Origin and Mandate

Staffing and Appointment Procedures

Activities

Funding

Assessment

After an impressive start, the CNDH has disappointed Chadian human rights activists and international observers. Unfortunately, the commission has capitulated to government pressure and has done little to test the reach of its potentially expansive mandate. While it began in the spirit in which it was launched with collaborative investigations and public positions on important human rights issues, it dramatically changed its tone and method of operation in its second year of operation. The commission now avoids public commentary and, surprisingly, has grown distant from the civil society that still theoretically exercises majority control over its operations.

The perceived failure of the CNDH has contributed to the deep mistrust that currently exists between the government and civil society. This suspicion is further fed by the government's consolidation of political power and threats to independent voices in the political opposition and in the press. The rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights recognized the lack of any genuine action by the CNDH stating that:

Despite its fundamental role for all of the Chadian society, the CNDH continues unfortunately to suffer from a grave lack of means and publicity. A large part of the population does not know of its existence and it is not at all represented in the provinces. Its documentation center is very poor in publications and rarely consulted. Since the beginning of 1998, has only published three opinions, mostly concerned with issues of training and education but which do not unfortunately raise the important issues concerning the various events that have shaken the country. Finally, the CNDH is often accused of being biased in favor of the authorities by human rights organizations and some of the press, a fact that does not contribute to giving it a positive image with the population.100

The commission is held up by NGOs as one more example of the government's lack of good faith in the field of human rights and serves as an impediment to any other progress in relations between civil society and the government.101 They resent the CNDH's silence on important human rights issues and do not trust the motives of its president in his dealings with international organizations. In multiple interviews, they expressed the position that the president and the commission have been "coopted" by the government. They fear that international support for the CNDH will lend credibility to an empty organization and be used to cover up human rights violations in the country.

Even the president of the CNDH acknowledges that it has failed to achieve its goal as an intermediary between civil society and the government. He is extremely forthright about the problems that the CNDH faces in dealing with uncooperative authorities. "The commission has not been able to meet all the hopes placed on it," he said, "because it was caught between the reticence of the government and the mistrust of the [nongovernmental] associations." The NGOs, he says, "only want denunciations." His response, to find some way to make the CNDH remain relevant, was to turn from public action to private diplomacy.102

Unfortunately, there is little basis for faith in the current approach of the CNDH. The activities of the commission currently bear little resemblance to its legal obligations. The law that establishes the CNDH requires it to advise the government on human rights violations, including, sensitive subjects such as torture, secret detention and the activities of political police. It requires the commission to insure public dissemination of its positions. Moreover, the law does not even refer to the role of the commission in human rights education and traditional promotion activities. Nevertheless, according to its 1998 report, the CNDH's activities were devoted almost entirely to conferences, seminars and a radio program aimed at education and training.