s.Two Implementation and Accountability, 7 Monitoring and Review to Assess Human Rights Implementation

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the fundamental importance of monitoring and review procedures to assess the implementation of human rights to advance public health. Recognizing monitoring and review as central to human rights accountability, the evolving functions of human rights monitoring highlight the range of national, regional, and international review mechanisms that provide oversight to support the realization of health-related human rights. While these mechanisms often do not have judicial powers—their recommendations are advisory rather than legally binding—the interpretive role entrusted to these review procedures has endowed their health-related recommendations with legitimacy in clarifying human rights treaty provisions and reviewing state efforts to meet treaty obligations. Assessing the implementation of international human rights law through national practice, monitoring institutions can facilitate human rights accountability for public health promotion and operationalize public health data to press governments to implement rights.

Worldwide trends in COVID-19 related attacks against healthcare

“…(15) In order to facilitate accountability, monitoring of attacks is a crucial first step that could be improved by addressing methodological challenges and political and institutional obstacles in public databases. (18) Moreover, reporting could be improved by a change of attitude towards violence against healthcare and amelioration of the legal system. This will also allow for more reliable research, which will help to determine efficacy and identify policy interventions.…”

“…Most incidents occurred in hospital settings (n = 39; 15.3%) (Table 1). The incidents which resulted in damaged or destroyed health facilities were mainly targeted against vaccination centers (28) and quarantine centers (18). Other common settings were "on the way to/from work" (n = 34; 13.3%) and "during community outreach" (n = 22; 8.6%).…”

“…For this reason, they do not make their data or methodology public, nor do they attribute attacks to specific perpetrator groups. (15,18) The WHO also monitors attacks in its Surveillance System for Attacks against Healthcare (SSA) database. The WHO is transparent about the reliability of its data; attacks reported in the SSA database are categorized according to level of certainty.…”

“…However, the WHO does not keep account of whether attacks are COVID-19 related, nor provides detailed information about the attacks as it is limited by its political position. (15,18) In 2014, a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formed the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition (SHCC). The SHCC maintains a mixed-methodology public database and brings out reports, mostly focusing on attacks in conflict regions.…”

“…(19) In contrast to the databases of the ICRC and WHO, the SHCC database is publicly available, contains detailed information and provides a transparent methodology. (18) Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition has also been documenting testimonies of COVID-19 related attacks against healthcare, providing opportunities to study the etiology and impact of such attacks. (20) Attacks against HCWs, both terrorism-related or not, can severely hamper the public health response in crisis situations and there remains a lack of studies investigating this issue.…”