regional decision makers in Europe and representatives of the Congress of the Council of Europe, meeting in Stockholm on 6 October 2008 for the seminar on “Systematic Work for Human Rights - a challenge to local/regional politics”, organised in the perspective of the International Conference on Human Rights on 6-7 November 2008,

Recognizing the special role that local and regional authorities have in the effective implementation of human rights;

Considering that this year marks the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirmed the universal value of human rights to which the member states of the Council of Europe are deeply committed;

Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Social Charter, have been the basis for the creation of human rights protection systems of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and other organisations;

Bearing in mind the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Considering that this year marks also the 20th Anniversary of the entry into force of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which laid down the principles of local democracy as a constituent element of any democratic system;

Noting the efforts made by the Congress to implement and to strengthen local and regional democracy across Europe, and the Congress action in reinforcing the respect for human rights at local level;

Bearing in mind the Conclusions of the Forum for the Future of Democracy in Stockholm/Sigtuna 2007;

Acknowledging the work of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure a systematic approach to human rights at all levels;

Welcoming the active interest for the topic and further work expressed in particular by the Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR), the Committee of the Regions, the European Institute of Ombudsmen, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), and the International Permanent Secretariat Human Rights and Local Governments (IPSHR);

Recalling the Warsaw Declaration adopted by the Third Summit of Heads of States and Governments of the Council of Europe in May 2005, in which member states committed themselves to pursuing their work to implement human rights standards;

1. Reaffirm that effective democracy and good governance at all levels are essential for creating sustainable societies where people can enjoy a good quality of life and effective participation;

2. Emphasise that democracy and human rights are interdependent and that the improvement of local and regional democracy, as the cornerstone of democracy itself, must be considered both as a tool and a core objective of European countries in implementing human rights in a better way in our societies;

3. Believe that an unconditional compliance with fundamental rights is a prerequisite for good governance;

4. Call for concerted action between all tiers of government, including local and regional, to eradicate all forms of intolerance and discrimination, and to build cohesive societies in Europe based on respect for human rights;

5. Consider that local and regional authorities must play a more substantial part in the implementation of human rights within the scope of local self-government as laid down in the European Charter of Local Self-Government;

6. Emphasise the need for both a judicial and extra-judicial monitoring of human rights implementation;

7. Recognise the importance of an enhanced co-operation in this area between the Congress and the other Council of Europe human rights bodies, in particular the Commissioner for Human Rights;

8. Recognize that the full implementation of some human rights by local and regional authorities calls for financial resources which are not available everywhere, and that such needs must be taken into account at the national and international level;

9. Request full support from the representatives of governments, international organisations and civil society, who will be meeting at the International Conference on Human Rights organised in Stockholm (6-7 November 2008), and ask them to take the following proposals into serious consideration in their forthcoming action plan, and to consult local and regional authorities:

a) to make local and regional authorities aware of their responsibilities regarding human rights’implementation and also aware of the possibilities which a rights-based governance offers;

b) to actively involve civil society in human rights planning and implementation at all levels;

c) to encourage local and regional authorities to promote the respect for human rights through awareness-raising campaigns (for the rights of vulnerable people-including children’s rights- and gender equality for instance), and through local/ regional action plans;

d) to ensure that local and regional authorities guarantee equal access to public services for all, citizens and non citizens, without discrimination towards any individuals, and the preservation of their social rights;

e) to make sure that local and regional authorities act in full compliance with fundamental rights, in particular in the area of data protection;

f) to promote and support the establishment and development of good methods of implementation, such as independent ombudsmen or human rights co-ordinators, at local and regional level;

g) to ensure that, in the implementation of the European Strategy on Innovation and Good Governance at local level, adopted by the Council of Europe, the inherent human rights dimension is effectively taken into account;

h) to create appropriate structures or procedures to facilitate effective monitoring and remedy of cases where fundamental rights are not fully respected in the delivery of local public services;

i) to foster respect for human rights through systematic training of local authorities elected representatives and staff, as well as of independent monitoring bodies, to make them aware of their responsibilities regarding compliance with human rights.

10. Suggest that the Congress prepare a monitoring report on the follow-up to these proposals.

APPENDIX 4

The Congress
of Local and Regional Authorities

18 ^th SESSION

CG(18)6
1^st March 2010

The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights

Institutional Committee

Rapporteur: Lars O MOLIN, Sweden (L , EPP/CD[4])

Summary

This report is part of the Congress' ongoing activity in the human rights field. Inter alia, it takes stock of the place of human rights in local and regional authorities, of those authorities' responsibilities in this respect, and also of the cost that the implementation of human rights may entail for a city or a region.

The report notes some good practices found in member states’ local and regional authorities and makes some recommendations to member states and their authorities as well as to the Congress with a view to the effective practical implementation of human rights, which is a precondition for any democracy.

A. Draft Resolution[5]

1. The Council of Europe is the authoritative pan-European organisation where it comes to protecting and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

2. Whereas it is the intergovernmental sector which is chiefly concerned by the implementation of the commitments made by member states in these areas, the principle of subsidiarity means that Europe's local and regional authorities also have a key role to play in the day-to-day application of the fundamental values of democracy and human rights.

3. Protecting and promoting human rights is a responsibility shared by all the different tiers of authority within each Council of Europe member state. Because of the close relationship between citizens and their elected representatives at this level, local and regional bodies are best placed to analyse the human rights situation, identify the relevant problems and take action to solve them.

4. The Congress points out that it is on the ground, in regions, cities and neighborhoods, as close as possible to people’s everyday lives, that human rights need to be nurtured. The way in which the Council of Europe is organised, with its three distinct but complementary pillars of the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, represents an unparalleled step forward for local and regional democracy, providing scope for a multi-tiered approach to human rights.

5. The powers and responsibilities of local and regional authorities are increasingly varied and complex. They take one-off or more general decisions relating in particular to education, housing, health, the environment and law and order, which are directly or indirectly connected with human rights and can affect the enjoyment of human rights by citizens.

6. In this connection, as the political assembly bringing together Europe’s local and regional elected representatives, the Congress can make an invaluable contribution to the pooling of information and experience and the recording of good practices in the human rights sphere. Since there is no standard blueprint for implementing human rights at local and regional level, the Congress could create as a first step a toolkit of the methods available, which could be adapted to local circumstances.

7. The Congress is also an ideal forum in which to raise awareness about human rights issues among local and regional political leaders and government officials. The main means of prompting local and regional authorities to take responsibility for human rights is the systematic training of political leaders and the dissemination of reliable information among citizens about their rights (particularly among vulnerable groups).

8. The Congress invites local and regional authorities to set up appropriate bodies or procedures for effective monitoring of human rights situations and for rectifying the situation where fundamental rights are not fully respected, particularly during the provision of public services.

9. In view of the foregoing and referring to its joint declaration with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) adopted on 6 October 2008, the Congress calls on local and regional authorities:

a. to act with full regard for fundamental rights, particularly with regard to data protection;

b. to contribute the national elaboration of indicators to facilitate the measurement of the fulfillment of human rights at local and regional level and to take part in the drafting of national plans to secure and promote human rights. On the basis of the problems and remedies identified in the course of these planning measures, local and regional authorities will be able to analyse the local human rights situation regularly and refer, where appropriate, to central government;

c. to promote the establishment at local level of independant complaints mechanisms, such as of an accessible and independent decentralised ombudsman's office, designed to deal with allegations of infringements of individual’s rights;

d. to foster human rights training for local elected representatives and government officers so that they can identify and deal with human rights issues in the course of their activities;

e. to promote processes of consultation, enabling all participants in local public life to exchange information on the human rights situation and arrive at concerted responses to problems that arise;

f. to guarantee equal access to public services for all citizens and non-citizens without discrimination against anyone, while ensuring that social rights are upheld;

g. where education, health or social services are being privatised, to introduce a system to make the services concerned accountable for their actions and to establish a quality control system;

h. to examine local government budgets from a human rights perspective so that human rights are afforded suitable attention when priority needs are being decided on.

10. The Congress instructs its Institutional Committee to assess the human rights situation systematically on its visits to monitor implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. It also asks the other Congress committees to take account of human rights during their respective activities.

11. The Congress also instructs its Institutional Committee to produce a five-yearly report on the human rights situation at local and regional level in each of the Council of Europe member states.

B. Draft Recommendation[6]

1. The Congress recalls that:

a. the primary aim of the Council of Europe is to create, throughout the European continent, a common area based on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

b. democracy and human rights are interdependent. Democracy, including at the local and regional level, cannot exist without an unconditional respect for human rights;

c. local and regional authorities must comply with the human rights duties which stem from the international commitments of the member states, albeit only within their local/regional competences;

d. local and regional authorities are not only agents of central government – they secure human rights at the same time as they fulfil local self-government;

e. good governance is rights-based governance. Complying with human rights duties is a challenge with potential of strengthening democracy at the local level.

2. The Congress has a distinctive role to play within the Council of Europe as it provides a forum where elected representatives can discuss common problems, share their experience and develop policies. It works to strengthen democracy through its monitoring activities.

3. In order to better secure the concrete implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities, the Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers call on all member states to:

a. ensure that the allocation of financial resources to local authorities is set at an appropriate level to ensure the proper implementation of human rights, and that monitoring compliance with these rights can be ensured effectively;

b. associate representatives of local and regional authorities in the drafting of national human rights' strategies, policies and indicators, in order to have their input and make them aware of their responsibilities in the implementation of human rights;

c. encourage local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights through awareness-raising initiatives and through local and regional action plans;

d. encourage the setting up of independent complaints’ mechanisms at local and regional level, and in particular to create independent bodies such as local or regional ombudspersons, or mediators, able to find remedies to cases where human rights are not fully respected, in particular in the delivery of local public services.

e. involve civil society organisations in the planning and implementation of activities for the protection of human rights at all levels.

4. The Congress notes that the best way to effectively secure the protection of human rights is to take measures on the basis of a regular, comprehensive and accurate review of the situation. Therefore, the Congress asks the Committee of Ministers to invite member states to consider ways of encouraging local and regional authorities to create appropriate structures and procedures in order to facilitate effective monitoring of the human rights situation at local and regional level. There is no standard solution for implementing human rights at local and regional levels, but a criterion of good governance should be to provide the citizens with sufficient support and advice to exercise their rights.

5. The Congress also asks the Committee of Ministers to urge member states to ensure that local and regional authorities comply with the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation of human rights.

6. The Congress stresses that education and benchmarking are crucial to improve the situation of human rights in Europe at all levels. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

a. encourage a systematic multi-level dialogue between the political levels of all member states, to promote the human rights dimension of local self-governance;

b. foster respect for human rights through the training of local and regional elected representatives and their staff.

C. Explanatory Memorandum

Executive summary

1. Implementation of and compliance with human rights constitute one of the fundamental tasks of the Council of Europe. There is no real democracy, no good governance – whatever the political level – without observance of human rights. Local and regional authorities deal with human right issues on an everyday basis, and politicians and civil servants at the local or regional level are close to citizens’ everyday needs. Local and regional responsibility already has a welfare aspect which in many cases and to a large extent is strongly connected to human rights. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, local and regional authorities may be considered to be the primary players in fulfilling the goals of the fundamental international conventions.

2. The importance of systematic work for human rights cannot be underestimated. It is important to involve all stakeholders at all stages of the process, including national human rights institutions, civil society and representatives of disadvantaged groups, and to integrate human rights planning into the ordinary work of the public administration so as to ensure effective co-ordination and co-operation between authorities at all levels. To this end, human rights work needs to be co-ordinated with the budgetary process in order to secure proper funding. The legal authority to perform certain functions is meaningless if local authorities are deprived of the financial resources to carry them out.

3. There is no standard solution for implementing human rights at the local and regional levels, but a first step is to create a toolkit of the methods available and to adapt these to local circumstances. It is also important to foster a human rights culture through education and training. There is accordingly a need for awareness-raising and education among local and regional authorities themselves and among citizens.

4. The protection of human rights requires independent complaints mechanisms. Complaints mechanisms may take different forms in different communities, and there are several examples that could serve as a model – local and regional ombudspersons, national or thematic ombudspersons, consumer complaints boards, patient injury boards, anti-discrimination agencies, etc. The complaints mechanism or bodies can have different functions depending on the kinds of human rights they deal with, but must be seen as important means of safeguarding human rights and handling citizens’ complaints at first instance. Systematic work to implement and monitor human rights at the local and regional levels in the member states not only aids the implementation of human rights, but will also reduce the burden for the national level and enable the European Court of Human Rights to function more effectively.

5. The Congress has an important benchmarking, awareness-raising and enabling role to play regarding the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights. It also has a significant role as a mediator of successful experiences which can be consolidated and systematised. The Congress should collect and communicate good practices. The Congress could be responsible for monitoring activities concerning human rights, by. making human rights an indicator in the ongoing monitoring process. The Congress can also prepare special reports on a regular basis in which the human rights situation in member states is highlighted. Finally, the Congress could examine audit reports on specific themes, each year with a different focus. The chief concern is to incorporate human rights as a new dimension of the ongoing monitoring of local and regional democracy in the member states and seek constantly to reinforce the principle of financing human rights implementation.

1. Introduction

1.1 General introduction

6. Implementation of and compliance with human rights constitute a key element of the Council of Europe's activities, as one of the three pillars which guide the whole action of the organisation. There is no real democracy, no good governance – whatever the political level – without observance of human rights. It is a transversal issue and a constant matter of concern. To a large extent, democracy and human rights are interdependent.

7. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and all the other relevant international norms are more than declarations of value – they are a strong call for action plans to translate idealistic and philosophical visions into an environment where these rights can be realised and enjoyed, i.e standard-setting. Compliance with human rights entails multi-level governance. It is a matter not only for national governments but for all other political levels too. Local and regional authorities, the level closest to citizens, are logically the most suitable actors to achieve the concrete aspirations which have evolved since these fundamental norms were signed. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights clearly demonstrates this principle.

8. There are several fundamental standard-setting documents to take into account when analysing human rights and local government:

· The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

· The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),

· The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

· The Revised European Social Charter,

· The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

· The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

· The Urban Charter,^{^[7]}

· The European Charter of Local Self-Government (if the right to local self-government can be considered a fundamental right), and

· The Reference Framework on Regional democracy (which is not a standard-setting text but a reference tool with regard to regional democracy)

9. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, as the political body which represents more than 200 000 local and regional authorities in Council of Europe member states, is very much aware of the importance of the contribution it can make in this respect. The Congress has already taken some important steps in analysing the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights.^{^[8]} This report can claim to be a follow-up to the 2007 Forum for the Future of Democracy and the Seminar on systematic work for human rights implementation at local and regional level in October 2008.^{^[9]} The Forum affirmed the interdependence of democracy and human rights and the need to regard development of local democracy both as a tool and as a core objective of all countries in their efforts to improve the implementation of human rights. Therefore, there must be a framework (legal and/or political) for the apportionment of responsibilities among national, regional and local authorities. It is important to remember that the competence of local elected representatives depends on such boundaries, but another very important factor is the professional qualifications of elected representatives and their staff.

1.2 The issue at stake

10. For a number of years the Council of Europe has played a leading role in the efforts to associate all the main stakeholders of a genuine democratic society (parliaments, governments, local and regional authorities, civil society, media and academia) in the promotion of democracy at all levels across the continent. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers, the Congress, the INGO Conference and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) have a key role in this ongoing process.

11. However, one must keep in mind that there are 47 member states – of which 27 are also members of the EU – with different traditions to take into account. There cannot be only one standard solution on how to implement human rights. Whatever method is chosen, it is always a local and regional responsibility to make sure that human rights are respected. Therefore, this report will give some general recommendations as to how the implementation should be carried out.

12. The starting point is that the local level is where democracy can be fostered and strengthened, and that local and regional authorities are crucial actors in securing human rights for citizens. But to be able to fulfil these tasks, the local and regional authorities must be given the powers, tools and financial possibilities to fulfil them. Even if respect, and responsibility, for human rights as such must be mainstreamed to be fully implemented at local and regional level, the methods for fulfilling and protecting those rights may differ because of the traditions and circumstances in the member states. This is also logical according to the principles of proximity, subsidiarity^{^[10]} and proportionality.

13. The Congress, which has already initiated several European instruments, especially the European Charter of Local Self-Government and others, should no doubt take the lead in alerting the various Council of Europe bodies to the discrepancy which has gradually emerged between ever more intensive human rights protection and the fact that statements of principle on the requirements of a democratic society have not been applied to “political rights” at any level of public life. Stressing “social cohesion” necessitates reinforcing human rights at the local level.

1.3 The process of the report

14. Following the tradition of the 2007 forum and the 2008 seminar, the aim was to draft this report in an inclusive manner. The Rapporteur has been in close contact not only with the Institutional Committee (which focused on some of the core questions during a round table held on 15 May 2009) but also with other parts of the Council of Europe, such as the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Court. Key study visits were arranged for the Rapporteur and the expert in Strasbourg on 3 December 2009. In January 2010 a number of “wise persons” were invited to read and comment on a first draft of the report. Throughout the process the Rapporteur was also supported by a reference group in Sweden and last but not least the Secretariat of the Congress. The Rapporteur wishes to thank all those having contributed to the report. ^{^[11]}

1.4 The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights

15. The tension between the principle of state sovereignty and human rights has existed for a long time. This has been most evident in the work of the UN. In the UN Charter the individual state is seen as sovereign and autonomous. At the same time, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates each country's obligation to protect the citizen. Tensions of this kind can arise where a state's compliance with rules laid down in a ratified convention is in doubt. Tensions can also be found between national authorities and local and regional authorities – state sovereignty vs. local and regional self-government - not least when analysing the role of local and regional authorities and the implementation of human rights in the light of the local authority’s responsibilities for education, social housing, social security, health care, refugees, etc.^{^[12]} One must remember that these types of services are not only a question of local and regional government responsibilities in the delivery of public services to citizens, but often go back to the responsibility of fulfilling the human rights of the individual.

16. “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home − so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual: the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”^{^[13]}

17. The following analysis focuses on three aspects of implementing the rights: 1) securing human rights and honouring local self-government (II), 2) the variety of human rights (III) and 3) the right methods of implementation – including the role of the elected representative (IV).

2. Securing human rights and honouring local self-government

18. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, has stated that the balance between delivery of human rights on the one hand and local or regional self-government on the other hand is crucial to democracy. In fact, there is a strong interrelation between them – no human rights can be achieved without democracy and no “real” democracy can be achieved without respect for human rights. In other words, democracy will be stronger the more human rights are respected.^{^[14]} Furthermore, there is no real democracy without local democracy, and if human rights are not respected in everyday life, they never will be respected. There is no conflict between the delivery of human rights and local self-government.

19. Over recent years there has been growing pressure to fulfil the implementation of human rights at local level, and national legislation has often placed the responsibility for managing those rights at a local or regional level. Some responsibilities follow from the powers delegated by the national government, and some powers follow from the principles of local and regional self government. While the state as a whole enters into and is bound by international treaties, the local and regional authorities have the right to organise their responsibilities in the most functional way. This also applies to the interrelation between human rights and local democracy. Thus, local or regional authorities are not only “agents” of central government – they have their own responsibilities to manage human rights on the same basis as central government will have the main responsibility for implementing the treaties.

20. As competences are enlarged and more responsibilities for taking care of individual needs devolve on local and regional authorities, responsibilities for human rights protection and advancement are also enlarged. In a civilised society, social welfare plays a significant role in recognising the support owed to disadvantaged groups such as persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, victims of sexual discrimination, young children and older people. Local and regional authorities have direct responsibilities in these areas and particularly in enabling members of these groups to become fully participating and respected members of society. Local authorities have become the first line of defence of human rights and also the launching pad for their realisation. All human beings are bearers of human rights regardless of their legal status as non-citizens, refugees, migrants or foreign residents, regardless of whether they are women, children, elderly or people with disabilities, regardless of their religion, ethnic background, political views or sexual orientation. In the eyes of local authorities, they are – or at least they should be – equal members of the community.

21. In honouring local self-government, it is important for the member states to recognise that the local and regional authorities within the legal framework must have the independence and autonomy, guaranteed by the European Charter of Local Self-Government, to make decisions in response to the needs of their communities. The big responsibility that rests on the shoulders of local or regional government can also be discerned from cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights that deal with a variety of local authority actions in the light of the ECHR.^{^[15]}

22. The political right to manage local affairs on a local or regional level is found in the Charter of Local Self-Government and it is binding on the member states of the Council of Europe that have ratified it. The Congress report to the 2007 Forum for the Future of Democracy outlines the links between human rights and local and regional democracy. It points out that the protection and promotion of human rights is a joint responsibility of all authorities, but in particular local and regional authorities have a major role to play – given their various powers and the immediate impact of their decisions on citizens. Therefore, the Charter of Local Self-Government plays an important role and must be seen as a cornerstone treaty to the human rights protection system. The report shows by various examples that joint reflection on the protection of human rights at local and regional level has recently begun. It concludes by recommending a list of matrix principles as a common denominator for all players involved in human rights protection at local and regional level. The intention is that the principles can constitute a coherent basis for effective action geared to ensuring the progress of human rights.^{^[16]}

23. Since local and regional authorities are the protagonists to address human right issues and the needs of the individuals residing in the community, there is also a need for proactiveness on their part. It is important that initiatives can come from a grassroots level and not only via new directives from central government. Therefore, there is a need for an ongoing dialogue between the different levels of society, but there might also be a need for monitoring and mainstreaming from the Council of Europe. One issue that might need deeper co-operation is the different priorities that must be set concerning which economic and social human rights are the most important to protect when there is a downturn in the local, national or global economy.

3. The variety of human rights

3.1 The different kinds of human rights

24. The rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights can be split into at least two categories; qualified rights and unqualified rights, some of which are absolute since no derogations under Article 15 are permitted.^{^[17]} Some human rights can be upheld by a court and apply to all individuals regardless of nationality, while other rights are thought of as in need of more “sophisticated” methods of implementation – e.g. some cultural rights and some socio-economic rights. The latter must be seen in their economic and cultural environment and in terms of the national and local resources – even if this might be a difficult balance, which also leads us to several important questions. What does this variety mean when it comes to the “space” for local political decision-making, and what limits can be identified? How much variety can be accepted and who is the one to decide? The variety may not only exist between member countries, it could also most certainly exist within some member states.

25. It is important to stress the positive role played by local authorities in protecting and promoting economic, social and cultural rights. Local and regional authorities have varying degrees of responsibility depending on which rights and which areas they are dealing with: e.g. refugees, racial discrimination or sexual intolerance, the right to the opportunity to work and to obtain employment free from prejudice and discrimination, the right to a decent home without undue restrictions, the right for children to be educated, the right to good health care or the right of different nationalities and religions within the communities to be given the same opportunities as indigenous citizens, as well as the tools to enable them to avail themselves of those rights. They are protected by law and upheld by the Court. Where economic and social rights are concerned, the picture becomes more complicated. Those rights can be said to be built up gradually and they may also differ between different communities. Local decision-making and political priorities make it necessary to balance individual rights and political responsibility for sustainable and holistic governance, which might lead to a situation where fulfilling one person’s rights might disadvantage another.

26. All human rights have one thing in common; municipalities must comply with their human rights duties as public authorities in accordance with the international obligations of states, albeit only within their competences/powers. The standard is to be set at a national level. Thus, local police must not commit torture. If a town does not have local police, this is irrelevant; if it does, it is not. Likewise, municipalities have the duty to “promote” decent housing for everyone, which does not mean that everyone is entitled to own a 200 m² apartment in the best part of town tomorrow.

3.2 The classification of human rights

27. There are several ways of classifying human rights. One way is to talk about a) civil and political rights,^{^[18]} b) economic, social and cultural rights ^{^[19]} and finally c) collective rights. A more historical way of describing human rights is to classify them into first, second and third generation rights, where the first generation refers to civil and political rights; the second generation comprises economic, social and cultural rights; and finally, the third generation refers to collective rights.

28. Political rights, along with civil rights, are primarily designed to protect the individual against state interference, and are immediately applicable. Political rights can be seen as covering the right to political participation, that is, the citizens’ right to seek to influence and participate in the public affairs of the society to which they belong. Political participation can take many forms, the most notable of which is embodied in the right to vote.^{^[20]} However, it also covers the right to join a political party; the right to stand as a candidate in an election; the right to participate in a demonstration; and freedom of association. Though political and civil rights are distinct, the difference between the two is not always obvious or clear; indeed, they sometimes overlap. The freedom to express one’s opinion, and freedom of association, for example, are clearly linked to the right to political participation, and so are political rights, but they are often also seen as civil rights.^{^[21]}

29. The right to political participation merits special attention, as it is largely though not absolutely restricted to citizens. Whereas the other rights recognised by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are inherent in human beings on the basis of their status as such, the right to political participation is, in part, limited to people endowed with the status of citizen. Such a status is linked to the context of a political community and, most significantly, a government. The right to political participation therefore presupposes the existence of a government. This right is also guaranteed by the European Charter of Local Self-Government in its preamble.

30. Though distinct, civil rights and political rights are closely linked; the protection and fulfilment of the one to a large extent depends on that of the other. All human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, which means that the fulfilment and protection of civil and political rights depends on, and influences, other categories of human rights. It is also necessary to point out the importance of access to a court and non-discrimination which is also mainstreamed into all rights, especially for EU citizens according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

31. Economic, social and cultural rights, or the second generation of human rights, are based on the principles of social justice and public obligation – they are based on continental European concepts of liberty as equality. This kind of human rights developed through those who had a strong desire for the state to provide protection for its most vulnerable inhabitants by giving relief to the less fortunate. The rights have since evolved into what are now known as cultural and religious rights – the right to free elementary education, the right to higher education equally accessible to all by merit, the right to education which promotes tolerance and understanding, the right to religion, the rights of minorities and indigenous people^{^[22]}; social rights – the right to health, the rights of migrants, the rights to social housing, shelter and safety for families; and economic rights – the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right of protection against unemployment, the right to equal work for equal pay, the right to rest and leisure as an employee, the right to reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic paid holidays, the right to be member of a union, the right to a basic standard of living, the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, the right to special care and assistance for mothers and children, the right to enjoy remuneration and standards of living adequate for the health, well-being, and dignity of citizens and their families, etc.^{^[23]}

32. A special kind of human rights is the so-called third generation of rights, or collective rights.^{^[24]} It is important to note that the common conception of human rights has changed over time, and apart from absolute fundamental civil, political and social rights, it is common to talk about a new category of rights – the so-called emergent rights: e.g. the right to a safe environment, access to drinking water and to sanitation. These are rights that we aspire to obtain, which are not – at least, not yet – explicitly included in legally binding texts. They are the expression of developments in case law that led to a broad interpretation of a fundamental right already guaranteed. The new dimension of these rights, which are internationally recognised, entails – because of the principle of indivisibility – obligations for national authorities but also for local and regional authorities. Non-compliance with these rights can be condemned by a court. When it comes to the collective rights or third generation rights, a member of a vulnerable minority group can take legal action either individually or together with others as a group – in the same way as for social and economic rights.

33. Accordingly, the role of political authorities evolved in this respect too, and therefore, local and regional authorities are faced with new responsibilities in terms of compliance with these emerging rights. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities has been very active in this field for years. The European Charter of Local Self-Government is based on good governance and on democratic principles, which imply that human rights must be respected. The Congress has directed the overall thrust of its human rights action at creating an equal and sustainable environment in communities, an environment which integrates political, economic, social, ecological and cultural aspects of their citizens’ everyday life, an environment in which they can exercise and realise their rights freely and to the full. This “equal environment” would include an equal legal and administrative framework for all members of a community – equal protection of rights, equal access to public services, equal non-discriminatory treatment, equal job opportunities and equal enjoyment of the urban and rural environment. However, these rights falls outside the scope of this report.^{^[25]}

34. To sum up, the civil and political rights and freedoms relate mainly to the state as a whole. However, under recent international agreements the individual also has economic and social rights, which stem from the solidarity between citizens. Breach of the civil and political rights can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, while most economic and social rights must be interpreted by the member state, which is committed to do its utmost to comply with ECHR. The right to adequate housing, for example, might be fully established even if the standard is a "variable geometry" between different countries, i.e. the standard setting is allowed to differ. This is also the main difference between civil and political rights and social and economic rights. Therefore, it is also dangerous to claim that the latter rights are equal to the civil and political rights since one might end up with a situation where the civil and political rights might also be deemed to depend on financial issues.^{^[26]}

3.3 Local and regional authorities’ responsibilities in fulfilling human rights

35. Local and regional authorities are no doubt key players in implementing different kinds of human rights. It is the local and regional authorities that bear the primary responsibility for implementing these policies and strategies in their communities, tailoring them to the specific situations on the ground and to the needs of their citizens and taking concrete steps for improving citizens’ daily lives. One has to keep in mind that beyond the legal texts, human rights are a reality in every single case where they occur, even if we often speak of them in abstract terms.

36. In political life there is always a conflict between the economic situation and the priorities that have to be laid down between what is the best for the individual and what is best for the citizens as a whole. Politicians, whether at the local, regional or national level, always have to answer for the allocation policy and to set priorities– one person’s social or economic rights mean disadvantage to another individual or group. It is also in this field that economic issues can be crucial to the decisions that are made. Can one really balance individual rights and political responsibility for sustainable and holistic governance towards the public good if the economy is bad – does the local authority have a choice when it comes to choose between education, the treatment of elderly people or health care? It is not an unusual scenario that two different principles might collide in this situation – there is a conflict between an individual’s right and the political allocation policy.

37. These issues become increasingly important in the type of more individual-oriented society that we see today. While human rights and citizens’ rights shall be implemented fully and immediately, social and economic rights shall be implemented as fully as is consistent with the resources of the individual member state. However, there must always be someone who takes full responsibility, and the elected representatives are the ones taking the responsibility for the common good and for setting the necessary priorities. These priorities become more difficult the more individual the rights are and the more personal the consequences that follow from the political decisions. It is easier to set priorities when more common values are at stake. Also in this case it is of great importance that the local authorities are prepared and that local action plans are developed in a transparent way – all decisions made should have sound motivation with an easily understandable argumentation. However, these questions are so important that they require activity of the Council of Europe and the national parliaments – it may even be that these priorities cannot be set at a local level if some kind of common standard is to be preserved all over Europe. Here you find a classical question – how do you deal with large inequalities between different member states and regions within the states and how do you foster empowerment.

38. The first step in preventing human rights issues from being overshadowed by economic arguments might be to actually identify the different human (social or economic) rights. The second step might be to use different kinds of minimum levels of these rights. Here it might be important to find a common European view on the minimum levels of different types of rights. Then the member states and the local and regional authorities – over that minimum level – could set the different priorities depending on the financial situation. However, it is probably even more functional in terms of subsidiarity, legitimacy and financial situations if the identification is made and the minimum levels are set at a national level based on the conditions in each country. No matter how the levels are set, if you provide the citizens with a “list of rights”, the municipalities first and foremost must satisfy those rights, and only when these rights are fulfilled may the municipalities make use of the political space for their own decisions and priorities. To make sure that the human rights are fulfilled and fully protected, the third step is to create a proper monitoring process and sufficient ways of making complaints.

39. At the same time, it is very important to remember that the more detailed the requirements and minimum levels set by a national authority that one accepts; the smaller is the space for local or regional political autonomy. It is here that we must find an acceptable solution. One way of establishing those priorities might be co-operation between the municipalities or the regions and the central government. Negotiations are often a good way of achieving a reliable result, since there might be a risk that the minimum level also becomes the actual level. Thus, negotiations can be an important complement to minimum-level standards – even if the negotiations themselves can be time-consuming. This delineation is also the nexus between the human rights and the right to local self-government. Human rights are binding for the states as a whole, and the responsibility to fulfil rights lies both at a national level and at a local or regional level. Therefore neither a state nor a municipality can refuse to fulfil the obligation with reference to state sovereignty or local self-government. In that sense the minimum levels that are set can never be said to be in conflict with local self-government. One also has to accept the fact that there is a variable geometry. But at least to some extent, this can be solved within the state by using solidarity and compensation mechanisms between the regions, between municipalities, between cities and between different suburbs etc.

40. Whether we are talking about the local, regional and national level – or local, state and federal levels – it is a central task for each community to ensure that the rights of the individual do not fall between the different levels. Here it is important to point out that local and regional authorities perform an essential role when it comes to solving problems that arise from conflicts between equally important rights. Such conflict need not have economic impacts, but it is very important that the authorities act proactively with preparedness for the different kind of situations that can occur – if a conflict is more likely to occur at a local level it is also a local responsibility and not a state responsibility to initially solve the problem. One way of dealing with the problem in a proactive way might be to develop local action plans. It is important that the local and regional representatives take the initiative if they wish to avoid the risk of civil rights legislation for underprivileged groups being imposed on local and regional authorities. Therefore, local and regional decision-makers play an important part in carrying on systematic work to honour and defend local self-government.

41. One prominent feature in the development of modern law is the continuous differentiation with development of new legal areas. The rule of law and the fact of regulating things by law have led to an increasing amount of new acts and legal material – national as well as international. Legal rights evolve out of a range of different social settings and historical contexts, and rights are based on a variety of different values – often the international conventions on human rights – underlying the legal system.^{^[27]}

42. As an example of a conflict between the national and the local level, one can mention the Swedish legislation on disability from 1993 onwards. The Law on Support and Service (LSS) is based on clear claimable rights for the disabled and comprehensive duties for the municipal authority in question. The rights regulated in the LSS are assistance in various forms, aid resources, rehabilitation, services and special living facilities. The disabled person himself can arrange the service according to his or her special needs. However, even though the law relies on clear and predictable rights for the disabled and a clear correlation of duties and obligations for the public sector and the municipal authorities, the law soon proved not as successful as was initially hoped. A major problem was that a large number of disabled persons were denied their rights by the local welfare authorities’ decisions. The problem was not so much the conditions under which the rights were granted or denied but the fact that they were not implemented properly. There were two main arguments for not giving sufficient weight to social rights. The most common reason given by local authorities for delays was the lack of economic resources. The other argument was the right to local self-government, and it was often claimed that the legislation assigned unconditional rights to the citizens and unconditional duties to the local authorities which encroached on self-government and local democracy – in fact nullified the ability to govern the local service according to its own needs and priorities. However, in Case RÅ 1993 ref. 11 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court already took the legal stance that lack of economic means was not a valid ground for denying the stipulated rights. Nevertheless a large number of decisions delivered were not implemented due to “delayed execution”. The situation did not improve until the legislator changed the Act so that it was possible to penalise the local authorities with a fine if they did not execute the rights in accordance with the LSS.^{^[28]} However, the legislation did not as such solve the problems of how to set economic priorities.

3.4 The costs of human rights

43. One important factor for local and regional authorities is the costs of human rights. Due to its obligation to uphold rights in respect of its citizens, a local or regional authority may be required to make certain investments, e.g. for the provision of specific expenditures to meet requirements for limiting the effects of gas emissions, or for improving a drinking water system or to provide decent and sufficient housing or create panels in minority languages. In sum, this means that compliance with human rights can lead to costs for a local or regional authority.

44. Here we must transcend the black-and-white contrast between the civil and political rights, which imply forbearance on the part of the state, and the social and economic rights involving services provided by the public authorities. The public authorities must accordingly not only respect human rights themselves but also ensure their respect by others, particularly in relations among private individuals, and of course they must implement them and provide appropriate resources to make these rights fully effective. Although economic, social and cultural rights are usually built up gradually, this is precisely why the local authorities can make all the difference by developing rights in the housing, health and employment fields, but also in terms of education and recreation.^{^[29]}

45. The civil and political human rights that follow from international agreements are to be implemented by all member states and at all levels of society. Some of these rights do not actually cost anything – it does not cost anything to respect the ban on torture. When it comes to social and economic rights, the level or standard of the right is supposed to be determined by each treaty signatory or member state. This standard-setting may take the form of a minimum level. Therefore, every member state should determine 1) the implementation arrangements and 2) the levels of the standard. But for this to be of any real value, it is also important to make sure that the standards are fully financed. The legal authority to perform certain functions is meaningless if local authorities are deprived of the financial resources to carry them out. Article 9.1 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government states that “Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.”

46. A lot of money is already spent in the social arena, on services to citizens, education, health, immigrants, etc. but it is always important to consider whether there is a need for better allocation of local and regional authorities’ economic resources, i.e. can money be spent in a better way? If human rights are targeted when providing these services, one might perhaps spend the money more efficiently. All human rights require some kind of action by the public authorities; the civil and political rights need to be guaranteed too, but the scope of such action is very different depending on the right involved.

47. If the implementation of human rights should fail, sanctions can be considered. The ECHR has jurisdiction even on the local and regional level, even if the entire member state is the responsible party. This means that the member state can actually consider itself to have a right to recovery from the current local or regional level – cf. the EU and the web-based approaches to the implementation of the Service directive and the regression of structural funds. Therefore, the "incentive structure" for local or regional authorities must be realistic. Thus, everyone will benefit from co-operation between the different levels of society. The question is how this should be done, through negotiation or formal requirements. The important thing is that a common understanding is reached in the local and regional bodies on what needs to be done and how to strive for that goal.

48. Failure to secure human rights involves the risk of a conviction against the responsible state or the public authority concerned. This involves a financial cost but also a political cost for the tier of authority found guilty of violating a fundamental right. Viewed from a different perspective, the implementation of human rights may also include a financial cost in that it implies that the public authority intends to achieve a type of expenditure to enable the implementation of, for example, specific structures necessary to uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by higher standards. Therefore, we can speak of costs for local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights.

49. As a consequence of infringement by local or regional authorities, and with regard to the responsibility of the state as a whole for the wrongful conduct of local and regional authorities, the central government should not only possess instruments that are aimed at rectifying the infringement within the time limit set, but should also have the possibility of recovering from the local and regional authorities the costs in terms of the financial consequences of such infringement. The question that naturally follows is whether all local or regional authorities are able to meet these costs, or whether the quality of the implementation of human rights depends on the financial capacity of the local or regional authorities. These questions sound provocative, but they are pragmatic and it seems worthwhile to ask them. One must not forget that local or regional authorities may also be forced to pay damages if the requirement of a human right is not fulfilled.

50. It is obvious that it costs much more – especially politically speaking but also in terms of social and economic consequences – for a public authority not to comply with human rights than otherwise. This implies that the decentralisation system must be well developed in the member states and that local and regional authorities receive enough financial resources.

4. The right methods of implementation – including the role of the elected representative

4.1 The challenge

51. When it comes to the question of implementation it is very important to point out that there is no “standard” method to be used. Whether standard setting is done at European or at national or even local level, the implementation must find the locally most effective ways, and there is a variety of methods. One has to consider, for instance, budget review from a human rights perspective, national or local or regional action plans, the need for an independent complaints mechanism independent from the executive of the local authority and from the local elected representatives, and last but not least the process has to involve the citizens. One must always bear in mind that politics is very much a question of listening and responding, a process of “ceaseless communication”.

52. The challenge is which methods should be used for implementation, to include the requirements of awareness-raising, proactive approach, exchanges of experience and human rights mainstreaming. When analysing the implementation, there might be a strong need to focus on standard-setting and the monitoring process. The responsibility of the local or regional authority depends which human right we are talking about, and the social and economic rights are to some extent to be implemented differently in different countries.

4.2 Implementation methods

53. There is a variety of methods that can be used in the implementation of human rights on a local or regional level. One first step may be to mainstream local and regional budget issues and action plans – i.e. standard-setting. One problem is who is going to decide the standard-setting – possibly an international ban on capital punishment, the extent of social care at a national level, support mechanisms at a local level etc.

54. The importance of local action plans was raised again during the follow-up seminar on systematic work for human rights implementation at local and regional level, in October 2008 in Stockholm. It was stressed that one important method for promoting human rights at local level was through local action plans comprising packages of measures, activities and specific projects in a given area. These action plans could form a political action programme for fostering human rights in a given municipality or region. This is, of course, only one way of meeting the challenges faced by territorial authorities, but it is a way of putting human rights activities on a systematic and regular footing on the basis, for instance, of an annual timetable or one lasting for a whole term of office. These action plans can draw inspiration from different sources: action plans concerning minimum levels and priorities that are recommended on a European level, national action plans on minimum levels and priorities, local and regional action plans taking different policy areas into account, but also local and regional action plans related to budget. To be able to do this, there is a need for co-ordination between the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and other organs within the Council of Europe that are working with human rights and democracy issues, e.g. the Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Otherwise it will be very difficult to achieve a common and more coherent view on these important questions.^{^[30]}

55. Implementing action plans and measures to promote human rights, which must consist both of protective measures and of measures to secure those rights for citizens, is a key part of participatory democracy at grassroots level. At the same time, it is also a major challenge for local and regional elected representatives because this is a political commitment which must be backed up by the necessary legal skills, financial resources and co-ordination with other stakeholders and this entails the involvement of all tiers of government and their concerted efforts. Among limitations faced by local authorities in carrying out their work in favour of human rights, one must point out the limitations on their legal competences and the scope of their application. The legal framework for the apportionment of responsibilities between national, regional and local authorities is specific in every country and sets the boundaries for what local elected representatives can do.

56. These legal limitations go hand in hand with the adequacy or inadequacy of financial means and possibilities with which local authorities are endowed and which should correspond, ideally and as required by the European Charter of Local Self-Government, to the powers transferred to the local level. Adequate financial and human resources are essential for the implementation of specific measures, initiatives and projects, which is why political and financial support from national governments is crucial to the success of our human rights action in communities, much as is co-ordination and concentration of the efforts with all the other stakeholders involved in human rights issues – private sector and civil society across the board, and the regional, national and international level on the bottom-to-top ladder.^{^[31]} One can conclude that there are several important questions to be resolved when it comes to implementation.

4.3 Awareness-raising

57. One important question concerning the implementation of human rights is the need to increase awareness of human rights issues among citizens, politicians and civil servants. There is a need for so-called good accountancy on the local and regional levels. It is therefore very important to give politicians and civil servants the tools to create a system where they are aware of the legal boundaries and remits in the field of human rights. It is also important that the citizens (immigrants, ethnic groups etc.) are informed about their rights but also about the minimum levels and the priorities that follow from the action plans. One can say that there is a need for a vision including social cohesion!

58. The work in progress can always be improved. Respect for human rights can be fostered through systematic training of elected representatives and staff. The local authorities have an educational and preventive role to play, but they must also set an example by rejecting all forms of discrimination and handle all cases equally. Here different checklists can be used as tools for achieving good accountancy and good administration.

59. Since local problems have an impact on the state as a whole, an important and necessary task of the member state is to secure the existence of and distribute good information about the content of the ECHR supplemented by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and leading human rights cases from the national courts. This work could also highlight the lack of access to a fair trial that might exist in some countries and might in the long run increase availability and effectiveness and lead to a common standard in Europe.^{^[32]} The next step for the member state might be to develop systems for ongoing scrutiny of the implementation of human rights to make sure that practice is in line with the Convention and the case law.^{^[33]} This scrutiny is important to ensure that the practice is mainstreamed throughout the country. One could also establish help desks on the local and regional level.

4.4 Good examples of how to step up efforts to promote human rights

60. There are a lot of examples in Europe that can serve as an inspiration for how municipalities and regions can step, up efforts to promote human rights. One such model is the Citizen’s Charter that was introduced in Great Britain in 1991. The intention behind the Charter was to strengthen the rights of citizens, to improve public service delivery and to achieve service standardisation.^{^[34]} The Charter stipulated a few basic principles for clarifying and enhancing the standard of service with which public sector organisations provide their users, e.g. openness about how public services are run, how much they cost and whether they are meeting the standards which have been set; full and accurate information in plain language which can be understood by the user; the services should be available irrespective of race or sex; and finally a well-publicised and readily available complaints procedure.^{^[35]} Service charters are also found in the National Health Service, local authority community care services, the Child Support Agency, primary and secondary education services and in connection with treatment of victims of crime.

61. Various types of Service Agreements, compensation mechanisms and similar instruments are also used in several European countries in order to improve the quality of public services and human rights safeguards.^{^[36]} The service charters used differ in terms of legal standing but the purpose is mainly the same, i.e. to specify in advance service targets which must be met. However, the Charter model used in the United Kingdom has also been criticised – partly because of the terminology used in the Charter, partly because standard-setting and conventional measurement of “performance” and “results” are seen as inappropriate characteristics of public services or human rights.^{^[37]}

62. One example of a municipal initiative for ongoing work on human rights at the local level is the Swedish municipalities’ work on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Every third year the municipality performs an evaluation based on the CRC. The evaluation group consists of three reviewers from three other municipalities. These reviewers liaise with three municipal reference groups: a group of politicians, a group of municipal managers and a group of field-workers. There are about ten people in each group and the meetings are held on a regular basis and each meeting last approximately an hour and a half. The municipality has also made a survey to obtain the views of children and youth. What emerges from these discussions and questionnaires is compiled in a report which can be used in the municipality.

63. Another example from the same municipality is the Inter-Religious Council. The largest religious associations in the municipality have chosen representatives appointed to the Council. These representatives take part in regularly held meetings and discussions. The Council currently consists of three imams, two Free Church pastors, two priests from the Swedish church, and one Orthodox priest. The council is chaired by the chairman of the city council, but the vice-chairman of the city council, the municipality’s Integration Co-ordinator and a secretary from one of the political parties are also included in the group. The Council meets twice a year. It has no discretion, but may raise issues dealt with according to standard practices in the organisation of local government. Responsible officials and policy makers are invited to participate in Council meetings dealing with issues of relevance to them. It can be convened in special sessions when necessary.^{^[38]}

64. The examples show two different types of fairly informal, but still important, procedures for working on human rights issues at the local or regional level. Another more ambitious example is the network of Town and Cities for Human Rights in the region of Catalonia where work is in progress to create local human rights agendas. The signatory cities have undertaken to set up a commission which every two years is called upon to evaluate the implementation of the rights laid down in the ECHR and publish their findings. The first report aimed at identifying the actions that had been implemented and which cities were doing well and those cities where work had to be improved, in other words, an inventory. The next step was to use the findings of the evaluation to draft a proposal on participative strategic planning so that each city council could establish the strategy and actions for safeguarding human rights and define their Agenda for Human Rights.

65. The project shows that strategic planning improves the impact on actions because: a) it establishes the direction to be taken in a clear and precise manner, b) it is realistic, based on the known constraints and the available resources, and c) it helps prevent urgent matters from taking precedence over important matters. The project also shows that the planning requires a series of stages: a) diagnosis, where are we? b) strategic objectives: where do we want to be?; c) planning of actions: How will we do it? Who will do it? Which resources are to be used? What are the specific aims? Time frames? Which indicators will be used to measure the effect? The documentation on the project can probably be a very useful tool for other local and regional authorities in the work of creating local action plans/local agendas for human rights and how to perform an ongoing self-evaluation.^{^[39]}

4.5 Monitoring and mediation

66. For verifying that human rights are implemented and respected, a system for handling citizens’ complaints is necessary – the remedies need not be judicial, but they must be effective and consideration should be given to the system’s powers and the guarantees it affords.^{^[40]} The task for each member state is to create a system at the local level where individuals feel well represented and where they can make complaints in a relatively easy and cost-free way. It is also important that civil society be involved in this process. It is not enough to use the electoral system as a corrective remedy – the remedy cannot only be in the “ballot box”.^{^[41]}

67. As stated above, there are a lot of benefits if the local and regional authorities can manage conflicts and if they have their own control systems and legal bodies to ensure that human rights are honoured. Monitoring can be performed by the local authorities themselves or by independent bodies. In the latter case there are several examples that could serve as a model, local or regional ombudspersons,^{^[42]} consumer complaints boards, patient injury boards^{^[43]} and anti-discrimination agencies,^{^[44]} etc. Such local ombudspersons can also have different functions depending of the issue at stake. First the ombudsperson can have the role of a mediator who seeks friendly settlements, based on fair principles, between an individual complainant and a public authority. Secondly the ombudsperson can have a more legal role as a Human Rights Watchdog, an Ethics in Public Office Commission, or as a Freedom of Information Commissioner.^{^[45]} Thus, the ombudspersons, boards or panels may vary but must be seen as important players protecting human rights and handling citizens’ complaints at first instance. Independent agencies of this kind not only support and ease the burden of court appeals at the national level, but also ultimately relieve the burden of the European Court of Human Rights!

68. Even if the complaints mechanisms can vary, it is of great importance that the mechanisms of litigation are free of charge for citizens. There is probably also a need for advocates representing civil society. One can for instance envisage a solution with institutions funded by voluntary organisations or where these organisations are responsible at least for organising the submission of complaints. An independent local ombudsperson or a complaints board – i.e. a body without political influence – would probably be the most attractive from the citizen’s point of view. However, even if these monitoring services or complaints mechanisms are provided by independent boards or ombudspersons, one must never forget that at the end of the day it is the politicians at local or regional level – or if such a solution is more attractive in some countries, the state – have the responsibility to make sure that these functions exist! That responsibility cannot be delegated to others.

4.6 The judicial process

69. A central principle of administrative law and decision-making at the local and regional level has for a long time been that a court’s jurisdiction to review the acts and decisions of public authorities depends on whether the public bodies have exceeded the powers democratically delegated to them by predominantly state legislation and whether the action may afford remedies if such powers have been exceeded.^{^[46]} This supervisory activity by the courts represents a positivist image of the role of the courts and forms part of a majority view of democracy. This rationalisation of the function of judicial review has been generally accepted, and recognised as providing a democratic justification for review. Most judicial review cases are about challenges to the decisions of elected bodies or local authorities taken under statutory powers. The courts would have been seen to be usurping the roles of politicians in an anti-democratic way if they had taken it upon themselves to impose restrictions on decision making by those elected bodies, as opposed to giving effect to the express or implied intentions of Parliament. However, the trend seems to be that judicial review has moved on to a concern for the protection of individuals, and for the control of power, rather than powers. It is logical that the ECHR exhorts the courts to interpret legislation, whenever passed, so as to ensure compatibility with the rights and that the courts must give those rights primacy, regardless of the national parliament’s legislative intent.^{^[47]}

70. The right to judicial process is fundamental under the ECHR and EU Law. According to Article 6 (1) of the ECHR everyone is, in the determination of his or her civil rights and obligations, entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The concept of “civil rights and obligations” has never been clear, and it seems to have evolved considerably over time. It is suggested that any claim not manifestly ill-founded under national law should be presumed to concern a civil right or obligation, unless there are clear indications to the contrary in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.^{^[48]}

71. The right of access to judicial process is also one of the general principles of EU law that has evolved in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is argued that the individual is entitled to have any claim that raises a question concerning EU law submitted to a court for adjudication, regardless of whether the claim can be regarded as “civil” within the meaning of Article 6.1 ECHR. The requirement that national courts should “protect” the Union’s rights presupposes that all cases concerning these rights can be heard by a court. The uniform application and useful effect of EU law requires that all questions of the interpretation of EU law can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union by national courts under the Article 267 procedure. In situations where EU law requires access to judicial process, the national legal system is supposed to determine which court has jurisdiction and to resolve any questions of classification of rights or claims that may be necessary for this determination.^{^[49]}

72. Another important issue to bear in mind is that the relationship between human rights and local self-government cannot be seen as an isolated phenomenon. For European Union member states, there is also co-existence with the fundamental rights of the EU.^{^[50]} The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will give a somewhat new focus to the implementation of human rights in Europe. The EU protocol of fundamental rights has become judicial. There will be two parallel options for court proceedings – individuals taking their case to the European Court in Strasbourg and states taking their case to the EU Court in Luxembourg. The courts will make decisions taking the same human rights into consideration. However, the standard setting of the fundamental documents is alike but not identical and this opens up the possibility of different interpretation and disparate judgments. Developments in coming years will show if and how standard-setting and judicial process monitoring human rights will be affected. In order to consolidate human rights in Europe, EU ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights would be an advantage, and ratification of the Lisbon Treaty makes it possible.^{^[51]} Likewise, given that 27 member countries belong to two human rights systems but 20 of the 47 member states do not, some consideration might need to be given to a potential risk of division of cases between the systems and what will then be the impact on the European Court and the Council of Europe. However, even if these questions fall outside the scope of this report it is important that the Congress work for EU ratification of the ECHR.^{^[52]}

4.7 Local and regional responsibilities

73. Article 4.3 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government provides ”Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy.” Since most of the questions concerning human rights are to be dealt with at the local or regional level, it is also natural that that the different systems to protect and monitor those rights should be at the same level, i.e. close to the citizens. Even if many human rights issues require access to a court, they can often benefit from other forums for a first appeal, e.g. local ombudspersons^{^[53]} or other authorities or agencies with similar functions – in the same way as different boards and agencies handle consumer issues.^{^[54]} As an example, the region of Catalonia has model legislation for cities wishing to employ a local ombudsperson, and there are 40 such local ombudspersons in the region of Catalonia alone.^{^[55]} It is also worth pointing out that – in the same way that public services can be provided by private players – some of these forums can be provided by NGOs and private players. The important thing is that the citizen’s human rights are protected.

74. The powers and responsibilities of local and regional authorities are increasingly varied and complex and it is obvious that individual or statutory decisions can sometimes infringe citizens’ rights. This necessitates effective remedies, and the stipulation of judicial remedies is a general principle of law shared by all legal systems. Any prejudicial decision taken by a public authority at local or national level can therefore be appealed against before an independent and impartial tribunal. If the right to an effective remedy is to be completely meaningful, access must be guaranteed to all the relevant administrative documents, and adequate reasons must be provided for the administrative decisions at issue. Local and regional authorities have the same role to play as any other public authority in investigating and taking action in the event of a complaint.^{^[56]}

75. It is important to have an independent and functional complaints mechanism at the local and regional level. Even if these mechanisms must be independent from the executive of the local authority and from the local elected representatives, it is probably best from the citizens’ standpoint that these mechanism form part of local self-government – the questions must be handled quickly and it must be easy to make complaints. However, one must keep in mind that there is a need for different kinds of control mechanisms depending which kinds of human rights we are talking about. It is important that different control systems are developed for different issues and that access to the court system to claim one’s rights is always secured. It is also important that these independent ombudspersons or complaints boards etc. are given the power to actually make the local and regional authorities follow up their decisions or at least to have a system for pressing charges against the local and regional authorities themselves in court.^{^[57]}

76. In the case R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, No. 38000/05, 30 September 2008, theapplicants complained that their daughter had been placed temporarily in care due to a medical misdiagnosis and there was no effective remedy for their complaint. The court stated that “The authorities, medical and social, have duties to protect children and cannot be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children vis-à-vis members of their families are proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided… The Court is satisfied that there were relevant and sufficient reasons for the authorities to take protective measures, such measures being proportionate in the circumstances to the aim of protecting M. and which gave due account and procedural protection to the applicants’ interests, and without any lack of the appropriate expedition… The Court considers that the applicants should have had available to them a means of claiming that the local authority’s handling of the procedures was responsible for any damage which they suffered and obtaining compensation for that damage.”^{^[58]} Therefore there was a violation of Article 13, but not of Article 8.

77. In case NJA 2005 s. 462 the Swedish Supreme Court found that there was a general obligation for a member state to pay damages to an individual if there had been a breach of rights under the ECHR. In case NJA 2009 s. 463, there was a suspicion that a woman’s husband had committed crimes against her. The woman and her three children were therefore moved by the local authority and to a temporary location in the municipality. The woman and the children stayed at the temporary home for a little over a month. The situation can be said to be a typical situation where the same case discloses several human right issues concerning a person. The person has a right to be protected, but what method of protection should be used? Afterwards, the provincial government directed sharp criticism at the municipality since the decision to move the family was considered contrary to the ECHR protection against unlawful detention. The family sued the municipality with a claim for damages due to illegal restraint and misconduct. The Supreme Court found that Article 13 of the Charter required that every person whose rights and freedoms as defined by the Convention were violated should have access to an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation had been committed by someone acting in the exercise of public authority. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it followed that national authorities and courts had the prime responsibility for implementation of the ECHR rights.^{^[59]} The Swedish Supreme Court found that the municipality had acted wrongly and stated that a municipality even without specific national legal basis could be required to pay damages for breach of the ECHR if the member state was to meet its obligations under the Convention. This means that individuals can henceforth bring claims for damages under the ECHR against local or regional authorities, with or without national legislation giving the citizen that right.

78. This case is important and represents a step forward in terms of protection of human rights, but it also has broader implications – if the local and regional authorities are responsibility for paying damages by virtue of some kind of “polluter pays principle”, it is logical that they are given and also accept responsibility for organising protection of human rights in a functional way. It is better to spend money on organising an efficient system than to pay the same amount in damages due to the lack of a functioning system. There is a need for a functioning incentive structure – the fact that a municipality or a region can be held accountable for badly implemented human rights can probably strengthen the incentive to do right.

5. Conclusions

79. The state as a whole is not the only guarantor of human rights. Local and regional authorities also deal with human right issues on an everyday basis and politicians and civil servants at the local or regional level are closer to citizens’ everyday needs. Furthermore, local and regional responsibility already has a welfare aspect which in many cases and to a large extent is strongly connected to human rights. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, local and regional authorities may be considered to be the primary players in fulfilling the goals of the fundamental international conventions.. It is accordingly always a local and regional responsibility to make sure that human rights are respected and that the responsibilities that follow from law and international obligations are fulfilled. As the Commissioner for Human Rights said: "Think globally, act locally”.^{^[60]}

80. The importance of systematic work for human rights cannot be underestimated. In the conclusions of the International Conference on Systematic Work for Human Rights Implementation, twelve recommendations were issued to the member states.^{^[61]} These recommendations are very important and underline the urgent need for a baseline study giving a broad and accurate picture of the current human rights situation and the development of national human rights action plans or strategies to address the human rights challenges. Such plans should contain concrete activities and indicate the authorities responsible for their implementation. Another important issue is to involve all stakeholders during the entire process, including national human rights institutions,^{^[62]} civil society and representatives from disadvantaged groups of people. Such an inclusive and participatory approach will contribute to the legitimacy of the plan, create shared ownership and make implementation effective. Last but not least, human rights planning needs to be integrated into the ordinary work of the public administration to ensure effective co-ordination and co-operation between the authorities at all levels, by setting up networks or other forums for the exchange of experiences and information, discussions and planning. To achieve this, human rights work needs to be co-ordinated with the budgetary process to secure proper funding. The legal authority to perform certain functions is meaningless if local or regional authorities are deprived of the financial resources to carry them out (cf. Article 9 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government).

81. It is important that local action plans are developed in a transparent and co-operative way – all decisions made should have sound motivation with an easily understandable argumentation. However, these questions are so important that they require activity from the Council of Europe and from national parliaments – it may even be that these priorities cannot be set at the local or regional level if some kind of common standard is to be preserved all over Europe. Here you find a classical question – how to deal with great inequalities between different member states and regions within the states, and how to foster empowerment. It is also important to remember that it does not matter if the local and regional authorities have a presentable action plan if the proper funding for carrying out the plan is not provided – there is always a need for checks and balances.

82. There is no standard solution for implementing human rights at local and regional levels, but a first step is to create a toolkit of the methods available and to adapt to local circumstances. It is also important to foster a human rights culture with education and training. The public officials and other professionals who deal with the human rights of others need proper information and education to ensure that they have a thorough and up-to-date knowledge of the international standards relevant to their field of competence. Thus, there is a need for awareness raising and education among the local and regional authorities themselves and among the citizens.

83. The politicians at local and regional level have a responsibility to keep up ongoing dialogue with citizens and with civil society. There have to be well-developed channels for this communication and collaboration. Requirements will probably also increase in Europe, and so will the need to determine economic priorities, for example the proportion of elderly people is growing at the same time as financial assets are shrinking.

84. Politics is a process of “ceaseless communication” where never-ending interaction between elected representatives and voters is needed. Both the democratic system and the elected politicians will benefit vis-à-vis the voters if one starts thinking in terms of human rights and if human rights are included in the political discourse. The role of elected representatives is not only to present political visions; ability to work in a proactive way and deal with the consequences also counts. The Swedish Supreme Court case clearly shows increased responsibility for local and regional authorities in terms of taking responsibility for human rights in all the different sectors where human rights might occur. Everyone has something to gain if the elected representatives and the public officials become aware of this fact. There will be a win-win situation: “If we do this, we can win that, etc.…”

85. Therefore, one must focus on promoting rights as a challenge with potential. Inbuilt promotion is generally better and sounds more positive than concentrating on how to deal with consequences. This work might need some kind of mainstreaming and there might be a need for some kind of human rights help desks at local or regional level. The establishment of a network – like the Network of Towns and Cities for Human Rights in Catalonia – could also be of great help in the work taking place in the different municipalities and regions.

86. Local and regional authorities need to be proactive, and there is a need for increased and improved collaboration between the different levels of society. This might be time-consuming, but will pay off in the end. There are at least two ways to arrange this co-operation: either establish formal rules of proper consultation or choose to work with negotiating rounds – not only between the state and local or regional levels, but also with negotiations between the regions. It is also important that the municipalities start labelling what is already being done in the field of human rights. “An actual problem in the municipality costs this, while providing a human rights solution will cost that, but by doing so we will save this and also gain that.” It would be easier to argue for a national compensation system if the municipalities or the regions could show the actual costs and figures.

87. Some basic requisites are needed for success. One such important element is to make the politicians and the civil servants more aware of the fact that many of the tasks they already perform relate to human rights, and that human rights issues are not just another burden placed on local or regional authorities. The conventions and the case law of the European Court of Human rights must be translated and distributed as manuals and handbooks, etc. Professional training and strategic education of politicians and civil servants would increase the credibility of the political system and its representatives. It is not only important to educate the politicians and staff in local and regional authorities, it is also very important to have ongoing education and an induction programme on human rights policy for newly elected representatives and other staff members who are starting work with a local or regional authority.

88. A human rights perspective mainstreamed into everyday politics might lead to better quality of social services, increased social cohesion and inclusion and less racial and xenophobic tension. Governance should include a form of management where human rights are mainstreamed into all aspects, from the education of administrators and decision-makers and the type of organisational structure to the constructive management of dialogue techniques, efficient co-operation with different partners, benchmarking and evaluation.^{^[63]}

89. The possibility of building citizens' confidence requires positive action by local or regional elected officials. We need to increase the importance of human rights issues in the daily political debate. To a large extent it is a matter of how to sell an argument! The challenge is to have the courage to give honest answers to different problems, e.g. providing care for undocumented refugees or a decent life for Roma, etc. can have a positive effect on other areas of society. Rights-based governance might strengthen the trust people have in their elected representatives and thus strengthen democracy.

90. An independent complaints mechanism must be set up. The complaints mechanisms may look different in different communities, and there are several examples that could serve as a model – local and regional ombudspersons^{^[64]}, national or thematic ombudspersons, consumer complaints boards, patient injury boards^{^[65]} and anti-discrimination agencies^{^[66]} etc. However, it is of great importance that this is free of charge for the citizens, and there is probably also a need for advocates representing civil society. One can for example envisage a solution with institutions funded by voluntary organisations or with these organisations responsible at least for organising complaints procedure. Local information desks or local or regional ombudspersons might be established to provide citizens with help when making complaints. The complaints mechanism or bodies can vary and have different functions depending on which kind of human rights are dealt with. Firstly, the ombudsperson can have the role of a mediator who seeks friendly settlements, based on fair principles, between an individual complainant and a public body. Secondly, the ombudsperson can play a more important legal role as a Human Rights Watchdog, an Ethics in Public Office Commission, or a Freedom of Information Commissioner. The ombudspersons, boards or panels may vary but must be seen as important players protecting human rights and handling citizens’ complaints at first instance.

91. It is most important that there should be a transparent and independent complaints body at local or regional level. To avoid errors and omissions, local and regional authorities need to consider mainstreamed human rights dimensions in the transparent planning and budgeting of their activities. This could possibly be done by way of increased co-operation with the Fundamental Rights Agency of the EU based in Vienna. A major task of the Agency is to collect and analyse official and non-official information and data on fundamental rights issues in the EU. Given the differences in data availability and quality across the EU, the Agency is also asked to develop methods and standards to improve data quality and comparability.^{^[67]}

92. Since local and regional problems have an impact on the state as a whole, an important and necessary task of the member states is to secure the existence of, and to distribute valid information about, the content of the ECHR supplemented by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and leading human rights cases from the national courts. Such work would increase availability and effectiveness and lead to a common standard in Europe. Another task for the member states is to develop systems for ongoing scrutiny of the implementation of human rights to make sure that practice is in line with the Convention and the case law. Finally, the member state also has a responsibility to ensure that adequate education and professional training concerning human rights is offered to civil servants, police and judges etc.^{^[68]}

93. Systematic work for implementing and monitoring human rights at the local and regional levels in the member states not only helps implement human rights, but will also reduce the burden for the national level and enable the European Court of Human Rights to function more effectively. Injustice and mistakes should be dealt with according to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. at the level where they occur. Therefore, municipalities and regions must be considered an under-used resource in the struggle to keep the European Court as a last resort. It can also be mentioned that Protocol 14 has long been debated as an efficiency-enhancing reform of the ECHR, but it must be stressed that empowering the municipalities and regions more in the work of promoting human rights might be just as important a reform. Another important development is to make a systematic evaluation (scrutiny) of what national legal systems do to implement human rights. In some cities, the government has established a special monitoring unit to verify that laws and rules are in conformity with the ECHR and its standards. In some countries, there is a separate entity for dealing with the issues in Parliament. Even at the regional level there are similar units, as in Catalonia and the Basque Country. Thus, systematic scrutiny of the local and regional level would be of great importance.

94. In principle, the focus of the Congress is human rights and questions concerning democracy or local government. Thus, the Congress has an important benchmarking, awareness-raising and enabling role regarding the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights. The Congress has an important role as a mediator of successful experiences which can be strengthened and systematised (benchmarking). The Congress should collect and communicate good practices and criticise not so good examples, showing that one should have the political courage to talk even about unpleasant things. The Congress might also create networks where information could be exchanged. Another important role could be played by the Association of Local Democracy Agencies (ALDA), an international NGO that co-ordinates a network of Local Democracy Agencies (LDAs). The LDAs are local NGOs acting to foster human rights and local democracy.

95. The issue of the costs of social and economic human rights consists of two parts: that decided at the national level, which also is secured by proper financing, and the remainder which the municipality or the region can decide in its own remit, which is financed by "local" means. In the latter case, priority problems can occur where substantive rights can be set against each other if there is not enough funding for both. In the first case, the municipality is more of an "agent" to the state as a whole – the basic level should be implemented as well as civil and political rights. However, it is important that the local or regional authorities have enough funding for the proper management of human rights related issues. If the economic situation is unfavourable, there is always a risk that, because of economic priorities, human rights will not be fully fulfilled. The question is crucial, no matter how the relationship between the central and the local/regional level is organised and how local or regional activities are financed, whether the money comes from the state or the economy of the local or regional authorities is financed by taxes. The best way of dealing with the problem is probably through negotiations between central government and local or regional government to reach a solution satisfactory to the parties involved. However, the Congress has to try to ensure “checks and balances”, i.e. to make sure that the responsibilities given to the municipalities or the regions are also followed up by the proper funding.

96. The focus of the Congress is human rights and questions concerning democracy and local and regional government. The Congress has an important awareness-raising and enabling role, as well as a role of mediator of successful experiences to be consolidated and systematised. The Congress could therefore be responsible for monitoring activities concerning human rights, i.e. introducing human rights as an indicator in the ongoing monitoring process. The Congress can also prepare special reports in which the human rights situation in member states is highlighted, annually, biannually or in some cases every fifth year.

97. The importance of ongoing monitoring must be underlined. The Congress could therefore also consider audit reports on specific themes, each year with a different focus. The importance of calling on independent authors cannot be understated, and the Congress could perhaps set up a group of independent experts together with the NGOs working on human rights.

98. The Institutional Committee should have the primary responsibility, while each specialised committee should evaluate its own area. But the most important thing is adding human right issues as a new dimension to the ongoing monitoring of local and regional democracy in member states and an ongoing ambition to strengthen the financing principle of human rights implementation.

APPENDIX 5

THE CONGRESS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

Resolution 296 (2010)¹

Role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights

1. The Council of Europe is the authoritative pan-European organisation when it comes to protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

2. Whereas it is the intergovernmental sector which is chiefly concerned with the implementation of the commitments made by member states in these areas, the principle of subsidiarity means that Europe’s local and regional authorities also have a key role to play in the day-to-day application of the fundamental values of democracy and human rights.

4. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe points out that it is on the ground, in regions, cities and neighbourhoods, as close as possible to people’s everyday lives, that human rights need to be nurtured. The way in which the Council of Europe is organised, with its three distinct but complementary pillars – the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress – represents an unparalleled step forward for local and regional democracy, providing scope for a multi-tiered approach to human rights.

5. The powers and responsibilities of local and regional authorities are increasingly varied and complex. Local and regional authorities take one-off or more general decisions, relating in particular to education, housing, health, the environment and law and order, which are directly or indirectly connected with human rights and can affect their enjoyment of human rights by citizens.

6. In this connection, as the political assembly bringing together Europe’s local and regional elected representatives, the Congress can make an invaluable contribution to the pooling of information and experience and the recording of good practices in the human rights sphere. Since there is no standard blueprint for implementing human rights at local and regional level, the Congress could, as a first step, record the methods available which could be adapted to local circumstances.

7. The Congress is also an ideal forum in which to raise awareness about human rights issues among local and regional political leaders and government officials. The most important way to enable local and regional authorities to take responsibility for human rights is through the systematic training of political leaders and the dissemination of reliable information among citizens about their rights (particularly among vulnerable groups).

8. The Congress invites local and regional authorities to set up appropriate bodies or procedures for the effective monitoring of the human rights situation and for rectifying instances where fundamental rights are not fully respected, particularly in the provision of local public services.

9. In the light of the above and also with reference to its joint declaration with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) adopted on 6 October 2008, the Congress therefore calls on local and regional authorities to:

a. act with full regard for fundamental rights, particularly with regard to data protection;

b. contribute to the development of national indicators to facilitate the assessment of advances made in the field of human rights at local and regional level and take part in the drafting of national plans to secure and promote human rights; on the basis of the problems and remedies identified in the course of these planning measures, local and regional authorities will be able to analyse the local human rights situation regularly and to refer, where appropriate, to central government;

c. promote the establishment at local level of independent complaints mechanisms, such as, for example, an accessible and independent decentralised ombudsperson’s office, designed to deal with allegations of infringement of individual rights;

d. foster human rights training for local elected representatives and government officers so that they can identify and deal with human rights issues within the framework of their activities;

e. promote consultation processes, enabling all participants in local public life to exchange information on the human rights situation and to arrive at agreed responses to problems that arise;

f. guarantee equal access to public services for all citizens and non-citizens, without any discrimination, while ensuring that social rights are upheld;

g. introduce procedures, where education, health or social services are being privatised, to make the organisations concerned accountable for their actions and establish a quality control system for the services offered;

h. to examine local government budgets from a human rights perspective so that human rights are given appropriate attention when priority needs are being decided on.

10. The Congress instructs its Institutional Committee to assess the human rights situation systematically on its visits

to monitor implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122). It also asks the other Congress committees to take account of human rights during their respective activities.

11. The Congress also instructs its Institutional Committee to produce a five-yearly report on the human rights situation at local and regional level in each of the Council of Europe member states.

1. Debated and adopted by the Congress on 17 March 2010, 1st Sitting (see Document CG(18)6, explanatory memorandum), rapporteur: L. O. Molin (Sweden, L , EPP/CD).

APPENDIX 6

Recommendation 280 (2010)¹

Role of local and regional authorities
in the implementation of human rights

1. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe recalls that:

f. the primary aim of the Council of Europe is to create, throughout the European continent, a common area based on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

g. democracy and human rights are interdependent. Democracy, including at the local and regional level, cannot exist without an unconditional respect for human rights;

h. local and regional authorities must comply with the human rights duties which stem from the international commitments of the member states, albeit only within their local/regional competences;

i. local and regional authorities are not only agents of central government: they secure human rights at the same time as they fulfil local self-government;

j. good governance is rights-based governance. Complying with human rights duties is a challenge with the potential of strengthening democracy at the local level.

2.The Congress has a distinctive role to play within the Council of Europe, as it provides a forum where elected representatives can discuss common problems, share their experience and develop policies. It works to strengthen democracy through its monitoring activities.

3. In order to better secure the concrete implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities, the Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers call on all member states to:

a. ensure that the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities is set at an appropriate level to ensure the proper implementation of human rights, and that monitoring compliance with these rights can be effectively carried out;

b. involve representatives of local and regional authorities in the drafting of national human rights strategies, policies and indicators, in order to have their input and make them aware of their responsibilities in the implementation of human rights;

c. encourage local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights through awareness-raising initiatives and through local and regional action plans;

d. encourage the setting-up of independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level and, in particular, to create independent bodies, such as local or regional ombudspersons, able to find remedies in cases where human rights are not fully respected, in particular in the delivery of local public services;

1. Debated and adopted by the Congress on 17 March 2010, 1st Sitting (see Document CG(18)6, explanatory memorandum), rapporteur: L.O. Molin (Sweden, L, EPP/CD).

e. involve civil society organisations in the planning and implementation of activities for the protection of human rights at all levels.

4. The Congress notes that the best way to secure the effective protection of human rights is to take action on the basis of a regular, comprehensive and accurate review of the situation. Therefore, the Congress asks the Committee of Ministers to invite member states to consider ways of encouraging local and regional authorities to create appropriate structures and procedures in order to facilitate effective monitoring of the human rights situation at local and regional level. There is no standard solution for implementing human rights at local and regional level, but a criterion of good governance should be to provide citizens with sufficient support and advice to exercise their rights.

5. The Congress also asks the Committee of Ministers to urge member states to ensure that local and regional authorities comply with the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation of human rights.

6. The Congress stresses that education and benchmarking are crucial to the improvement of the situation of human rights in Europe at all levels. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

a. encourage a systematic multi-level dialogue between the political levels of all member states in order to promote the human rights dimension in local self-governance;

b. foster respect for human rights through the training of local and regional elected representatives and their staff.

APPENDIX 7

The Congress

of Local and Regional Authorities

STANDING COMMITTEE

Strasbourg, 18 June 2010

Procedures for monitoring the obligations
and commitments entered into by the Council of Europe member States in respect of their ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-government (CETS No. 122)

Resolution 307 (2010)[69]

1. The European Charter of Local Self-government is the authoritative legal instrument guaranteeing respect of a minimum of rights forming the first European platform for local self-government.

2. The Congress refers to its Resolution 31 (1996) on Guiding principles for the action of the Congress when preparing reports on local and regional democracy in member States and applicant States.

3. It also recalls the Committee of Ministers’ Statutory Resolution CM/Res(2007)6,[70] which stipulates that it is for the Congress to monitor implementation of the Charter by the countries having ratified it, and states inter alia, that:

"2-3. The Congress shall prepare on a regular basis country-by-country reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in all member States and in States which have applied to join the Council of Europe, and shall ensure, in particular, that the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are implemented (…)

2-5. Recommendations and opinions of the Congress shall be sent as appropriate to the Parliamentary Assembly and/or the Committee of Ministers as well as to European and international organisations and institutions. Resolutions and other adopted texts which do not entail possible action by the Assembly and/or the Committee of Ministers shall be transmitted to them for their information."

4. The Congress monitoring procedure is a crucial tool for checking that the Council of Europe countries having ratified the European Charter of Local Self-government honour their commitments. In addition to checking in respect of States' commitments, the procedure makes it possible to establish open and constructive dialogue between the Congress and the national, local and regional authorities of member States, via impartial and independent co-rapporteurs appointed on the basis of objective criteria.

5. The Congress believes it necessary to organise these monitoring procedures on a regular basis in each member State which ratified the European Charter of Local-Self Government. Given the ever-changing nature of local and regional democracy, it believes that it should be possible to organise these visits at least once every five years.

6. The Congress stresses how important it is for the Council of Europe to ensure that the commitments entered into by all its member States are fully honoured.

7. Pursuant to the aforementioned texts, the Congress must ensure that it monitors the commitments entered into by the member States having ratified the European Charter of Local Self-government and/or its additional protocol on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority[71] (hereinafter "the Charter").

8. Within that monitoring effort, the European Convention on Human Rights (CETS No.5) and the revised European Social Charter (CETS No.163) may also be taken into account, in as much as they entail obligations in respect of local and regional authorities.

9. Furthermore, pursuant to Resolution 299 (2010), the Reference Framework for Regional Democracy will have to be taken into consideration.[72]

10. To achieve that objective, the Bureau shall decide to organise monitoring in one or more given countries, either because of a particular situation requiring clarification regarding application of the Charter or in order to update a report on the situation of local and/or regional democracy. It shall instruct the Institutional Committee to make arrangements for the monitoring of the honouring of these commitments in that/those countries. Monitoring is also intended to check the content of any notifications made by the State pursuant to Article 12 of the Charter when depositing their instrument of ratification and, where applicable, explore with the authorities the possibility of ratifying, at a later date, the article(s) to which their notification related.

11. The monitoring visits must focus on the situation of local and regional democracy, except in countries which have no regional structures.

12. On the basis of a list of candidates, the Institutional Committee shall appoint two co-rapporteurs from among its members (one full member or alternate from its Chamber of Regions and one full member or alternate from its Chamber of Local Authorities). Appointment of the co-rapporteurs shall comply with Article 2 of the Rules governing the organisation of Congress monitoring procedures, appended to the present Resolution.

13. The Congress believes that, in the interest of ensuring compliance with the criteria of independence and impartiality of the co-rapporteurs, which are the very keys to the effectiveness of a monitoring mission, a co-rapporteur's mandate may not exceed five years and they may not be tasked with monitoring the same country for the five years following that initial period.

14. For the sake of the smooth running of the monitoring procedure, the committee may decide to extend the mandate of one of the co-rapporteurs, where there are grounds and if it is possible, for six months at the most, in particular to enable the co-rapporteur to present a report already entered on the agenda of a Congress part-session.

15. For the purposes of the present resolution, the mandate of co-rapporteurs shall commence on the date of their appointment.

16. By decision of the Institutional Committee, the delegation shall be assisted by a consultant drawn from the Group of Independent Experts on the European Charter of Local Self-government or by an independent consultant who has specialist knowledge of the country to be visited and substantial knowledge of the Charter and of local and regional democracy issues in Council of Europe member States.

17. The monitoring delegations shall meet inter alia with the ministers responsible for local and regional authorities, parliamentarians, local and regional elected representatives, officials of the competent authorities and also associations representing local and regional authorities and representatives of civil society.[73]

18. The report must be drafted, as far as possible, within six weeks following the visit.

19. The report on the situation of local and regional democracy in a country to which a monitoring visit or fact-finding visit has been made shall be drafted by the co-rapporteurs in collaboration with the consultant and the secretariat.

20. It must also take into account the recommendations and/or resolutions previously adopted by the Congress, particularly recommendations addressed to the country visited. The report shall also take into consideration the political context in which the monitoring visit took place and examine the situation of local and regional democracy in the light of other relevant Council of Europe texts[74] ratified by the country in question.

21. Once validated by the co-rapporteurs, the draft report shall be sent to the authorities of the country concerned which were met by the delegation, so that they may respond and send back their comments. The co-rapporteurs may decide to publish those comments in an appendix to their report.

22. The report shall be accompanied by a draft recommendation and if necessary a draft resolution.

23. Pursuant to Rule 42-5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Congress and its Chambers,[75] draft reports, recommendations and, where applicable, resolutions, shall be submitted for adoption to the Institutional Committee, and then for adoption by the Congress at a plenary session or a session of the Chambers.

24. Pursuant to Article 2-5 of the Statutory Resolution mentioned above, the recommendation shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers and to the Parliamentary Assembly.

25. Rules governing the organisation of Congress monitoring procedures are appended to the present resolution.

Appendix

Rules governing the organisation of Congress monitoring procedures pursuant to Resolution 307 (2010)

Pursuant to Resolution 307 (2010), the purpose of the present rules is to define the arrangements for organising procedures for monitoring the commitments of Council of Europe member States having signed and ratified the European Charter of Local Self-government[76] with the aim of achieving the objective set forth in the aforementioned Resolution.

1. The monitoring procedure

The monitoring procedure shall be carried out every five years in each Council of Europe member State having signed and ratified the European Charter of Local Self-government. It shall comprise four phases:

a) the monitoring visit;

b) examination of the report by the Congress and adoption by that body of a recommendation. If the co-rapporteurs think it necessary, they may propose a draft resolution for adoption by the Congress;

c) transmission to the Committee of Ministers for debate and subsequent transmission to the authorities of the country concerned;

d) an invitation issued to the authorities of the country concerned to address the plenary Session of the Congress or the Session of one of its Chambers between two monitoring procedures.

2. The co-rapporteurs

2.1 Two rapporteurs shall be appointed: one co-rapporteur for regional questions and one co-rapporteur for local questions in the case of a report focusing on the situation of local and regional democracy, and two co-rapporteurs for local questions in the case of a report focusing solely on local democracy;

2.2 The co-rapporteurs shall be appointed from among the full or alternate members of the Institutional Committee of the Congress who put forward their names as candidates;

2.3 Upon express derogation by the Chair of the Committee, a member of the Congress who is not a member of the Institutional Committee may be appointed as co-rapporteur;

2.4 The co-rapporteurs must be appointed in a manner that ensures a balanced representation of the political groups and the group of members not registered with a political group of the Congress;

2.5 Candidates for monitoring exercises may be appointed for only one monitoring exercise at a time;

2.6 The co-rapporteurs must not be nationals of the country concerned by the monitoring procedure, or a bordering country or a country which has a particular relationship with the country to be monitored;

2.7 The maximum duration of the rapporteurs' mandate shall be 5 years, dating from their appointment;

2.8 A co-rapporteur's mandate may exceptionally be extended for a maximum of six months, on grounds of the timetable for the presentation of the monitoring report at a Congress session.

3. Monitoring visits

3.1 Number of visits

The monitoring procedure shall comprise one visit to the country concerned. Should they think it necessary, the co-rapporteur may make a second visit subject to the Bureau's agreement.

3.2 The delegation

The delegation participating in the monitoring visits shall comprise the 2 co-rapporteurs assisted by one/two representatives of the Congress Secretariat and a consultant drawn from the Group of Independent Experts on the European Charter of Local Self-government or by an independent consultant who has specialist knowledge of the country to be visited and substantial knowledge of the Charter and of local and regional democracy issues in Council of Europe member States.

3.3 Preparation of the visit

3.3.1 The visit shall be prepared by the Congress Secretariat in conjunction with the national, regional and local authorities, and also the national association(s) of local and regional authorities.

3.3.2 The Secretariat shall draw up a draft programme in conjunction with the co-rapporteurs.

3.3.3 The draft programme shall be communicated to the Permanent Representative of the country concerned to the Council of Europe and to the secretary of the country's delegation to the Congress. The Congress Secretariat shall inform the Permanent Representation of the country concerned and also the secretary of its national delegation to the Congress of correspondence with the authorities.

3.3.4 The visit programme shall make provision for meetings with the authorities responsible for questions of local and regional democracy or dealing with these questions, and also with the officials of the administrations concerned, notably:

· the minister(s) responsible for local and regional authorities;

· members of parliament (national and/or regional) – particularly those responsible for local or regional issues;

· local and regional elected representatives, including the Congress delegation, the mayor of the capital city and mayors of small and medium-sized municipalities;

· the President of the Constitutional Court;

· the national, regional and/or local ombudsman;

· a specialist on questions linked to the application of the Charter in the country concerned;

· associations representing local and regional authorities;

· representatives of civil society from non-governmental organisations and trade unions of the country visited.

Generally speaking, the co-rapporteurs might meet any individual whom they consider useful to interview for their task.

3.3.5 The secretariat shall provide the rapporteurs with the most comprehensive possible information on the country visited.

3.3.6 The consultant shall contribute to the preparation of the visit by drawing up a concise list of questions to be broached concerning problems linked to the application of the Charter. This list shall also include the questions raised during the previous visit to the country. The consultant shall also take into account any notifications made by the State when depositing their instrument of ratification of the Charter and the current political context.

3.3.7 The list of topics which the delegation wishes to broach shall be sent, at least one week prior to the visit, to the Permanent Representation to the Council of Europe of the state concerned, and to the talking partners listed in the programme.

3.4 Running of the visit

3.4.1 A work meeting of the delegation shall be organised prior to the series of meetings scheduled in the programme inter alia to enable the co-rapporteurs to check with the secretariat and the consultant that they have all the necessary information concerning their talking partners and the substantive topics they are to broach with the authorities during the visit.

3.4.2 In the course of their scheduled meetings, the co-rapporteurs will hold talks with the country's political authorities, mentioned in paragraph 3.3.4. The consultant and the secretariat may speak on such occasions, with the rapporteurs' permission.

3.4.3 A meeting of the delegation members shall be organised on the spot by the secretariat at the end of the visit in order to assess the information gathered and the overall running of the visit.

4. Preparation of the report, recommendation and resolution

4.1 The report shall be drafted, as far as possible, within a maximum of six weeks following the visit.

4.2 The report on the situation of local and regional democracy in a country to which a monitoring visit or fact-finding visit has been made shall be drafted by the co-rapporteurs in collaboration with the consultant and the secretariat.

4.3 It shall also take account of the recommendations and/or resolutions previously adopted by the Congress, particularly recommendations addressed to the country visited. The report must also take into consideration the political context in which the monitoring visit took place and examine the situation of local and regional democracy in the light of other relevant Council of Europe texts ratified by the country in question.[77]

4.4 Once validated by the co-rapporteurs, the draft report shall be sent to the authorities of the country concerned which were met by the delegation, so that they may respond and send back their comments. The co-rapporteurs may decide to publish those comments in an appendix to their report.

4.5 The report shall be accompanied by a draft recommendation and if necessary a draft resolution.

5. Adoption of and follow-up to recommendations

5.1 Pursuant to Rule 42-5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Congress and its Chambers,[78] the preliminary draft report, recommendation and, where applicable, resolution, shall be submitted to the Institutional Committee for examination and adoption.

5.2 The draft report, recommendation and, where applicable, resolution shall be presented by the co-rapporteurs and examined by the Congress with a view to their adoption within the framework of its Session or the sittings of the Chambers.

5.3 Pursuant to Article 2-5 of the Statutory Resolution, the recommendation shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for debate and transmission to the authorities of the state concerned and to the Parliamentary Assembly.

5.4 Implementation of the recommendation shall be followed up by the member States concerned and by the Congress as well as the intergovernmental entities of the Council of Europe competent in the area of local and regional democracy inter alia within the framework of the ongoing dialogue established with the authorities during the visit.

APPENDIX 8

The Congress

of Local and Regional Authorities

19^th SESSION

Strasbourg, 26-28 October 2010

Priorities of the Congress for 2011-2012

Resolution 310 (2010)[79]

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,

1. Welcoming the reform of the inter-governmental sector of the Council of Europe, initiated by Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, with the backing of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, with a view to re-focusing the Council of Europe’s activities on its fundamental values and at revitalising it as a political body and innovative organisation.

2. Having considered Congress Resolution 304 (2010) on the Priorities of the Congress for 2011-2012.

3. Having regard for the replies received from its members, national associations and observers, following the consultation that it carried out in July and August 2010.

4. Adopts the priorities which are set out in the appendix to this resolution and instructs the Congress Bureau to implement them.

Appendix

Priorities of the Congress 2011-2012

1. The Congress is the Council of Europe's assembly of local and regional representatives, a political body of territorial representatives who hold an elected mandate in their own country.

2. Its mission is to be a watchdog for local and regional democracy in Europe, a partner of governments and a reference point for territorial democracy, notably through monitoring the European Charter of Local Self-Government, through political dialogue with the Committee of Ministers and with local, regional and national authorities of member States. It also develops special thematic work through its recommendations and resolutions.

3. In 2011-2012 the Congress will further align its activities and strategy with the priorities of the Council of Europe, focusing its work to develop local and regional democracy in five areas, at the same time taking account of the reforms initiated by Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland and supported by the Committee of Ministers. It will adapt its structures accordingly.

4. In accordance with its revised cooperation agreement with the European Union Committee of the Regions (12 November 2009), the Congress will endeavour to translate these priorities through the Contact Group in a joint work programme with the committees of the Committee of the Regions, primarily the Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs (CIVEX).

I. Monitoring: a new dynamic

5. The Congress will bring a new dynamic to its monitoring activities, making them more frequent, more regular, more systematic and more open to political dialogue, enabling the Congress to fulfil its mission as a monitoring body of the Council of Europe. These activities have to be coordinated with the other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, to ensure greater impact and tangible developments in member States.

6. The cornerstone of the monitoring activities of the Congress remains the benchmark Council of Europe treaty, the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which sets standards for both local and regional democracy in the Council of Europe member States. At the same time the Congress will be widening and deepening the scope of its monitoring activities to take into account the Council of Europe Reference Framework for Regional Democracy, approved by the Ministers responsible for local and regional government in Utrecht in 2009, and Congress Resolution 296 (2010) on the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights, adopted as part of the follow-up to the Forum for the Future of Democracy's Sigtuna conference.

II. Election observation: widening the scope

7. The citizens' right to exercise their democratic choice in free and fair local elections is the sine qua non of democracy. It is a prerequisite to the health of local communities within a genuinely democratic society. Above all it is the first step in the political participation that is enshrined in the preamble to the European Charter of Local Self-government and its Additional Protocol on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority.

8. An election is not just one day: it is far more than the act of voting, it includes the campaign and the complex process of enabling citizens to make an informed choice in a pluralistic political landscape. To make an accurate assessment of the conduct of the election, the whole process needs to be examined, including the political, legal and media systems. The Congress will therefore systematize its practice of conducting pre-electoral missions, to ensure a proper understanding of the context and process of elections. Cooperation will be developed with the relevant Council of Europe bodies in this respect. In carrying out its election observation mission, the Congress will continue to involve the Committee of the Regions of the European Union in developing its observation capacity. It will also continue to cooperate, when appropriate, with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR). To ensure the effectiveness of election observation, the Congress will continue to implement political follow-up to its recommendations and resolutions.

III. Targeted post-monitoring and observation assistance

9. To achieve real results with respect to the recommendations of its monitoring and election observation missions, the Congress will organise specific cooperation programmes with the member States concerned to address the major issues that it has highlighted as requiring attention and to increase their knowhow and capacity for local governance and election organisation.

10. Such programmes should involve local and regional representatives, not just those of the countries concerned, but also those from other European countries who are willing to share their acquis and expertise on a peer-to-peer basis.

11. The Congress will seek to co-finance such activities through voluntary contributions and support from the European Union and other international partners.

IV. The new local dimension of human rights

12. Human rights are not exclusively the concern of national authorities. The respect of human rights has to be addressed at the local level. It is a key responsibility of territorial authorities, interdependent with good local and regional governance.

13. In accordance with its 2008 joint declaration with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Congress will work to make local and regional authorities aware of their responsibilities for the implementation of human rights. It is the role of local and regional authorities to ensure that their activities are fully compliant with Council of Europe human rights standards, such as, for instance, ensuring equal access to public services. We need to ensure that our communities are providing the same protection to all persons living in their territories.

14. In this respect, the Congress will promote the implementation of good practices and mechanisms of mediation, such as independent local and regional ombudsmen.

V. Streamlining thematic activities

15. The Congress will specify its thematic activities within its statutory committees in accordance with the core values of the Council of Europe and the competence of these committees, focusing on local and regional aspects of the Council of Europe’s priorities, reflected also in the priorities of the Utrecht Agenda (17 November 2009), including promoting good governance, interregional and cross-border cooperation, social cohesion, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue.

16. These activities will treat issues that are addressed during the monitoring activities of the Congress, notably the application of the European Charter of Local Self-government and the Reference Framework for Regional Democracy and related human rights issues, such as the full participation of all citizens in local political life and the related questions of equality of opportunity in local life and freedom of assembly and expression.

17. In implementing these objectives, the Congress will bear in mind the need to avoid overlap and duplication of work and instead to develop synergies with other relevant Council of Europe bodies, such the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) and the Council of Europe Centre of Expertise for Local Self-Government Reform.

APPENDIX 9

Comments of the CDLR to the Ministers’ Deputies on

Congress Recommendation 280 (2010)

“The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights”

1. The CDLR examined Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) – “The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” at its plenary meeting on 12-14 October 2010.

2. In order to be able to do so a request had to be made by the CDLR Bureau to the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies for an extension of the original deadline (which would not have allowed for a plenary discussion). The CDLR thanks the Ministers’ Deputies for making a plenary discussion of this important matter possible.

3. The CDLR is pleased to note that the object of the Recommendation, the role of local authorities in the implementation of human rights, is connected directly not only to the core values for which the Council of Europe stands, but also to several of the specific challenges identified by Ministers in the Utrecht Agenda for delivering good local and regional governance. This issue is at the core of the Council of Europe’s mission. The CDLR believes the time has come work out in concrete terms the role and actions the Council of Europe and its various bodies can usefully play to deliver added value to members States and its citizens in this area.

4. In so doing it is important to draw on previous work, in particular the 2007 edition of the Forum for the Future of Democracy on the link between human rights and democracy, as well as to ensure synergies with current activities, including the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level. The twelve principles of good democratic governance on which the latter is based include human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion. The CDLR is currently conducting a feasibility study to see whether these twelve principles could be the subject of a recommendation by the Committee of Ministers to member States. The Congress is associated to this reflection through its participation in the meetings of the CDLR and its sub—Committee (LR-GG).

5. In Recommendation 280 the Congress makes a number of recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, asking it to call on, invite and urge members States to take a variety of steps and broad-ranging measures pertaining to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights.

6. The CDLR recommends that the Ministers’ Deputies invite the Congress to enter into a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities. The Bureaux of the Congress and the CDLR could work out the concrete modalities for joint work and report back to the Deputies. The work thus conducted could also serve as a useful contribution to the preparation of 17th session of the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government (Kyiv, November 2011).

7. The CDLR also noted with interest a further initiative of the Congress in the field of human rights at local level, namely the adoption by the Standing Committee of the Congress on 18 June 2010 of Resolution 307 on Procedures for monitoring the obligations and commitments entered into by the Council of Europe member States in respect of their ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (CETS No 122). The CDLR also noted that the Ministers’ Deputies took note of this Resolution at their 1090th meeting on 7 July 2010.

8. The Resolution henceforth stipulates that within the monitoring effort, the European Convention on Human rights (CETS No 5) and the revised Social Charter (CETS No 163) may also be taken into account, in as much as they entail obligations in respect of local and regional authorities.

9. The CDLR considers that it would be of great interest for the Congress and the CDLR to join efforts to examine which obligations these instruments entail in respect of local and regional authorities.

10. Such a dialogue seems all the more pertinent because the Resolution envisages that the implementation of the recommendations (resulting from the monitoring by the Congress) shall, inter alia, be followed up by the intergovernmental entities of the Council of Europe in the area of local and regional democracy.

11. The dialogue on this issue could be usefully combined with the one proposed in respect of Recommendation 280.

APPENDIX 10

Ministers’ Deputies

CM Documents

CM/Cong(2011)Rec280 final 11 July 2011

“The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” –
Recommendation 280 (2010) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
(Reply adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 July 2011 at the 1118th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

1. The Committee of Ministers has carefully examined Recommendation 280 (2010) on “The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, which it has brought to the attention of the member states’ governments. It has forwarded the recommendation to the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR), the Steering Committee for Education (CDED) and the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), for information and possible comments.

2. The Committee of Ministers agrees with the Congress that local and regional authorities, in their fields of competence, must comply with the human rights obligations which stem from the international commitments of the member states. It therefore notes with interest the measures proposed by the Congress to raise awareness of human rights at the local and regional level and welcomes the initiative of the Congress to make “Human rights at local level” the main theme for the European Local Democracy Week 2011 which will take place in October. It notes that the local dimension of human rights is a focal point of the Congress’ activities in 2011-2012. The Committee of Ministers finally notes that the Congress does not intend to monitor, or on its monitoring visits to assess, the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities and that it will not duplicate the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

3. The Committee of Ministers welcomes the reform of the Congress in the framework of the overall reform process of the Council of Europe. In this context, it recalls its reply to Congress Recommendation 290 (2010) on the “Reform of the Congress structure and working methods”. The Committee of Ministers invites the Congress to re-examine its Resolutions 296 (2010), 307 (2010) and 310 (2010) in order to ascertain whether they need to be adjusted in the light of paragraph 2 above.^{^[80]}

4. The Committee of Ministers notes with interest the Congress’ idea that representatives of local and regional authorities could be invited to participate in the drafting of national human rights strategies, policies and indicators. It supports awareness-raising initiatives by local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights; local and regional action plans; the setting-up of independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level, such as local or regional ombudspersons; and the involvement by civil society at the local and regional level in the planning and implementation of human rights activities, taking into account structural differences in member states.

5. The Committee of Ministers agrees with the Congress that education is important for the improvement of the situation of human rights in Europe at all levels and highlights the usefulness of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted in the framework of the Committee’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7. It further notes that several practical tools and instruments have been prepared in the framework of the Council of Europe activities on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, some of which may be particularly relevant for local and regional authorities, such as the “Policy Tool for Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights: Strategic Support for Decision Makers” and the “School-Community-University Partnerships for a Sustainable Democracy: Education for Democratic Citizenship in Europe and the United States”.

[1] Mr Auke van der Goot, the Netherlands. Unfortunately the co-rapprteur, Mr Paul-Henri Philips of Belgium, was for health reasons unable to take part beyond the initial stage in the preparation of this draft report.

[2]Of course, also at international level the protection of human rights is not the exclusive domain of the Council of Europe.

[3] In federal countries, the term « central government » concerns both the federal government (in respect of the federated entities and, as the case may be, local authorities) and the government of the federated entities (in respect of their local authorities). Where the collection of information from all federated entities may be too cumbersome, a limited number of cases may be sufficient.

[4]L: Chamber of Local Authorities/R: Chamber of Regions

ILDG: Independent and Liberal Democrat Group of the Congress

EPP/CD: Group European People's Party - Christian Democrats of the Congress

SOC: Socialist Group of the Congress

NR: Member not belonging to any political group of the Congress

[5] Preliminary draft resolution and preliminary draft recommendation approved by the Institutional Committee on 15 February 2010

Members of the Committee:

K. Whitmore (Chair), R. Aguilar Rivero, J. Almeida Barreto, Z. Alimpic (alternate: D. Milovanovic), M. Y. Barcina Angulo, P. Bosch I Codola, J. Brons, E. Calota, M. Catovic, L. Caveri, V. Chilikov (alternate: D. Ruseva), M. Cohen, B. Collin-Langen, M. Cools (alternate), C.M. Do Vale Cesar, S. Eichler, A.U. Erzen (alternate: G. Doganoglu), J. Gabriels, B. Grasset, A. Gravells (alternate: N. Mermagen), A. Grytsenko (alternate: T. Demchenko), G. Grzelak, M. Guégan, M. Gulevskiy (alternate: V. Belikov), M. Haak-Griffioen, A. Harutyunyan (alternate: E. Yeritsyan), G. Illes, M. Kebo, W. Kelsch, O. Kidik, O. A. Kvalöy, I. Kulichenko (alternate: Y. Kartashov), J. Landberg, F. Lec, I. Loizidou, J.-C. Mairal, Y. Mischeriakov, L. O. Molin, J. Mrazek, A. Muzio (alternate: F. Pellegrini), C. Newbury, G. Pavlidis, H. Pihlajasaari, G. Pieper, M. Pineschi, G. Policinschi, C. Radulescu, A. Rokofillou, B. Rope, Y. Rzayeva, V. Salygin, P. Schowtka, D. Shakespeare, V. Storm Rasmussen, A. Turku, S. Ugrekhelidze, H. Van Staa, M. Varnavskiy, P. Volner (alternate: K. Bene), J. Wienen (alternate), M.J. Yildiz, D. Zmegac.

N.B. : The names of members who took part in the vote are in italics.

Secretariat of the Committee : S. Poirel

[6] See footnote 2

[7] Resolution 269 (2008)1 European Urban Charter II – Manifesto for a new urbanity.

[8] Such as the Barcelona Colloquium, the first round table of European regional ombudsmen, Barcelona 2–3 July 2004, co-organised by the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights.

[9] Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy, Stockholm/Sigtuna, Sweden 13–15 June 2007 and Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, Systematiskt arbete för mänskliga rättigheter – en utmaning för kommuner, landsting och regioner, Dokumentation från seminarium 6 oktober 2008.

[10] Article 4.3 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government provides ”Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy.”

[11] Report prepared with Professor Tom Madell, Umeå University, Sweden, as expert.

[12] Staaf & Zanderin (Eds.), Mänskliga rättigheter i svensk belysning, 2007, p. 74.

[13]Eleanor Roosevelt, Remarks at the United Nations, March 27, 1958. Quotation from Chavkin & Chesler, Where human rights begin: health, sexuality, and women in the new millennium, 2006, p. 1.

[14] Hammarberg, Real Democracy requires respect for Human Rights, CommDH/ Speech(2007)7, Strasbourg, 13 June 2007.

[15] See Monserrat Enrich Mas, Selected judgements of the European Court of Human Rights concerning local or regional authorities, updated on 15 September 2009.

[16] Whitmore, The links between local and regional democracy and human rights, Contribution of the Congress to the Forum for the Future of Democracy (Sigtuna, Sweden, 13–15 June 2007). The expert who prepared the report was professor Emmanuel Décaux, President of the International Permanent Secretariat Human Rights and Local Government, SPIDH, Nantes, http://www.spidh.org/en/home/index.html. The report claims the right to manage local affairs to be a ”collective” political right. The right to joint control over their affairs at the local level according to the European Charter of Local Self-government is still not recognised as an individual political right, or at least has not yet been brought before the European Court of Human Rights.

[17] Jacobs & White, The European Convention on Human Rights, 2006, p. 6–8.

[18] Sometimes referred to as classical or negative (liberal) rights.

[19] Sometimes referred to as positive rights.

[20] Article 3 of the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights establishes the right to vote in elections to the legislative assembly.

[21] Cf. the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, ETS no. 144.

[22] E.g. the Sami communities, which are the largest group of indigenous people in Europe and encompass the northern parts of Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Kola Peninsula of Russia.

[23] See, for example, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS 148) and the Revised European Social Charter.

[24] These rights have existed for a long time, but their classification as human rights is quite recent.

[25] Mention can be made of the fact that the Revised European Social Charter has an additional protocol of 1995 providing for a system of collective complaints, CETS No. 158.

[26] The compliance of the member states' legislation with these rights is monitored by the Committee of Independent Experts of the European Social Charter. Recommendations are sent to the Committee of Ministers which addresses them to the relevant authorities of the member state concerned. See http.//www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/AboutCharter_en.asp.

[27] See Gustafsson, Rättens polyvalens, 2002.

[28] Gustafsson, Rättens polyvalens, 2002.

[29] Whitmore, The links between local and regional democracy and human rights, Contribution of the Congress to the Forum for the Future of Democracy (Sigtuna, Sweden, 13–15 June 2007).

[30] Here the so called quadrilogue – made up of governments, members of parliament, local and regional authorities, and non-governmental organisations – might serve as an interesting model.

[31]http://brs.skl.se/brsbibl/kata_documents/doc39367_1.pdf

[32] See Reforming the European Convention on Human Rights; A work in progress, CoE, 2009, p. 266 ff.

[33] See Reforming the European Convention on Human Rights; A work in progress, CoE, 2009, p. 472–476.

[34] See Culpitt, Welfare and Citizenship. Beyond the Crisis of the Welfare State, 1992.

[35] See Morris & Haigh, The Citizen’s Charter and Quality Management: Harmony or Discord, in: Chandler (ed.), The Citizen's Charter, 1996, pp. 67–84, p. 73 f. See also http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/1998/sfirst/bk1forw.htm.

[36] See e.g. Naundrup Olesen, ABSservice 2003 – Almindelige Betingelser for levering af Serviceydelser, UfR 2002, pp. 276–283, and Kuuttiniemi & Virtanen, Citizens Charters and Compensation Mechanisms, Ministry of Finance, Research reports 11/1998.

[37] See e.g. Byone, Beyond the Citizen’s Charter; New Directions for Social Rights, 1996. Mention should also be made of the development in the United Kingdom of a number of handbooks relating to the UK Human Rights Act that are very clear and down-to-earth and therefore can serve as a helpful tool.

[38] See also Pierre Corneloup & Giofranco Martini, Intercultural and inter-religious dialogue – an opportunity for local authorities, Recommendation 245 (2008). Another example that can be mentioned is the work with action plans according to the European Charter for equality of women and men in local life elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR).

[39] See Diputació de Barcelona, Pilot test for the creation of a Local Agenda for Human rights 2009, Equality and Citizenship department, Office for Citizen Participation. www.diba.cat/participatio/dretshumans.

[40] Jacobs & White, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4^th Ed., 2006, p. 463–471.

[41] “The remedy is in the ballot box” means that if a citizen is not happy with the decisions of the elected officials in local government, then he or she can always vote against them at the next election. The argument contends that this is not a matter for the courts but for the political process. A classic situation could be a political decision that was dictated by having to decide about distribution of scarce resources.

[42] Whitmore, The links between local and regional democracy and human rights, Contribution of the Congress to the Forum for the Future of Democracy (Sigtuna, Sweden, 13–15 June 2007)

[43] See http://www.pff.se/Information-in-English/.

[44] The objective of the Anti-Discrimination Agency's activities is to strengthen anti-discrimination work at the municipal and regional level, to raise visibility, influence and change the discriminatory structures and thereby prevent and combat the various forms of discrimination and to help streamline the application of discrimination legislation.

[45] See the Congress guidelines on the local and regional ombudsman and the results of the conference in Messina (Italy 13–15 November 1997) on “Making the protection of rights more accessible to citizens: the ombudsman at local and regional level” and Recommendation 61 (1999) on the role of local and regional mediators/ombudsmen in defending citizens’ rights.

[46] See also the fight against corruption, Resolution 79 (1999) on political integrity of local and regional elected representatives and the Code of Conduct for [Charter on rights and obligations of] elected representatives.

[47] Oliver, Common Values and the Public-Private Divide, 1999, p. 38 f.

[48] See Södergren, Vem dömer i gråzonen?, 2009, s. 541. An interesting question that awaits a comprehensive reply from the European Court is whether national rules that absolutely bar certain categories of claims from the courts are in conformity with Article 6 (1) – i.e. whether such rules should be regarded as ”substantial” or ”procedural”.

[49] See Södergren, Vem dömer i gråzonen?, 2009, s. 542.

[50] Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2009, p. 29.

[51] The 2005 Juncker Report on co-operation between the EU and the Council of Europe suggested such ratification.

[52] See also the address given by Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland at the conference “Fundamental rights in the EU in view of the accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, Madrid, 2 February 2010.

[53] See for example Russia, Serbia and Spain. It might be worth mentioning that the United Nations Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural rights stated in 2001, with regard to Sweden, that “While recognising that a number of Ombudspersons exist in the State party, the Committee recommends that the State party consider, in the framework of the National Plan of Action for Human Rights, the creation of a national human rights institution to deal with the protection and promotion of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights.” http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/documents/827/572/document/en/doc/text.doc.

[54] E.g. the Swedish system with a Consumer Ombudsman and the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN), which is a public authority that functions roughly like a court. Its main task is impartial adjudication of disputes between consumers and business operators.

[55] See Diputació Barcelona, xarxa de municipalis, Els drets humans; Adaptió de les normatives municipals a la Carta Europea, Setembre de 2008, and Diputació Barcelona, xarxa de municipalis, Síndics defensors; Apunts per a la seva implementatió, Desembre de 2008.

[56] Whitmore, The links between local and regional democracy and human rights, Contribution of the Congress to the Forum for the Future of Democracy (Sigtuna, Sweden, 13–15 June 2007).

[57] See The Congress guidelines on the local and regional ombudsman and the results of the conference in Messina (Italy 13–15 November 1997) on “Making the protection of rights more accessible to citizens: the ombudsman at local and regional level” and Recommendation 61 (1999) on the role of local and regional mediators/ombudsmen in defending citizens’ rights.

[58] See Monserrat Enrich Mas, Selected judgements of the European Court of Human Rights concerning local or regional authorities, updated on 15 September 2009.

[59]van Dijk et al, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4^th Ed., 2006, p. 126, and Pellonpää, Europeiska människorättskonventionen, 2007, p. 139.

[60] See the Commissioner’s Recommendation on systematic work for implementing human rights at the national level, http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/090302_en.asp.

[61] Rights work! Make them real! Conclusions from the International Conference on Systematic Work for Human Rights Implementation held in Stockholm on 6–7 November 2008. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1408617&Site=CM and http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11087.

[62]http://www.nhri.net/.

[63]http://brs.skl.se/brsbibl/kata_documents/doc39367_1.pdf

[64] Whitmore, The links between local and regional democracy and human rights, Contribution of the Congress to the Forum for the Future of Democracy (Sigtuna, Sweden, 13–15 June 2007).

[65] See http://www.pff.se/Information-in-English/.

[66] The objective of the Anti-Discrimination Agency's activities is to strengthen anti-discrimination work at the municipal and regional level, to raise visibility, influence and change the discriminatory structures and thereby prevent and combat the various forms of discrimination and to help streamline the application of discrimination legislation.

[67] See http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/home/home_en.htm. The Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) is a network for co-operation and information exchange, set to act as the main channel for FRA's co-operation with civil society and to ensure a close co-operation between the Agency and relevant stakeholders.

[68] Recommendation Rec (2004) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states, Reforming the European Convention on Human Rights; A work in progress, CoE, 2009, p. 671–675.

[69] Debated and adopted by the Standing Committee on behalf of the Congress on 18 June 2010 (see document CG(18)19, presented by I. Micallef, Malta (L, EPP/CD), Rapporteur).

[70] Statutory Resolution (2007)- excerpts from Article 2.

[71] "The Charter" shall be taken to mean the European Charter of Local Self-government (CETS No.122) including its additional protocol (CETS No.207).

[72] See the Final Declaration adopted by the European Ministers responsible for local and regional government on 17 November 2009 in Utrecht (Netherlands) within the framework of their 16th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference. It should be noted that the Reference Framework does not constitute a standard-setting instrument.

[73]See in this connection the Rules governing the practical arrangements for organising Congress monitoring visits (appended to the present resolution).

[74] Such as the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (CETS No.144), the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (CETS no.148), the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (CETS No. 157), Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention on transfrontier co-operation between territorial communities or authorities (CETS No.206) etc.

[75] As revised by the Congress at its 15th Plenary Session on 28 May 2008 (Resolution 256 (2008)) and supplemented by the Standing Committee on 2 December 2008 (Resolution 273 (2008)).

[76] CETS No. 122

[77] Such as the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (CETS No.144), the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (CETS No.148), the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (CETS No.157), Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation Between Territorial Communities or Authorities (CETS No. 206) etc.

[78] As revised by the Congress at its 15th Plenary Session on 28 May 2008 (Resolution 256 (2008)) and supplemented by the Standing Committee on 2 December 2008 (Resolution 273 (2008)).

[79] Debated and adopted by the Congress on 27 October 2010, 2nd Sitting (Rapporteur: I. Micallef, Malta (L, EPP/CD)).

^{^[80]} In particular Congress Resolution 296 (2010), paragraphs 10 and 11, Congress Resolution 307 (2010), paragraph 8 and Appendix, paragraph 4.3 (including the footnote), and Congress Resolution 310 (2010), Appendix, Chapter I, paragraph 6.