Human Rights

The ever rising housing demand in Europe, and indeed all over the world is forcing countries to develop measures ensuring that all people across income lines get decent accommodation.

Being among basis human rights, states are obligated to develop and maintain systems that consistently help citizens with their housing needs. In this regard, individual EU countries are under, the Union supposed to ensure that the basis human right of hosing is provided, failure of which could lead to disciplinary action from the secretariat as well as ridicule from other members.

However, the question whether the Brussels should have a say in member country housing policy has been rising and consistently debated at national and regional level. As a contribution to this debate, this paper shall investigate whether the European Union as a body has a part to play in national hosing policy development; it shall be argued that Brussels has no role to play at the national level. However, Brussels should provide guidelines and targets to be followed by individual member countries.

The paper shall pass Italy’s decentralization and Localization of housing problems as the best framework that EU should copy.  The concluding part would reiterate on important points made in the paper.

Brussels’ Role in National Housing Policy

Current arrangement at the regional levels have national governments take control of their nation’s housing policies (Priemus, 2006, p. 1). This ensures that individual countries develop and maintain policies that are in line with national demand. In addition, countries are able to wither through business cycles affecting their industries without affecting other nations.

Having each country take care of housing policies further mean that member countries are able to see and learn for best practices used in different nations. This diversity of policies are hard for EU officials to manage, which explains why national governments should continue taking the center stage.

Despite the independence of national governments in managing their countries’ housing markets, it has been reported that the European Union has been slowly making inroads into the management of the sector, a matter that many countries are not very comfortable-with (Priemus, 2006, p. 1). The EU comes into the management circle in the name of streamlining housing industry in the entire region. One route that is consistently used by the EU is the pretext of assuring that social aspects of housing are met by all members.

That is, members of the community without abilities to provide themselves with shelter are considered and equally attended. Due to the need of providing shelter for all in the region, EU authorities have been pushing national governments to adopt a single approach to the issue. This however requires minimal state intervention and increased role of the European Union in running of housing affairs in the region.

The loss of national control of the housing market is not being taken lightly by European governments and the electorates. One reason being that the sector is seen as so vital such that the state and local stakeholders have to be involved with day to day running of the industry.

National governments should less be involved in the management of housing industry as is in Italy, which means that even the EU should stay clear of housing. Reason: the one-size-fits-all policy of development would not be effective in meeting housing goals than the policy of decentralization (Eurofound, 2006, p. 7).

References

Eyk, H. (2002). EU & Housing. Amsterdam. Housing Ministry.

Eurofound, (2006). Social Dimensions of EU Housing. Dublin: Eurofound.

Longo, G. (2006). Coupling Localization and Urbanization of Housing in Italy.  Ljubljana:        ENHR.

Premus, H. (2006). EU and National Housing Systems. Ljubljana: ENHR.

Toa, A. (2007). Italian Housing Policy. Roma: University of Roma.

In Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala Virginia Sanford goes into the heart of Guatemala to six different locations of clandestine cemeteries to interview survivors of mass suicides that occurred during the period that is now known as La Violencia. Sanford strives to give voice to the Maya, who have been silenced all these years, and chose to have them write their own history of what happened during those dark years.

By uncovering the dark secrets of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union as well as those of the Guerilla Army of the poor, the Guatemalan people were able to begin to heal, to find justice, to become inspired to organize again for social change and to ultimately take control back over their own lives and participate in the democracy that they paid so dearly for (p. 73). Sanford constructs a “phenomenology of terror” through a forensic anthropological study of the clandestine grave sites at six different locations across Guatemala that the crimes against the Maya ultimately resulted in attempted genocide.

These massacres occurred during a period known as La Violencia (1978-1982) under the regime of General Lucas Garcia (1978-1982) and General Rios Montt (March 1982-Aug 1983) (p. 14). According to Sanford, La Violencia went from selective terror into mass terror culminating in the “scorched earth” campaign and ultimately the violence did not cease until the disarming of the last civil patrols and the signing of the 1996 Peace Accords (p. 15).

The Maya were the weak common people caught in the middle of a vicious war between the communist guerilla and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union (GNRU); where both sides took advantage of the Maya using them for food and shelter and killing them with little thought if they got in the way for any reason (p. 101). The Maya were simple farming people for the most part and their rights were easily stripped away and they were treated like slaves for years and after La Violencia, they were left maimed, poor and powerless.

The phenomenology of terror that Sanford constructed from the death records, bone analysis, testimonio and other public records/media consists of seven escalating phases of violence and domination (p. 32). . Through analysis of these phases Sanford proves the depth of the GNRU’s crimes and therefore brings them out in public for the Maya people to begin their process of healing. The phemomenology of terror starts with the “pre-massacre community organizing” which amounted to the Maya’s attempt to better their own community often through the local churches to build infrastructure for clean water etc.

Because this organizing sometimes included guerilla organizing (which Sanford indicates was often brought about by fear tactics on the guerilla’s part), it attracted violent repercussions from the GNRU (p. 127). The phase two, “the modus operandi of army massacres,” Sanford describes as the beginning of genocide because the GNRU felt they could not prevent the guerilla from organizing and they used this as an excuse to kill innocent civilians who might or might not have been involved, in order to scare everyone else away from the idea of helping the guerilla (p.

129). In the “post-massacre life in flight,” or phase three, the Guatemalans fled the killing fields of their own villages and took refuge in the mountains with little or no supplies or protection against the elements and many of them died of illness or exposure. The guerilla found them here too and sometimes forced them to kill their own children in order to survive (p. 132). In phase four the “army captures a community” and the Maya were basically treated like prisoners of war: they were tortured, raped, punished, and were forced to work for their food (p.

135). In phase five, “model villages,” the Guatemalans experienced something similar to German concentration camps where they lived under constant military control and were forced to work under fear of being tortured or killed (p. 138). In phase six, “the ongoing militarization of community life,” the civil patrollers, or police, were handed over control from the army but the struggle was still the same, the Maya continued to experience torture and abuse of power(p. 141).

In Sanford’s last denoted phase titled “living memory of terror,” the Maya struggle to put their lives back together while living in terror and with diminished rights. The police continued to control their lives and prevent them from bettering their communities in any way (p. 143). The uncovering of the phenomenology of terror is precisely how the healing process was instigating. The Maya people realized their need for healing when the bodies of their loved ones were being uncovered and when they heard the stories of their peers being told and realized that their own story needed to be revealed as well.

Sanford chose multiple excavation sites in order to have a variety of communities but also so that she could generalize. The communities she chose included: Ixil, K’iche’, Kaqchikel, Q’eqchi’ and Achi villages from the northwest highlands to the central lowlands to the eastern mountains (p. 17). Uncovering these clandestine grave sites amounted to taking back their villages, taking back their loved ones and giving them the respectful burial that they deserved. In doing this it created a political space that was stolen from the Maya in the reign of terror (p.

73). This political space allowed the people to come together and gain power in numbers; they never allowed themselves to be separated off so that no one person could be sacrificed for the cause of bringing out the truth of these massacres. Even those who still believed that the GNRU were telling the truth about the massacres, that the only people killed were communist guerillas, were brought to see the truth about La Violencia because “the bones don’t lie” (p. 47).

Even military officials came to give public recognition of the murders but gave many justifications for their ruthless actions (p. 16). After Sanford herself uncovered a woman’s corpse face down in a mass grave holding a small baby, it became clear that civilians, including women, children and the elderly were a large part of the sacrifice made at mass executions made by the GNRU (p. 43). Records indicate that most of the bodies at the Plan de Sanchez site were women, children and elderly (p. 47).

The Maya went to the Ministerio Publico (prosecutor) as a group and said, “We want a Christian burial for our families because they aren’t dogs, and we don’t want them piled up in those graves like dogs” (p. 39). They were not put down by the Rabinal when they were ordered to attend a meeting that amounted to them trying to control the Maya and prevent them from colluding with the foreigners to uncover the truth. “Leave the dead in peace” the sub-commander told them, but the Maya already knew that the dead were not in peace and stopped at nothing to uncover the rest of the truth so that they could be (p.

44). By pushing forward and sticking together the Maya was able to strip the power from the “memory of terror” to hold them down and instead used it to drive them forward for change and justice (p. 230). Sanford shows that the excavation process gave healing through several different avenues, besides giving the Maya strength in coming together and publicly revealing the truth, the excavation also brought healing through religious ritual and public consecration of the burial sites.

The rituals at burial sites “implicate the enactment of deeply held beliefs about the individual and community identity and reckoning in the past as well as the present” which Sanford believed was the powerful key to opening a future for the Maya in their own broken land (p. 40). Long after the confession and re-burial, the temples built on the sites allowed the Maya to continue their grief process and to continue to heal and have a place where they could go for remembrance of their loved ones and the pain they experienced (p. 245).

In addition, the exhumation inspired the local people to organize once again to try to better their communities and used the memory of terror as inspiration to work hard for change rather than allowing it to hold them down in fear (p. 211). These local initiatives included things such as support groups and groups advocating yet more exhumations. (p. 243). Sanford describes another type of healing that took place because of the exhumations and resulting testimonies that amounts to the clinical treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: testimonial therapy (p. 239).

By giving survivors the chance to “understand the impossible nature of the situation to which they had been exposed” and to transfer “the burden of responsibility to the perpetrators of violence and to the repressive structures that fomented their traumas” they were able to heal the emotional wounds of those experiences (p. 241). The final step in healing is providing the people with justice through charging those guilty of leading the massacres. Ultimately the confessions and the exhumations helped to bring those guilty of these horrible crimes to light for the sake of justice.

The Maya faced the obstacle of “auto-limpieza,” which was the act of killing those who were in charge of giving orders for the military on behalf of the men who were in the upper echelons of the military power structure—in other words, the men who could tell the truth about who was ultimately responsible for these massacres were killed (p. 211). In addition to this obstacle, the government attributed any challenge to their authority to equate to a national security threat. So when the Maya began to search for those guilty of these war crimes, they faced the old threat of terror (p.

251). According to Sanford, “justice, rule of law, and truth commission are now seen as a critical step for societies experiencing the transition from military rule,” therefore it was of utmost importance to the Maya to pursue justice and bring closure on the dark La Violencia era (p. 249). With the help of other Central American countries and international organizations such as the Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, the Maya people were given the added strength to bring justice to at least a few war criminals.

Without their help the Maya may never have been able to overcome the memory of terror which stood in the way of them being able to participate in the democracy that they paid so dearly for (p. 253). Ultimately the trials of the authors of this violence helped to construct, “a viable democracy by demonstration that the rule of law extends to the powerful as well as to the poor” (p. 270). In conclusion, Virginia Sanford shows through a forensic anthropological study of the massacre sites that genocide did indeed occur against the Mayan people and she lays out the timeline of violence in seven phases that she calls the phenomenology of terror.

Through the process of constructing this phenomenology the Maya are brought together again and inspired to better their community and fight for justice. They experience healing through testimonio (of their PTSD) and through public recognition of their loved one’s sacrifices in religious ritual and the consecration of the burial sites. By consecrating those public spaces and bringing to justice those who were responsible, the Maya were able to break fear of the memory of terror and take their rightful place in the democracy that they paid so dearly for.

Bartolome de Las Casas was one of the pioneers and a champion of human rights in the most critical period of history. The context of his presence needs a deeper understanding. The Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades were ‘justified’ as a sanction granted by God. The natives were seen as uncivilized beings and the only way to ‘tame’ them was by using brutal force.

The genocide of the natives by the Spanish Inquisition resulted in many tribes erased without a trace. The natives referred by Bartolome da Las Casas were only to name a few.

The significance of Las Casas was his ability to push the law and have many inhuman authorities removed from the Council. Under such pretext, it would be unfair to use modern day judgment to criticize Las Casas. This paper establishes that Las Casas, given his time that he lived in and the kind of family that he was raised in, was justified in his manner of referencing to the natives. The world has not become a better place and our modern understanding of human rights and the violation of human rights, at least as expressed by the UN stems from the views of Las Casas.

The historical context explicitly implies that Las Casa himself was from an upper class family who then later had the power to negotiate in favor of the natives. Las Casas was himself ‘gifted’ with Juanico, a Taino youth for a servant when he was a little boy. So for a man of his stature who belonged and had the ‘luxury’ of the oppressor, was willing and believed he could stop the evil. He had the ear of the courts who were the decision makers. Although his supplications were met with heavy criticism, he was determined to stop the brutality towards the natives.

As far as the wealth was brought in, and exhibited in Spain from the New World, people were drawn towards it and were completely blind to the atrocities committed by them, and to make things worse, they were all done in the name of religion. Under such pretext who would have been a better person to condemn than a seminarian. The setting is a world where the masses are mesmerized by wealth and are willing to do anything to get their hands on it. This very thought and behavior is against the very religious belief that the colonizers practiced to massacre the natives.

Hence it is understandable if Las Casas is isolated in terms of being the only person who despite his disposition took the risk of condemning and putting his own life on the line to speak for the voiceless. Over and over the attitude of Las Casas is focused only on his description of the natives, whose plight is all the more pitiful, because of the brutal behavior of the colonizers. When he is describing the natives as gentle beings, it highlights their state of helplessness in comparison to the beastly behavior of the colonizers.

God has created all these numberless people to be quite the simplest, without malice or duplicity, most obedient, most faithful to their natural Lords, and to the Christians, whom they serve; the most humble, most patient, most peaceful and calm, without strife nor tumults; not wrangling, nor querulous, as free from uproar, hate and desire of revenge as any in the world. . . . From a seminarian perspective, the natives are the humble sheep possessed of Christian virtues and the sinners are the Christian colonizers. The description of the natives is in stark contrast to the description of the colonizers.

The Christians, with their horses and swords and lances, began to slaughter and practice strange cruelty among them. They penetrated into the country and spared neither children nor the aged, nor pregnant women, nor those in child labour, all of whom they ran through the body and lacerated, as though they were assaulting so many lambs herded in their sheepfold. Hence Las Casas urge to take up the cause of the voiceless natives to the highest authority possible, the royalty, portrays him as a humanitarian by nature and an un-ordained advocate of human rights.

It is true that he suggested to bring slaves from Africa as opposed to making slaves of the natives, but he later repented when he saw that the treatment of the slaves were just as bad. He later regretted when he had to witness the cold blooded violence that the Africans were subjected to, and repented. Though his repentance had no impact on the brutal nature of the colonizers, he is the only one of his time publically known to have repented without himself having inflicted any pain on any human being. The rest of the inquisitors took pride in what they did.

In a world where the natives and Africans were seen as deformed or incomplete or uncivilized human beings, Las Casas addresses them as ‘people’. Bartolome de Las Casas reports first hand of the cruelty in its raw graphic nature to evoke sympathy in the eyes of the decision makers. For most part colonizers have been successful in erasing the past of the colonized but Las Casas did not let that happen. It is his record of what he witnessed that makes a significant mile stone in the history of human rights.

Among these gentle sheep, gifted by their Maker with the above qualities, the Spaniards entered as soon as soon as they knew them, like wolves, tiger and lions which had been starving for many days, and since forty years they have done nothing else; nor do they afflict, torment, and destroy them with strange and new, and divers kinds of cruelty, never before seen, nor heard of, nor read of. . . . . The Language used to describe the native is a surface level issue given the fact that Las Casas was an ordained priest and a colonist. But he set himself up as an example by denouncing encomienda.

He also suggested peaceful co-existence between colonists and the natives which was implemented and successful until the colonizers could not refrain from provoking the natives. Hence it is completely unfair to overlook all of Bartolome de Las Casas efforts towards safeguarding natives over words that depict them as inferior to the Europeans. Had Las Casas not spoken for them, more people would have fallen victims to the genocide. It is not the language but the content of the text that should be the focus, since it is filled with compassion and evokes sympathy through the painful description of torture.

Also, his life was constantly under threat yet he was willing to walk the line for the cause he believed in, until the massacre stopped. Bartolome de Las Casas, can be isolated for his efforts to stop human rights violation but not to be judged over the language he used. He could be given the benefit of doubt that he used humble descriptions to invoke sympathy from a prejudiced court. Works Cited American Taino, Commentary from the perspective of a American Latino. http://americantaino. blogspot. com/2007/10/bartolom-de-las-casas-witness-to-evil. html

Human rights are the basic rights that a person is entitled to by virtue of being a human being regardless of color, race, creed and country of origin. Many countries have been accused of violating human rights and it is for that reason that there has been put in place various watchdogs to oversee and ensure that basic human rights are not violated. Mary Ann Gledon is perhaps one of the most influential women in America as far as human rights are concerned. Besides her high qualifications as a Professor, Mary has been vocal and highly critical in the manner in which human rights laws are applied.

The following discussion takes a brief overview of her criticism on the current human rights discourse . Glendon’s Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse is a book in which the author has criticized a great deal the application of human rights citing massive irregularities and thus abuse of human rights. Mary has in great depths criticized the courts arguing that by their unlimited authority to interpret the meaning of various human rights, the result has been that human rights have been individualized making people to lose responsibility for others.

Besides this there is total detachment from moral standards and as an absolute right (as made to appear by the courts), is above all other considerations . Mary argues that looking at the property law many societal concerns are not put in place and thus workers and employees are left uncatered for. Mary’s general argument as far as human rights are concerned is that there is a lot deviation in implementation of these rights and thus the very purpose for which they were established is defeated . 2.

What is the nature of Perry’s response to Glendon’s, and others, criticism of contemporary rights talk? Michael Perry a renowned scholar and a vocal human rights activist has in his book The Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries differed with Mary Glendon and has instead attempted to respond to some of the issues raised in Mary’ book. This he has done by attempting to classify human rights in various categories . Firstly he argues that some rights that are classified under human rights actually do not apply to all but only to human beings in particular circumstances.

For instance the right to vote only applies to those citizens in a particular territory but not to all human beings. Perry disagrees with Mary quite a great deal in many of the issues raised in her book and attempts to give a different approach to the same issue of human rights . 3. What refinements does Glendon suggest to current human rights discourse? Glendon feels that in order to bright order to the American system on human rights a lot of reference must be made to the European countries.

She points out that the constitution and even decisions of courts of European countries are good examples of balanced human rights. This basically means that the scope would be expanded but only to the extent and limit where they do not interfere without concerns of the society. Conclusion To be able to arrive at the correct position we have to look at both authors critically since both have strong arguments but they also have some weaknesses in their arguments. Bibliography Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse:

“Preface” (pages xi-xii, plus notes), and Chapter 7: “Refining the Rhetoric of Rights”, (pages 171-183, plus notes). Henry, J. Steiner. International Human Rights in Context, Oxford University Press US, 2008. Mahony, John. The Challenge of Human Rights, Wiley Black Well, 2007. Perry, Michael J. The Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries. Chapter 2 (pages 43-56, plus notes): “Rights Talk: What Does it Mean? And Is It Problematic? ” Soohoo, Cynthia. Bringing Human Rights. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.

Background to the Research Area

In recent years, and largely since the enactment of the new Criminal Procedure Code, in 2007, human rights’ violations across Cameroon have continued to gain a great deal of attention from a variety of organisations, including Amnesty International. However, although there are concerns relating to human rights’ violation in every aspect of Cameroon activity and not simply within the prison system, the focus here is on the national and international protection which is offered to prisoners in Cameroon.

Despite ratifying a large number of international and more regional treaties which place obligations on the Cameroon government to thoroughly investigate any allegations of human rights’ violations and to bring those responsible to justice, there is still some concern that Cameroon does not provide the basic level of human rights to its inmates. In particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that every human has a right to live and that this right should be protected (Article 6) and all humans shall not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7). As a party to the International Covenant, Cameroon is obliged to investigate any allegations of human rights’ violations within the prison system. Yet, there are seemingly several examples of human rights’ violations ongoing, thus raising the question as to whether or not Cameroon has fully complied with its obligations and what needs to be done to bring the prison system in Cameroon up to the required standard.

Unsurprisingly, government and judicial officials have not been quick to accept that these human rights’ violations are taking place, which makes this area of research particularly difficult, due to the fact that it is not clear as to what role the government is playing, and whether it is simply turning a blind eye to human rights’ violations, or whether it is actually ordering these violations, in the first place.

In 2007 and 2008 alone, the National Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms received a total of 992 complaints, 20% of which were in relation to violation of the rights to a fair trial; 7% were in relation to arbitrary arrest and detention; and 12% were in relation to a violation of the rights to physical and moral integrity. The new Criminal Procedure Code which was established in 2007 offered rules and regulations that were aimed at managing the whole process of police custody and detention, in such a way that would potentially reduce the instances of human rights’ violations. However, there have still been a large number of complaints associated with violations, since 2007, indicating that the rules have not been applied rigorously throughout.

Aims, Objectives and Research Rationale

The overall aim of research here is to establish recommendations for use by both the Cameroon government and third party bodies involved in the protection of human rights, such as Amnesty International, enabling the parties to work together to end human rights’ violations within the prison system. In order to achieve this, several objectives been identified as relevant and leading into the ultimate aim.

The first objective is to gain an understanding of the rules and regulations which exist within Cameroon, both in terms of its national legislation and any international arrangements that it has made, as briefly discussed in the background section of this proposal.

The second objective will then be to look at the various published incidence of human rights’ violations, in order to ascertain the nature of the violations, as well as how frequently they are occurring and whether there is any particular type of problem area that is identified and can then be targeted by the research.

Thirdly, individuals’ opinions and thoughts will need to be understood, in order to ascertain the most likely form of gaining success through the recommendations. It is recognised that political, social and economic situations are different in Cameroon from the UK and therefore gaining an understanding of thought patterns will be just as critical when it comes to making recommendations which are likely to be useful and, more importantly, applied in the future.

The underlying rationale for this research is that, despite the seemingly relatively robust set of national and international laws and regulations that are in place to prevent human rights’ violations, such violations are still occurring. There is a clear breakdown, therefore, between the codes and requirements and the actual reality of treatment within prisons. Despite research into instances of human rights’ violations, there is relatively little literature present in terms of identifying why these violations are still taking place and what is their root cause. For example, it is not clear whether it is simply the case that the government is not enforcing the rules, or whether there is a tendency on the part of the government itself to violate the rules regarding instructions to officers.

Existing Literature

The issue in Cameroon has been relatively widely discussed, particularly by organisations such as Amnesty International which has highlighted the problems being experienced in the region.

The US Department of State issued a detailed human rights report on the region, in 2008, and it offers a relatively strong background document which can be used to look at the key themes and trends associated with human rights in Cameroon prisons. The US research indicated that the general ethos was poor within the judiciary and that there was a high level of acceptance of violations within the prison service and, in general, lack of awareness of human rights. Interestingly, the board indicated that the judiciary was on the whole impartial and very positive, but the processes within are often extremely slow, with many defendants finding themselves incarcerated for unnecessarily long periods of time. Non-government organisations often intervened with this particularly where the defendant is a foreign national or child. An independent judiciary is provided as part of the constitution, although the report indicated that there were some influences from the executive, which will impact on the independence of the judiciary. In particular, there is a lack of understanding of the human rights which individuals have, especially in the rural areas, with several reported incidents of police bribery. Furthermore, it was identified that there are no specific structures in place to ensure that legal advice is provided to individuals who cannot afford private funded legal guidance.

The information provided by the US Department is helpful in gaining a background understanding of the level of fairness within the judiciary system, in general, which is likely to be applicable when looking in more detail at the treatment of prisoners. Amnesty International has also provided a detailed report on human rights’ violations in prisons in Cameroon, with particular reference to the incarceration of three journalists in Kondengui prison. The arrest of these three individuals is particularly interesting for the purposes of this research, as the arrest of journalists is indicative of the wider government agenda to prevent freedom of expression on any substantial level. Although the government denies any attempt to dictate freedom of expression, three journalists were arrested in 2010, all of whom had complained in their interview with Amnesty International that they had been treated poorly and subjected to torture and beatings, on a regular basis. Two of the journalists were detained without charge for over eight months, although all were ultimately accused of handling and attempting to publish articles that were banned, due to the alleged use of forged documents.

This type of existing literature provides useful first-hand information, in terms of the problems being faced within the Cameroon prison system. However, there is a gap in the literature in terms of identifying precisely why Cameroon is failing to live up to its human rights’ obligations and what can be done, at a structural level, to improve the position. Analysing and identifying individual instances of violations are clearly helpful; however, the research will need to take a broader view, looking at the underlying legal and governmental infrastructure that would potentially change the situation, in the future.

Methodology and Chapter Lay Out

The research approach adopted here involves both primary and secondary research, with an underlying inductive approach being taken. The inductive approach will involve drawing on a wide variety of observations from the existing literature and the findings from the secondary research, as well as surveys and interviews with key individuals as part of the primary research, in order to create an overall understanding and structure which can be applied in the future.

Both surveys and interviews will be used in order to gather the primary research. Crucially, care needs to be taken to ensure that anonymity is provided, at all times, due to be potentially politically sensitive nature of the research. It is also potentially problematic that individuals may be biased in their view, or may have very single-minded opinions based on personal experience. In order to mitigate this, it is proposed that at least 20 surveys will be conducted and four individual interviews, ideally from individuals with different backgrounds.

The following chapters are proposed for this research:

• Chapter 1, Introduction and Background to look at the facts and figures, as well as identifying key pieces of legislation and key provisions;
• Chapter 2, Aims, Objectives and Methodology which will focus entirely on the main aim of the research and how this aim will be achieved;
• Chapter 3, Literature Review, which will be a detailed analysis of the existing literature in this area;
• Chapter 4, Primary Research which will include surveys and interviews conducted specifically for this research and will identify any key themes which have emerged;
• Chapter 5, Findings and Analysis, which will look in more detail at the primary research results and apply them in the context of the existing literature;
• Chapter 6, Recommendations for the Future which will provide the recommendations that can be applied by the government and by non-government organisations, in the future, in order to improve the human rights situation in Cameroon;
• Chapter 7, Summary and Conclusions which will draw together the research and also identify any weaknesses in the research, so that those relying on the research can apply the results appropriately and with the necessary degree of caution.

Expected Results and Conclusions

It is anticipated that the research will identify fundamental problems within the infrastructure of the judiciary system and, in particular, in terms of prison administration which have created difficulties when it comes to preventing and detecting human rights’ violations. It is unclear as to the precise role of the government in this and whether or not the government is actively encouraging breaches of human rights, or whether it is simply not doing enough to prevent instances within individual jails. It is also anticipated that certain jails have a worse record than others and this may provide valuable information when establishing the framework, going forwards. The main recommendations are likely to be focused on the interaction between non-government organisations, such as Amnesty International, and the Cameroon government, as there is seemingly a breakdown in communication, due to the fact that the Cameroon government has indeed signed up to multiple different protections, but simply does not apply them. This research will aim to identify that the government has shown a willingness to comply with human rights rules, but this has failed at the application point.

It is also anticipated that the research here will suggest much greater interaction is necessary between the various different parties, from the point of initial detention, right through to reintegration into society, so that the general ethos within the prisons can change and that prisoners will no longer be viewed as second-class citizens. This is largely a social change, as well as a political change and, with this expectation in mind, care will be taken to pay particular attention to the thoughts and feelings of the interviewees during the primary research, as this may be fundamentally important to the likelihood of any changes in law actually being applied on the ground.

Indicative / Starting References

1. Amnesty International (2013) Avaiale at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR17/001/2013/en/384e1431-5fbb-4946-875e-78078329ee16/afr170012013en.pdf
2. Committee against Torture, Forty-fourth session, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 19 of the Convention (CAT/C/CMR/CO/4), paragraph 15
3. FIACAT (2008) Available at: http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/ACAT_FIACAT_CMR_UPR_S4_2009_ACATCameroon_InternationalFederationofActionbyChristiansfortheAbolitionofTorture_ENG_JOINT.pdf
4. Noeske, J. Ndi,N and S. Mbondi, (2011) “Controlling tuberculosis in prisons against confinement conditions: a lost caseExperience from Cameroon”, International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 15(2):223-7, 2011.
5. Republic of Cameroon : Amnesty International’s memorandum to the government (AI Index: AFR 17/001/2012), September 2012
6. U.S. Human Rights 2008 Country Reports, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/af/118990.htm