Constituency-Building for Judicial Reform in Haiti
Independent Midterm Evaluation
February 19 - 27, 2003
REPORT
Prepared for the International Foundation of Electoral Systems
by
Sue Nelson, Team Leader
Marie C. Marcoux, Legal Consultant
I. Introduction
The Midtenn Evaluation ofthe International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Constituency
Building for Judicial Refonn Project in Haiti was contracted by IFES as part ofthe Project's monitoring
and evaluation program. The Project is funded by USAID/Haiti under Associate Cooperative Agreement
No.521-A-00-0 1-00070-00 (Reference Leader Cooperative Agreement No. AEP-A-00-99-000 17). The
Agreement was issued September 28,2001 and this Evaluation covers the period from the signing ofthe
Agreement to the arrival ofthe Evaluation Team in February 2003. The Cooperative Agreement and the
USAID-approved IFES work plans for 2002 and 2003 were used as the framework for the Evaluation. The
Evaluation Scope of Work is attached in Annex A.
The purpose ofthe Midtenn Evaluation was to assess Project performance and to detennine whether it can
achieve its intended results by the end date ofthe Agreement (September 2004). The field work for this
Evaluation took place from February 19 to 27, 2003 in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The team consisted oftwo
independent experts in democracy and governance and rule of law projects. The Team Leader was Sue
Nelson, former Director (ai) ofUSAID/Cambodia's Office of Democracy and Governance, with extensive
evaluation and strategic planning experience. Ms. Nelson has also served as an advisor to USAID/Haiti on
its elections and DG assistance programs since 1994. The Legal Consultant was Marie Marcoux, an
experienced attorney and Creole speaker, with extensive experience in Haiti in the legal and human rights
sectors. Ms. Marcoux identified the requirements for USAID/Haiti's first administration ofjustice program
in 1993 and spent four years with the International Civilian Mission in Haiti (OAS/UN MICIVIH).
This independent Midtenn Evaluation paralleled an internal IFES administrative assessment done by the
lFES Director of Operations Steven Connolly. The two missions were done separately, but shared
information and suggestions on project administration and management issues. IFES will be issuing a
separate internal administrative assessment report.
Although the time allocated for the Evaluation was short, the Evaluation Team believes it was able to gather
enough infonnation for a good review and assessment ofthe midterm status ofthe Constituency-Building
for Judicial Refonn Project. The Evaluation Team interviewed IFES/Haiti and IFES/Washington staff,
IFES Senior Advisors and Working Group participants. These participants represented their associations
but also represented different professional sectors. These included the legal sector Uudges and lawyers), the
private sector, the human rights sector and the media.
The Evaluation Team also interviewed representatives ofnon-IFES affiliated civil society organizations
working on judicial refonn along with USAID/Haiti, other donors and international organizations (Annex
F). The CSO participants were systematically asked several questions from 2001 IFES baseline survey and
the results were compared against baseline data (Annex E). The Team also reviewed the available
documentation on judicial reform and human rights in Haiti, project documents and other relevant
documentation (Annex F).
We would like to thank all ofthose who participated in this evaluation for their insight and for their time.
In particular, we would like to thank the IFES/Haiti staff and the visiting lFES/Washington Program Officer
for their candor and logistical assistance.
March 10, 2003
Fvaluati(Xl Report: Constituency Building 1l1f Judicial Reform
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
2. Executive Summary
3. Evaluation
3.1 The Constituency-Building for Judicial Reform in Haiti Project
3.2 Objective No. I: Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and information to actively participate
in judicial reform process
3.2.1
3.2.2
, "") "' -'.~.-'
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
Planned activities
Implementation
Results
Recommendations
Objective No.2: Strategic plans for Haitian CSOs developed and implemented to advocate for justice
reforms
Planned activities
Implementation
Results
Recommendations
Objective No 3: Critical mass of Haitian CSOs built that are coalescing around judicial reform issues
to produce greater popular demand for reform
3.4.1
3.4.2.
3.4.3
3.4.4
Planned activities
Implementation
Results
Recommendations
3.5 Project Design and Management
3.5.1
3.5.1.1
3.5.2
3.5.2.1.
Project Design
Recommendations
Management
Recommendations
4. Conclusions
Annex A Scope of Work
Annex B Evaluation Methodology
Annex C Project Monitoring and Evaluation Tables
Table I: Intermediate Results and Indicators pulled from 2002 and 2003 work plans
Table 2: Suggested starting point for revision of IR and Indicator framework
Annex D List of Working Group Members
Annex E Questionnaire Results
Annex F Organizations and Persons Contacted
Annex G Documents Consulted
Annex H Acronyms
2. Executive Summary
The IFES Project on Constituency Building for Judicial Reform is being implemented at a difficult time in
Haiti's democratic transition. The political stalemate between the Aristide government and the opposition
parties, stemming from the 2000 legislative elections, remains unabated as does executive branch
domination over the administration ofjustice.
According to the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Mission to Haiti, which is working to
ensure implementation ofOAS Resolution 822 (Support for the Strengthening of Democracy in Haiti), the
situation in Haiti has deteriorated in the past six months. Positions have hardened, security and human rights
concerns have increased, social tensions are rising and the economic picture is deteriorating.! Issues such
as impunity and the corrupting influence of drug trafficking money were evident in Evaluation interviews as
were intimidation ofthe press issues and the personal security concerns ofthose involved in the judicial and
human rights sectors.
Within this difficult environment, the IFES Project is working to build the capacity of civil society
organizations (CSOs) to advocate for judicial sector reform. The Project was designed to maximize Haitian
ownership ofthe activities and to create a network of civil society coalitions around judicial reform issues.
The Project is funded by USAID, which had provided more than $26 million in support ofrule oflaw
programs in the 1990s. 2 A GAO (General Accounting Office) assessment ofthose programs found that
U.S. assistance efforts had been hampered by a lack of commitment and sense of ownership in the activities
on the part ofthe Government of Haiti (GOH).3 The Constituency Building for Judicial Reform Project
was issued following a U.S. policy decision to suspend direct assistance to the GOH after the 2000 elections
and to implement US assisted-programs through Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs).
The Evaluation Team found that the approach of working through civil society to effect change in the
judicial sector had been widely adopted by others in the international community. A United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) program, currently funded by Canada, is similar to the IFES program in
both approach and activities. There are also similar activities funded directly by Canada, European Union
(EU), and the OAS Special Mission. Haitian civil society is also organizing itselfto promote judicial sector
reform. One ofthese efforts is the CSO, Civil Society Initiative. Another is the Group of 184, which
includes a Justice Commission in its work to develop a "social contract" with the GOH.
The size and scope of civil society activities and assistance requires close coordination among donors,
implementing organizations and CSOs. The Evaluators found that the IFES Project was coordinating with
others in the sector, and in one case conducted a joint activity with the OAS Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights. However, coordination needs to be broadened and systematized. This is especially
important given the politicization ofsector and the pervasive influence of drug money. IFES has already
faced the problem of having the head of one ofthe associations it assisted have his U.S. visa revoked
because of suspected involvement with the drug trade. This issue could easily re-occur and the need for
policy guidance for USAID grantees on assistance to a CSO if one or more ofits principles were implicated
in drug trafficking was raised by the Evaluation Team with USAID during its debriefing.
I OAS, SecondReport oIthe Secretary General to the PermanentCounci! on the ImplementationofCP/RES 822. "Support
./iJr the StrengtheningofDemocracy in Haiti." January 27,2003
o
- GAO Report, Foreign Assistance. Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System Should be Linked to Performance-Related
Conditions. p. 29, October 2000. Amount of funding cited was for the USAID Administratirn ofJustice Program Assistance to the
Haitian Judicial Sector for the Fiscal Years 1993-2000.
3 GAO Report, Foreign Assistance. Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System Should be Linked to Performance-Related
Conditions. p.17. Octobcr 2000.
The lFES Constituency Building for Judicial Reform Project is almost half-way through its three-year
Cooperative Agreement (9/28/02-9/30/04). The Project has three main objectives:
Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and information to actively participate in the judicial
reform process;
Strategic plans for Haitian CSOs developed and implemented to advocate for justice reforms; and
Critical mass of Haitian CSOs built that are coalescing around judicial reform issues to produce
greater popular demand for reform.
The Evaluation Team assessed the progress ofthe Project based on these objectives. Several months ofthe
Project was dedicated to setting up operations and determining a plan of action, and so Project activities did
not start until 2002. The Evaluators found that IFES had implemented the majority ofthe activities planned
its 2002 Workplan and had started a number of activities from its 2003 Workplan. It also found a
significant degree of Haitian ownership4 ofthe Project and several major accomplishments, including
assisting with the creation ofthe National Association of Haitian Judges (ANAMAH).
The Evaluators also found coordination and project management issues that significantly affected
implementation. These issues are easily remedied but are ones which IFES needs to address immediately.
The Evaluation Team also found a number of issues stemming from program design. These include the lack
of a life-of-project results framework and the large and sometimes duplicative nature ofthe advisory and
working group apparatus.
Objective No.1: Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and information to actively participate
in the judicial reform process
One ofthe difficulties in evaluating the Project, is that the objectives and indicators overlap and, in some
cases, do not measure the intended results. The indicators for this objective are not useful and the activities
under Objective 1 are also activities of Objectives 2 and 3. It is clear that IFES has worked towards
Objective I in creating four working groups (legal, media, human rights and education and private sector).
The Working Groups met on a regular basis and shared information. IFES assistance produced a study on
the independence ofthe judiciary, and reprinted international texts on human rights treaties and
conventions, which were shared among the Working Groups.
The Evaluators found a need and a desire by participants for training on the structure ofthe judiciary and its
functions. 5 Several associations in the Legal Working Group indicated interest in providing this type of
training. This appears to be an area where IFES could make a measurable impact in Years II and III ofthe
Project.
There is an increasing level of interest and knowledge ofthe media on the independence ofthe judiciary and
the need for judicial reform. IFES started work to create a core group of investigative journalists covering
the judicial sector and training started in 2002. However, much ofthis type of work is also being done
outside the Project. The Evaluators strongly recommends that IFES coordinate its program and materials
with other on-going efforts, in particular with the Canadian-funded activities.
Objective No.2: Strategic plans for Haitian CSOs developed and implemented to advocate for
justice reforms
4 Ownership is used to mean that the Haitian partners adopting the project activities as their own and developing a vested
interest the successful outcome ofthe project.
5 Members ofthe Legal Working Group also expressed a need and a desire for training but of a more specialized nature,
which the Evaluation Team also believes the Project could assist.
The Project has developed several strategies for CSOs to advocate for judicial reform. These include: a)
ensuring media coverage ofjudicial reform activities; and, b) co Ilecting human rights and due process
violations through a hotline and publishing them in an annual report entitled the Status ofthe Judiciary.
The media strategy appears to be on track. The creation ofthe hotline and the issuance of an annual Status
of the Judiciary, planned to start in Year I, is still in the discussion phase.
The Evaluation Team believes that the creation and management ofthe hotline and the publishing of an
annual report are ambitious undertakings that could be combined into a separate project. There are several
other organizations, both national and international, that monitor these types of violations. The Evaluation
recommends that IFES find partners that can share in the collection and analysis of data as well as with the
funding, training and support aspects ofthis activity.
The Evaluators also recommends that the Project intensify its efforts in civic education and advocacy. Of
the three best proposals reviewed by the Evaluation Team, two dealt with civic education. A nationwide
education program through the school system, such as a nationwide contest pertaining to judicial
independence, could be extremely cost-effective and reach millions ofstudents, parents and teachers. The
Working Groups have also developed broad strategies for advocating for justice sector reform. Specific
action plans that ensure productive and legal advocacy for judicial reform now need to be developed.
These should be designed to reach both the policy and administration ofjustice levels.
Objective No.3: Critical mass of Haitian CSOs built that are coalescing around judicial reform
issues to produce greater popular demand for reform
This is the ultimate objective ofthe Project. IFES has put in place the structures foreseen in the Agreement
(Senior Advisors and four Working Groups) to start building networks focused on judicial reform. The
Advisory Council, which is the highest level foreseen in the Project, is not yet in place although IFES has
the agreement ofsix ofthe seven members to serve on the council. The Project also worked to create links
with the Haitian Diaspora in Florida and with the CSO judicial reform movement in the Dominican
Republic.
The Evaluation Team noted a definite trend in civil society towards working together in support ofjudicial
independence and to improve the administration ofjustice. This was also confirmed when comparing the
2003 results ofthe questions asked by Evaluators, to the January 2002 IFES baseline (Annex E). Given the
number of actors and factors in this sector, however it is not possible to attribute this to the IFES Project
alone. It is clear that the IFES Project served as a catalyst in several cases for dormant associations to
regroup, re-energize and act on judicial reform issues. Most appropriately, these were in the legal sector
and included judges and lawyers. In the case ofthe Federation of Haitian Bar Associations, IFES
assistance helped them realize their vision of creating a nationwide federation of Bar Associations.
Program Design and Project Management
The program design, formalized in the Agreement with USAID, had been written to ensure maximum
flexibility for project implementation in the face ofsuch an uncertain environment. It also strives to
maximize Haitian ownership ofthe Project as a means to ensure sustainability ofthe activities. Given the
circumstances, this appears to be a useful strategy. Several issues have emerged in the application ofthe
design.
One is the creation ofsuch a large advisory and working group mechanism. This appears to be a good way
to ensure coordination and the sharing of information, but the size ofthe apparatus seems out-of-proportion
to the amount of project funding that will be channeled through it and out-of-proportion to effective project
management. With a widely publicized Project budget of$3.5m, the expectations ofthe Haitian Working
Groups for subgrant funding far exceeded the $52,0006 allocated for this purpose in the budget. The
mechanism is also too cumbersome to use for project management purposes, including the issuance of
subgrants.
Another issue stemming from the open nature ofthe design is that it is open to interpretation as to what
constitutes judicial reform, and which activities best contribute to this effort. This is most evident in the
changing of objectives and indicators in the annual work plans and in the differences between the 2003
work plans prepared by IFES/Washington (IFES/W) and the one prepared by IFES/Haiti (IFES/H) with
Working Group input. The Evaluation strongly recommends that IFES establish a life-of-project results and
indicator framework to ensure there is a common vision7 and a clear direction. This would eliminate many
of the implementation and miscommunication problems currently being encountered.
The Evaluation Team also noted a general sense offrustration at almost every level over a lack of
communications and information. This was due, in part, to the absence of project management systems
within IFES/H that would have more easily funneled timely information to its headquarters and to USAID.
It also stemmed from the perception by IFES/H and its Haitian partners that IFES/W or USAID approval
was required for almost every action. The IFES internal administrative assessment should address most of
these systemic problems as will coming up with a shared vision. The Evaluation Team recommends that
once the administrative and program design issues are addressed, sufficient delegation of authority be
provided to the IFES/H office so that it can effectively implement its program.
Conclusion
Civil society is organizing itself in Haiti around better governance and rule of law issues. Some ofthis can
be attributed to the IFES Project which has acted to jump start several associations and initiatives focused
on the rule of law. However, civil society is also organizing against the conditions oflife in Haiti which the
Group of 184 has characterized as "intolerable." Some ofthis is political and includes calls for regime
change starting with the resignation of President Aristide. 8 So far, the IFES Project has walked the difficult
tightrope of organizing civil society to effect judicial reform in a very politicized environment without its
justice sector reform efforts becoming a political issue. This has enabled IFES to effectively bring together
different sectors and actors within civil society and government on the issue ofjudicial reform. However, if
conditions within Haiti continue to deteriorate and polarize, maintaining this balance through the remainder
ofthe Project will be difficult.
At this point in time, it is difficult to predict whether the Project will have a sustainable or significant
impact on the systemic problems that plague Haiti's judiciary. This is made even more difficult with the
deteriorating political environment. The objectives ofthe Project appear to be realistic means to enable
civil society to make more effective demands for judicial reform. The development of good coordination
and cooperation, such as the joint OAS/IFES/Bar Association effort with the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, could help increase Project outreach and impact.
During the first half ofthe Project, most ofthe structures anticipated under the Cooperative Agreement for
information sharing and building coalitions were created. They now need to be fine-tuned and effectively
6 IFES had prepared a re-allocation of its budget line items which raised subgrant funding to $100,000 over the life ofthe
project IFES awaits the results ofthis evaluation before submitting its budget revisions to USAID for approval.
7 IIaving a shared vision is relates to within IFES (IFES/W and IFES/H) as well as between IFES, its Haitian partners and
lISAJD/Haiti.
8 OAS. SecondReport ofthe Secretary-Generalto the Permanent Council on the Implementation ofCP/RES 822. "Support
lot the /.,-trengtheningo(Democracy in Haiti." November 4, 2002-January4. 2003
used during the remainder ofthe Project to create the productive demand for judicial reform that is
envisioned under the Agreement.
3. Evaluation
3.1 Constituency-Building for Judicial Reform Project in Haiti
The Constituency Building for Judicial Reform project in Haiti is a three year, $3.5m project being
implemented by the IFES. The Project started in September 2001 and is funded by USAID. It was
designed to build popular support and demand for a better administration ofjustice in Haiti.
Haiti has traditionally had an authoritarian system of government, which included executive branch
domination over the judiciary. Although Haiti adopted a constitution in 1987 with democratic principles,
many of its provisions, such as the separation of powers and an independent judiciary, have not yet been
implemented.
The international community has provided more than $43m (FY93-01) to assist in the improvement ofthe
justice sector. Ofthat, the U.S. provided $26.7m.9 Most ofthis was provided as direct assistance to the
Ministry ofJustice (MOJ) and magistrate school, legal assistance and education, case registration and
tracking systems, and a model jurisdiction program. In addition, the international community provided
more than $11 Om to assist with the creation and training ofthe Haitian National Police force (HNP). Of
that about $70m was provided by the U.S. IO
A GAO assessment of U.S. assistance to the justice system in 2000, found that U.S. assistance had been
undercut by the GOH's lack of a) follow through on the broad reforms needed to address the major
problems in the justice sector; b) assuming ownership in the improvements made possible through U.S.
assistance; and c) providing the physical and human resources needed to effectively operate the sector. II
Direct U.S. assistance to the GOH was suspended following the 2000 local and legislative elections.
USAID funding of its programs was redirected to NGOs. This policy was still in place at the time ofthe
Evaluation.
The major problems identified by the GAO in the justice sector remain. These include lack of independence
from the executive branch of government, outdated legal codes, personnel shortages, inadequate
infrastructure and equipment, and a lack of internal oversight. In its interviews, the Evaluation Team heard
continued references to the lack of means (funds, equipment and supplies) and inadequate training. It also
heard ofthe systemic problems of executive branch interference and corruption stemming from bribes
offered by the drug trafficking trade.
The underlying assumption in the design ofthe lFES Project was that the lack of political will would
continue to be the major constraint to meaningful reform. As a result, the Project focuses on increasing
public demand for an improved administration ofjustice and an independent judiciary. This would be done
through the creation of civil society networks and coalitions that would build public support and advocate
for needed reforms. Haitian ownership ofthe process was also stressed as a means to ensure its
sustainability.
9 GAO, Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice 5)'stem ShouldBe Linked to PerJormance-RelatedConditions, GAO-01-24, p,
33. October 2000.
10 Ibid
11 GAO. p5
Although the design is more than two years old, the underlying assumptions are still valid. The
also found that the approach of using civil society to build demand for better governance and ac
was being widely used by other donors. UNDP is currently administering ajustice sector refon
funded by Canada, that closely matches the IFES project in both its objectives and activities. T
bilateral and multi-lateral funded CSO work in the justice sector by Canada, the EU, the OAS S
Mission and others.
The IFES Project has three main objectives:
Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and information to actively participate in the judicial
reform process;
Strategic plans for Haitian CSOs developed and implemented to advocate for justice reforms; and
Critical mass of Haitian CSOs built that are coalescing around judicial reform issues to produce
greater popular demand for reform.
These objectives were to be met through specific activities that would be developed by IFES and its Haitian
partners in annual work plans. The priorities for Project activities in the Cooperative Agreement included:
the independence ofthe judiciary, adherence to due process and the reform of commercial codes. The
Evaluation Team was told that human rights were added as a priority by USAID in 2003.
The 2002 Workplan provided the following indicators that were to be used to evaluate the Project activities:
Increased capacity of working group members to advocate for judicial reform
Enhanced flow of information between CSOs, media, judicial and government officials
Enhanced appreciation among Haitian media ofthe importance of civil society in judicial reform
Improved ability of working group members to coalesce on judicial reform activity
These indicators were not re-used in the 2003 Workplan. The indicators in that work plan are:
A nationwide network of organizations/coalitions
Participatory methodology of program sustainability
Collaboration ofworking groups sectors, promoting human rights and justice reform/focusing on
freedom ofspeech
Compiling information/recommendations for the State ofthe Justice Report (Human Rights and
Judicial Independence)
The Evaluators have pulled together a Results Framework from the objectives and indicators in both the
2002 and 2003 work plans which is provided in Annex c. 12 There is shift offocus evident in the 2003
Workplan and this is discussed in Section 3.5.1 ofthe Report.
The Constituency Building for Judicial Reform Project has a planned funding level of$3.5m. USAID
agreed to provide all ofthis funding through Cooperative Agreement No. 521-A-00-OI-00070-00. The
Agreement was signed September 28,2001 and runs to September 30,2004. USAID has obligated $3.lm
ofthe project total and, as of 12/30/02, IFES had spent $1.2m.
3.2. Objective Number 1: Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and information to actively
participate in judicial reform process
12 The table uses the format from USAID/Haiti's Performance /v!onitoringPlan
3.2.1. Planned activities
IFES planned to start work under this Objective with a survey ofCSO perceptions ofjudicial independence
and the major constraints to developing an independent judiciary. Its purpose was to identify priority issues
for the Project to address and to measure changes in perception over time. It also planned an independence
ofthe Haitian judiciary study based on a methodology used in an IFES/AID publication entitled Guidance
jor Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality. The assessment results and the study were to be
released during the Port-au-Prince Bar Association's Law Week in 2002.
Events, such as roundtables, conferences training sessions, were planned to enhance the flow of information
between the different sectors. They also expected to produce public information pieces, including
pamphlets, manuals, radio/TV spots and newspaper articles.
The Project intended to work through a creation of working groups (described in detail in Section 3.4).
Four Working Groups were to be created: Legal, Media, Human Rights and Education and Private Sector.
Each group was to be led a Senior Advisor (hired as a consultant to IFES). IFES anticipated that the Legal
Working Group would help design training materials (a manual and pamphlet) for investigative journalists
on the judicial process, including the selection, promotion and disciplinary process for judges. The
manual and two training seminars (for a total of20-30 journalists) were planned for Year I.
It is difficult to determine the amount offunding available for any ofthe three Objectives under the
Agreement as lFES did a global budget. However, IFES/H estimates that about 30% of Project funds
would probably be used for activities under this Objective.
3.2.2. Implementation
The lFES activities in Haiti did not get under way until 2002 when IFES undertook an assessment ofCSOs
and the judicial sector. The assessment was conducted by the IFES/W Rule of Law Advisor and the
IFES/W Program Officer for Latin America and the Caribbean. The assessment included a review of
existing documentation and meetings with USAID and CSOs to discuss the Project and the need for judicial
reform and independence. Part ofthis assessment included administering a questionnaire to 66 respondents
(civil society, judiciary, academia, private sector and the international community) to gauge opinions
regarding judicial independence. 13
IFES issued a report on the findings of its questionnaire and used the January 2002 assessment to develop a
work plan for 2002. This 2002 Workplan was submitted to USAID for approval in February 2002. The
survey results appear to be the only baseline information collected by the Project. 14
The IFES/H office was staffed and operational by February 2002. As detailed in Section 3.4 from March to
April 2002 the four working groups were created and the Senior Advisors were hired. The Senior Advisor
ofthe Legal Working Group was contracted to undertake a study on the status ofthe Haitian judiciary. This
study, along with the questionnaire results, were presented to the legal community during the annual Law
Week ofthe Port-au-Prince Bar Association, held in May 2002. The Project provided financial assistance
for the holding of Law Week and for the participation of representatives from the 15 bar associations from
the nine departments.
13 The Evaluation systematically asked CSO respondents to complete several ofthe same questioos, as a follow-up upon
which to gauge changes in perceptirns regarding the ability of civil society to organize on the subject ofjudicial independence
14 There is a wealth of information. however on the justice sector that has been done by other USAID and donor funded
projects over the past ten years. Some ofthis information could bc used by the Project in the development of its baseline.
With IFES support, the Port-au-Prince Bar Association also published a bound collection of inte
treaties and conventions dealing with human rights. The publication of international human rig
instruments is a valuable step toward informing judges nationwide oftheir courts' responsibility
mandates of instruments to which Haiti is a party. Currently, few non-lawyer justices ofthe pea,
understand the role of international instruments in the rule of law in Haiti. Broad distribution of
publication may help alleviate this problem.
The Port-au-Prince Bar Association, IFES and the OAS Special Mission organized a training session for
lawyers with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission on documenting and presenting human rights
violation cases to the commission. The Justice Specialist at the OAS thought it was impressive that the
training brought together over 160 participants, including lawyers and judges, for a substantive and
technically very high level of discussion.
This three-day workshop in August coincided with the first general conference ofthe Federation of Haitian
Bar Associations (FBH) which adopted a code of ethics during the conference. The code, drafted by IFES
and the Port-au-Prince Bar members during Law Week, touches many matters of concern in the practice of
law but needs further elaboration. Federation members admitted to the Evaluation's Legal Consultant that it
will be amended upon as time progresses, but they were not in agreement regarding certain vague language.
IFES conducted a three-day media training workshop regarding the independence ofthe judiciary and
human rights with the goal of encouraging Port-au-Prince area journalists to be more engaged in judicial
issues. Twenty journalists attended this November 2002 workshop which announced that a network of
Information, Justice and Human rights (RIJDH) had been formed. The RIJDH leaders were members ofthe
Media Working Group.
On December 10, 2002, the Justice and Human Rights Information Network was launched to coincide with
the anniversary ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The network's goal is to improve
circulation of information on justice and human rights issues. Its journalist and other professional
communications members are to work with the human rights and media associations, the business
community and other NGOs. The network's motto is "information in the service of law."
Planned activities that did not occur in the first year of operations included:
Preparation of materials and policy-oriented research to inform judges, lawyers and journalists
about the Constitution and judicial system, regional and international treaties and conventions and
best practices regarding selection, evaluation, promotion, disciplinary and tenure procedures for
judges and the effective and fair enforcement ofjudicial decisions; and
Mechanisms and techniques to widely disseminate information and enhance civil society
engagement on key reforms and high priority draft laws. According to IFES/H, there were
multiple versions ofthe draft laws, some assisted by international community efforts, specifically,
UNDP, and an MOJ promise of a consolidated draft.
3.2.3 Results
Although the Project was not ready to start activities until the second quarter ofthe Agreement, once the
Project office was up and running, it quickly started the process of capacity building and sharing
information among Working Groups and their members. However, the process lost its momentum in late
November 2002 when the Working Group mechanism stopped functioning. This collective action is a
result of the IFES/W work plan being submitted to USAID for approval rather than the work plan
developed by the group and IFES/H. This issue is discussed Section 3.5.1 and is one which IFES needs to
address immediately.
The 2002 Workplan has two indicators to measure the results ofthis objective. They are: "Increased
capacity of Working Group members to advocate for judicial reform" and "Enhanced flow of information
between CSOs, media, judicial and governmental officials." The 2003 Workplan adds a third indicator:
"Participatory methodology of program sustainability."
It was difficult to assess the capacity ofthe Working Groups to advocate for judicial reform or to determine
whether there was an enhanced flow of information between the different sectors and actors. No baseline
data exists for these indicators. The Evaluation Team also met with individual members of each Working
Group and was not able to see a Working Group in action.
For the objective ofthe enhanced sharing of information: From reports and interviews made available to the
Evaluation Team, the major source of information appears to be journalists' reports on justice-related
matters and written materials provided at and as a result of IFES-sponsored conferences. There is no
baseline on which to compare the media's prior judicial reporting with the current situation. Recent arrests
and intimidation ofjournalists appear, however, to indicate that the media are increasing coverage of
incidents considered threatening by the government and other sectors.
Training started in Year I for the core group of investigatory judicial reporters foreseen in the work plans.
However, the Evaluators noted other efforts being undertaken in this sector. The Haitian Press Federation,
which is a member ofthe Media Working Group, told the Evaluation Team that in 1998 created a group of
250 judicial reporters, all lawyers, and has done subsequent training with the assistance ofthe University of
Montreal. There is also the very professional program being implemented by the Canadian NGO Reseau
Liberte that recently trained 380 judicial reporters. The Evaluation Team strongly recommends that IFES
coordinate its media training efforts and strategies with these on-going programs and work together
wherever possible.
On the issue of capacity building: The Evaluators reviewed the proposals received by IFES for funding of
Working Group member activities. There was a very uneven level ofsophistication in the design of
activities and presentation ofthe proposals. It was clear that some organizations, mostly lawyers and
business sector groups, are extremely capable of lobbying for judicial reform and implementing activities to
promote justice sector reform. It was also clear that some organizations, mostly smaller and newer groups,
required extensive training and that IFES could provide this type ofsupport.
The Evaluation Team was struck by the level of effort being provided for the Canadian funded CSO project.
Its coordinator works closely with young but established CSOs to define their proposals to assure
efficiency, fall within guidelines and otherwise comply with Canadian requirements. The Evaluation Team
recommends that IFES/H review these proposal-mentoring activities to determine iftheir use is appropriate
for Working Group CSOs with viable project ideas but which need assistance in project formulation.
The issue ofthe capacity ofCSOs was raised during the Evaluation Team's discussion with the OAS
Human Rights Specialist in regards to the Project's anticipated hotline. According to the Specialist, the
CSO that has agreed to house the hotline, CARLI, is being considered by at least three other groups for
joint activities. This includes the OAS which is in discussion with USAID about funding from its Victims
of Torture Fund for activities that are allegedly in line with CARLI's work. She raised the capacity issue
both in terms ofmanaging the hotline and funding, and that some CSOs did not have the capacity to
simultaneously handle large programs for several donors.
In terms of measuring the results under this Objective, the Evaluation re-asked the following question from
the 2002 baseline survey: "Has a legal association, like a judges association or bar association contributed
to judicial independence?" The difference in responses between 2002 and 2003 is striking. In January
2002, only 3 respondents said Yes and 12 said No. In February 2003, 12 respondents answered Yes and
only 1 said No.
Given the number ofCSOs, NGOs and donor-sponsored programs working in the justice sector and the
growing civil society movement for better governance in general, it is difficult to attribute this change of
perception to IFES alone. But certainly well-publicized work done in Year I with the Port-au-Prince and
Haitian Bar Associations, the creation ofthe National Judges Association (ANAMAH), the assistance to the
Association of Women Judges, have been contributing factors.
For the Working Groups, in general, the Evaluation found the following:
Legal Working Group15
Some members like the Women Judges Association and Port-au-Prince Bar Association existed before the
IFES Project. The National Association of Haitian Judges (ANAMAH) formed in January 2003 with IFES
support. Several institutions such as the Law and Economics Faculty and the Academie de Formation et de
Perfectionnement des Cadres (AFPEC) existed long before the IFES project. The Evaluation Team noted
the strong esprit de corps among members of each professional association. Some have realistic plans to
conduct activities to assist their members, such as continuing legal education and publishing guides and
books on law-related topics.
The Port-au-Prince Bar Association was instrumental in linking IFES and the Organization of American
States Special Mission, resulting in a human rights conference with participation ofmembers ofthe Inter￾American Commission on Human Rights. The OAS mission's legal officer commended the excellent meld
of specialties and agile cooperation ofthe organizing entities. The Evaluators hopes that IFES will be able
to continue with these types ofjoint activities with various CSOs indifferent sectors through the remainder
ofthe Project.
AFPEC proposed to form Justicentre, a lawyers' club to conduct continuing legal education (CLE) and
conferences on matters of interest to judges, lawyers and human rights supporters and to house a law and
human rights library. After IFES failed to reply to AFPEC's $1 million proposal, AFPEC went ahead on its
own and bought additional furniture and began a series of catered weekly lunches with speakers on justice
sector reform and related topics. The Senior Advisor to the Legal Working Group was a speaker at the
lunch held during the time ofthis Evaluation.
The Port-au-Prince Bar Association reports that it has conducted continuing legal education for its members
but feels it would be better equipped to perform its role if it had funds for an office and staff. Its
headquarters currently resides in its president's law firm. The Legal Consultant suggests the IFES Senior
Legal Advisor attend some ofthe Bar training to assess whether IFES assistance in this regard is warranted.
The newly created Judges Association (ANAMAH) said its recent and first-ever nationwide strike to protest
the arrest of one of its members indicates that it is a force to be reckoned with. ANAMAH also believes that
the Ministry ofJustice is opposed to the group because it fosters judges' independence, and cited the
unavailability ofthe I'Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature for its organizational meeting in spite ofa
reservation request months in advance. Though the judges' strike was intended to remedy an improper
procedure, IFES needs to remain cognizant that such tactics can harm unrelated parties like the thousands of
detained suspects awaiting court appearances and trial, and needs to encourage productive and legal forms
of protest.
Private Sector Working Group
The team met with three ofthe Private Sector Working Group's II members, including a professional
15 The Evaluation Team spoke with reprcsentati\es ofsix ofthe Legal Working Group's eight member entities. As a result,
comment on only those six groups' capacity is warranted.
organization, the Haitian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and an international consulting group. The
accountants' organization already trains its members, and the consulting firm manages to keep busy despite
Haiti's worsening economic situation. The Consulting Group is already doing programs on at least three
Port-au-Prince broadcast media outlets on topics of national interest. The underlying purpose is to
publicize the firm, but the media could be used to promote public interest for justice sector reform through
its selection oftopics or guests. The Chamber of Commerce's own activities and members' focus on their
businesses rather than Working Group sessions leads to the conclusion that group activities have had little
or no effect on members or the Chamber's advocating for judicial reform.
Chamber representatives stressed the need for an operational arbitration court. Though this is well beyond
the scope ofthe IFES Project, it parallels justice sector reform efforts. With fewer commercial disputes
clogging the courts, the justice sector can concentrate on, among others, matters involving human rights and
respect for the rule of law and individual liberty by proper application of criminal law and procedure.
The Chamber's enabling legislation reportedly authorizes the Chamber to establish and operate an
arbitration court for commercial- and business-related disputes. Due to lack offunds, and perhaps due to
the political situation, the court does not operate. Future international NGO or assistance directly to the
Chamber is advisable to make the court operational. This project could begin even before the drafting of a
long-needed commercial code.
Media Working Group
Interviews with representatives offour ofthe eight Media Working Group member organizations, indicate
that the media is managing to speak up in favor ofjudicial reform in spite ofrepression by government and
other forces. The Haitian Press Federation (FPH) considers itself a force to be reckoned with, since it files
lawsuits after member journalists are reportedly arrested and jailed without cause. A FPH official told the
Evaluators that nowadays journalists are not imprisoned due to his organization's efforts.
Nonetheless, intimidation ofthe press continues to be of major concern. During the Evaluation Team's
eight-day visit to Haiti, two radio stations and one television station temporarily ceased operations out of
concern for their personnel's safety. Radio-Tete Haiti Inter whose founder Jean Dominique was killed two
years ago, ceased operating on February 22 after Mr. Dominique's widow's bodyguard was killed in
December 2002 and continuing threats against the stations' journalists. Another radio station temporarily
ceased operations but started up again within a few days.
It is unclear whether the media's continuing strong voice in favor ofjudicial reform results from strengths of
its leadership and members, from IFES projects and training and/or from the work of other NGOs such as
Reseau Liberte, a Canadian NGO that conducts training sessions for investigative journalists who cover the
judicial system, prosecutors, police and prisons. Reseau Liberte published a manual and CD with
background information on the justice sector, guidelines for coverage and related written materials. Other
organizations also offer media training and ANAMAH hopes to conduct training. It is clear, however, that
journalists and their professional CSOs are supporting each other in their quest for a free press and freedom
from fear of intimidation.
Human Rights Working Group
The Team interviewed representatives oftwo ofthe Human Rights and Education Working Group's ten
members. From such a small sample of informants it is not possible to gauge accurately group members'
capacity to advocate for judicial reform. Suffice to say that long-standing entities belonging to the group
continue to advocate for judicial reform and other human rights-related concerns. Although not a working
group member, the CSO Platform des Droits Humains' institutional membership is itself perhaps Haiti's
strongest human rights advocate. The Catholic Church-sponsored CSO Justice et Paix, an influential
Platform member which advocates forcefully for human rights, has refused to accept USAID funds and to
work with USAID-funded projects such as IFES's.
For the remaining indicator: "Participatory methodology of program sustainability," the Evaluators found
that IFES/H is working in a very participatory mannerl6 and that there is Haitian participation and
ownership ofthe Project. However, as this is a methodology rather than an anticipated result, the Team
recommends that it be dropped as objective. Most ofthe activities listed under this Objective in the 2003
Workplan fall under the other objectives. However, the Evaluators took note of Activity 2.1 "Facilitate the
establishment of a local IFES."
This entity would "playa coordinating role between the broad coalitions which will be formed by the end of
the Project."17 In Section 3.5.1 the issue ofthe size ofthe apparatus being created to implement this Project
is raised. It seems to the Evaluators that this would add yet another layer. The Senior Advisors have
interpreted this to be something similar to what they saw on the IFES-sponsored trip to the Dominican
Republic. As the Evaluators are not familiar with the CSO assistance program in the Dominican Republic,
the Team cannot assess whether that idea has merit. Both Evaluation Team members are concerned about
the merit of creating yet another Project entity and the related risk ofmaking the organizational structure
even more complicated and costly.
3.2.4 Recommendations
Encourage positive and legal actions for CSOs to achieve their desired results, and focus training
efforts on empowering CSOs, journalists, attorneys and justice sector personnel to take positive
actions to combat abuses and to work for justice sector reform.
Develop an action plan to address the individual needs of Working Group members for capacity
building for both institutional capacity as well as to build capacity to advocate for judicial reform.
This would include training on the constitutional mandate for operation ofthe justice sector.
3.3 Objective No.2: Strategic plans for Haitian CSOs developed and implemented to advocate for
justice reforms
3.3.1. Planned activities
rhe 2002 Workplan identified four main strategies to be developed and implemented by the Project:
Use ofthe media to build support and publicity for CSOs working on judicial sector reform. It
would also help build public awareness and demand. Selected journalists would be trained in
investigatory techniques and a close working relationship between the Legal Working Group and
the Media Working Group was anticipated.
A civic education program focused on youth. The Project would produce a CD for youth on the
issues ofjudicial independence and justice for all. This was to be used in the period leading up to
Carnival 2003 or 2004. A series ofjudicial roundtables in Port-au-Prince was also planned, to
bring together judges and Working Group members to discuss concerns in a productive and non￾confrontational environment.
Use of a hotline to report human rights and due process violations. Data was to be collected and
16 At cvery level, IFES/H has worked to stress the input ofthe Haitian participants. However, one ofthe problems identified
in the Project design section ofthe Report (3.5.1) is thatthe participants required more directim than IFES anticipated, as well as a
specific framework within which to work.
r 2003 Workplan, November 2002. P 12
incidents documented. This was to start during Year I.
Issue an annual State ofthe Judiciary Report starting in Year I.
The strategies and action plans were to be developed by each Working Group and its Advisor in Year I.
Implementation ofthe activities was expected to start shortly thereafter. IFES planned to directly fund most
ofthe activities, although a small amount was earmarked for subgrants for Working Group members. The
subgrants were expected to be between $500 and $5,00018 each.
lFES/H estimates that approximately 55% ofthe budget will probably go for this Objective. Some $52,000
was allocated in the Agreement budget for subgrants. IFES intends to request USAID approval to raise this
amount to $ I00,000, depending on the results ofthis Evaluation.
3.3.2. Implementation
The Project initially focused on developing Working Group strategies once the Senior Advisors were hired
and the Working Groups were initiated. Starting with the May 2002 Law Week activities, IFES Working
Groups proposed activities to improve access to justicl~ and encouraged Law Week attorneys, judges and
CSO members to participate in the Working Groups. In June, lFES organized a two day workshop of all
four Working Groups. During this time, each group came up with a rough strategy and action plan: 19
Media Working Group: training of about 15 journalists nationwide on the judicial sector and its
coverage, creating a national network ofjudicial reporting journalists, developing radio & TV
spots, publication of articles and op-ed pieces, creating a special information agency on judicial
matter and organizing debates on issues such as the law and the press.
Private Sector Working Group: engage all private sector enterprises in the Working Group,
inventory legislation affecting the business community and evaluate Haitian laws in terms oftheir
conformity to the Caribbean Common market, form a coalition with other sectors to support the
independence ofthe judiciary and develop a position paper to publicize the state ofthe judiciary.
Human Rights and Education Working Group: develop training materials, encourage the
participation of University students at judicial independence activities, organize debates with
national and international participants on the issue ofthe independence ofthe judiciary, and create
a network of human rights/abuse ofjudicial power observers.
Legal Working Group: establish a location for its regular meetings, enlarge the Working Group to
include judges associations and individuals Gudges, deans, prosecutors, etc), form a coalition with
the other Working Groups, build citizen participation, develop a dossier ofjudgments with
comments on the validity oftheir decision in the law, publicize both favorable and unfavorable
decisions ofjudges and lobby Parliament on judicial reform legislation.
Some of the Working Groups started to implement their strategies. Twenty journalists for the core training
for investigatory journalism were identified and a three-day media training workshop on the independence
of the judiciary and human rights was held. A one day conference on impunity and its relationship to
human rights violations was held by the Comite des Avocats pour Ie Respect des Libertes Individuelles
(CARLI), a member ofthe Human Rights Working Group.
18 IFES. Atelier de Travail. 13-14 Juin 2002
19 List is from the IFES Quarterly Report for July I-September 30.2002.
The Legal Working Group was expanded and two judges associations (ANAMAH and Association of
Women Judges) became members. However, the Legal Working Group has not yet stepped up as a
resource to other working groups, though in August 2002 the Port-au-Prince Bar matched IFES and the
OAS Special Mission to help organize training on presenting human rights abuse cases to the Inter￾American Commission on Human Rights.
The strategies for the Working Groups were formalized in a 2002-2004 Workplan that was developed
conjointly between IFES/H and the Senior Advisors. This work plan was submitted to IFES/W at the end
of October 2003. It included a number of additional strategies including starting an annual citizenship and
human rights week, training and mobilizing 1,000 human rights observers, broadcasting radio spots, and a
corruption study. According to IFES/W it repackaged the activities in this work plan into the format ofthe
2002 plan and submitted the 2003 Workplan to USAID for approval in November 2002 .
The Haitian Senior Advisors did not recognize their strategic plans in the 2003 Workplan and were still
perturbed over what they saw as IFES/W's unilateral changes. This issue has brought the activities under
this Objective to a near standstill as the Senior Advisors rework the 2003 Workplan.
No subgrants were issued in Year I. This was a decision of IFES/H which wanted to get the working group
structures and strategies in place without the inducement offunding. Because the groups were all aware
that subgrants would be available, many submitted proposals. Many ofthese were vastly over the amount
of money that would be available and almost all ofthem were not processed by IFES/H. Those that were,
such as proposals for conferences, were paid for directly by IFES.
3.3.3 Results
fhe results ofthis Objective were greatly affected by the 2003 Workplan incident. The Project started its
strategic planning process, but almost all ofthe activities under this Objective stopped as the Advisors
strove to understand why IFES/W had disregarded their input and, in their perception, changed the activities
and focus ofthe Project.
As discussed in Section 5.1, the open nature ofthe Project design has left it vulnerable to differing
interpretations as to what constitutes judicial reform and what are priority actions. In the first months ofthe
Project, a life-of-project results and indicators framework should have been developed that IFES/H and its
Haitian partners could have used for direction in developing their strategies and activities. Developing this
framework is something that IFES needs to immediately address before another version ofthe 2003 work
plan is drafted.
On the issue ofsubgrants, the Evaluation Team understands the rationale for the decision by IFES/H not to
provide subgrants in Year I. However, this should have been communicated to the Working Group
members. The Evaluators found some Working Group members frustrated over the lack of a formal IFES
response to their proposals. These CSOs had unrealistic expectations ofthe levels offunding that would be
available, and what those funds could be used for. More direction from IFES to these Working Group
members on the terms and conditions ofthe subgrant (in written format) is warranted. A possible model
might be the one page detailed instruction sheet developed by the Canadian Fund for Justice and Human
Rights for CSOs interested in applying for its subgrants.
The work plans provide two indicators to measure the results ofthis Objective: "Enhanced appreciation
among Haitian media ofthe importance of civil society reform" (2002); and "Compiling
information/recommendations for the State ofthe Judiciary Report" (2003).
There is no baseline information available to measure the enhanced appreciation ofthe Haitian media for
the work of civil society in the justice sector. Though it is clear that media organizations participate in
working group meetings, participate in other international NGO-sponsored training and are interested in
additional training, measurable results in this area appear to be limited. Within the Media Working Group,
two of its most active and influential media organizations are hostile toward each other which has stymied
progress ofthe entire Group. These organizations plan their own activities, so the Evaluators recommend
that lFES not lose time attempting to implement Media Working Group-level projects, other than
coordination meetings or trainings.
After months ofseeking a CSO to staffthe hotline and conduct investigations, CARLI agreed to help. But,
the hotline was not yet operational, and staff and investigation training had not yet begun at the time ofthe
Evaluation. There is also no structure yet in place to compile data for the State ofJustice Report. One
source for report data could be the hotline for citizens to report human rights abuses.
Though hotline-reported cases could form the core of a State ofJustice Report, additional data could come
from other sources, such as organizations such as some ofthose belonging to the Platform des Droits
Humains and the OAS Special Mission. Port-au-Prince Bar members said their organization issues
critiques of improper court decisions. The Bar and/or Federation of Bar Associations may be a valuable
resource partner for the State ofJustice Report, perhaps complementing CARLI investigators' field work.
The Evaluation Team is aware of no other person or organization monitoring court decisions on a national
basis.
The creation and management of a hotline that records, investigates and publicizes human rights abuses is
an ambitious undertaking. As is preparing and issuing a State ofthe Justice Report. Each ofthese will
require a significant degree oftime, training and financial and moral support to accomplish. The Evaluators
strongly recommends that IFES find strategic partners (i.e.-other donors and international NGOs) to assist
with the planning and implementation of both the hotline and the State ofJustice Report.
There are many areas where the IFES program converges with activities funded by other donors and
implemented by different NGOs. lFES should strive to maximize the impact of its activities and funding
and avoid duplication of efforts, by continuing its close collaboration and efforts for joint programming.
For example, IFES could combine with other NGOs and/or CSOs to train investigators of complaints
received via the human rights abuse hotline. The Project could piggy back on the activities of other NGOS
which are already training journalists to cover the justice sector, and, for example, adapt such organizations'
training to human rights investigation.
The Evaluation also recommends that IFES concentrate its efforts on specific training, such as of
journalists, judges, court personnel and human rights abuse investigators. Since many law school teachers
are not licensed attorneys, consideration should be given to training such teachers in human rights law and
Haitian criminal law and procedure. Seminars, workshops, conferences and colloquiums where general
topics (constitution, state ofthe justice sector, need for reform, etc.) are discussed should be avoided, since
many ofthese have already been held over the years.
OAS Special Mission personnel are qualified to train CSOs, college students and teachers as investigators.
Actively practicing lawyers are likely the best law school professors due to their daily involvement with
legal and procedural matters. Since the Bar Federation feels strongly that only active lawyers are properly
qualified to teach law, effort to train law professors should be coordinated with the Port-au-Prince Bar
and/or the FBH.
The Evaluators encourages the Project to increase its civic education efforts aimed toward youth, including
school pupils and law students. Many ofthese activities were suggested in the 2002-2004 Workplan. For
example, a nationwide contest with prizes for the best posters and essays regarding justice sector reform/an
independent judiciary could be held with minimal expense yet would reach millions ofschool-aged youth,
their parents and teachers regarding the need for justice sector reform. Another possibility is training law
students to investigate hotline complaints and to work in rural pro bono legal aid offices which would serve
the dual purposes of preparing students to be lawyers and to provide services to the Haitian population.
Another area activity discussed in the 2002-2004 Workplan, where IFES could make a difference, would be
provide up-to-date legal materials for wide distribution, including to all levels ofjudges and law students.
In this effort, the Evaluation encourages IFES/H to combine efforts with other NGOs and CSOs working in
the sector. Law student participation in pro bono legal aid programs was implemented in the late 1990s in
northern Haiti. Such an ambitious and innovative project elsewhere would require IFES to partner with
another organization that is prepared to continue work after expiration ofthe current IFES/USAID
Agreement.
3.3.4 Recommendations
Explore the possibility of working with others already involved in monitoring the justice sector,
such as some Platform des Droits Humains member organizations, the OAS Special Mission and
the Port-au-Prince Bar Association, for the creation ofthe State ofthe Judiciary Report. These
combined efforts could be coordinated to produce a thorough and useful report. The report could
also be supplemented by case summaries from the hotline, once it is implemented.
Ensure the Project is working conjointly on all aspects of its strategy, and not wait to implement its
civic education program and lobbying activities. In particular, implement a civic education
component that targets youth and educators.
The Working Group mechanism not be used for the purpose of providing subgrants or approving
an activity to be directly funded by IFES. Any subgrants issued should be managed and negotiated
directly between IFES and the requesting CSO.
3.4 Objective No.3: Critical mass of Haitian CSOs built that are coalescing around judicial reform
issues to produce greater popular demand for reform
3.4. t Planned activities
The Program Description in the Agreement and the 2002 Workplan planned to create a network ofCSOs
and coalitions around the issue ofjudicial reform. The starting point was creating a core group of Project
participants, working at different levels. An Advisory Council was planned at the highest level. It was to
be made up of about six high-profile Haitians. The next level called for four Senior Advisors who would
each advise one ofthe four Working Groups (Legal, Media, Human Rights and Education and Private
Sector). Each Working Group would be made up of 4-7 people who were either outstanding individuals or
leaders of CSOs.
Working Groups were to meet twice a month and would elect two representatives each to serve on the
"Coalition." The coalition was to meet once a month and discuss the broader issues ofstrategy. The
Program Description in the Agreement talks of a second-tier of CSOs and an urban-rural network linking
large CSOs with smaller ones.
The work plans called for the IFES coalition to work closely with another coalition that had already been
created by the UNDP project and with others working in the sector. Inter-group and inter-coalition
activities, planned under the Project's Objective No.2 (Strategic plans for Haitian CSO developed and
implemented to advocate for justice reform), would start the process of building a critical mass of Haitian
CSOs around the issue ofjudicial sector reform.
In Year I, the Project also planned to develop links with the Haitian Diaspora in Florida through the Florida
Association of Voluntary Agencies for Central America and the Caribbean (FAVACA) on judicial issues.
This was planned for Year I. It also planned to establish links with the CSO reform movement in the
Dominican Republic in Year II.
IFES/H estimates that about 15% of Project funds would go for the implementation ofthis Objective.
3.4.2 Implementation
IFES immediately started the process of hiring Senior Advisors and creating the four working groups. The
list of Groups and its members is in Annex D. These were in place for the Port-au-Prince Bar Association's
Law Week in May 2002 when the Working Groups encouraged other participants to join their Groups. This
also started the process of cross-sector collaboration by engaging in joint meetings. As ofthe February
2003 date ofthe Evaluation, the Advisory Council had not yet been created, but according to the IFES
Program Director, six ofthe seven persons approached to serve on this Council have agreed to participate.
The Project assisted a series of activities designed to foster coalition and network building. These included:
a two-day workshop for the four Working Groups in June to define a framework for collaboration,
develop their strategies and to build coalitions.
two exchange visits to the Dominican Republic in June. During the first, the IFES/H Program
Director and the Senior Advisers to the Legal Working Group, along with USAID/Haiti's Director
of its Office ofJustice, Democracy and Governance (JDG) and the Agreement's Cognizant
Technical Officer (CTO), met with the USAID/Dominican Republic Justice Democracy and
Governance personnel and representatives of a Dominican justice sector CSO. During the second
visit. all four Senior Advisers, the IFES/H Director and the IFES/W Program Officer and Program
Assistant met with justice sector reform CSOs. The visits discussed lessons learned regarding
coalition-building, activities to enhance judicial independence and the capacity of Dominican
judicial CSOs.
a congress ofthe Association of Women Judges in August when members adopted articles of
organization (statut). The group had existed four years without a formal governing document.
IFES assistance is helping this four year old group find its voice for judicial reform. It has also
grown from 10 to 14 members before its conference to about 49 members (out ofthe
approximately 100 women judges in Haiti).
facilitating the Port-au-Prince Bar Association elections in October.
attending the UNDP-funded CSO project's first large scale effort of coalition building for justice
sector reform. According to the project's spokesperson (who is the representative from the CSO
Haiti Solidarity International which is also a member ofthe IFES Human Rights Working Group),
150 to 200 persons, from about 50 associations nationwide, attended the September 2002 "Citizen
Forum" focused on the issue of "participation."
organizing, in collaboration with the Haitian Resource Development Foundation, a two-day
December 2002 conference in Miami on Haitian judicial reform and legal education. This Haitian
Diaspora organization's members addressed the conference topics and worked to link the Working
Groups with the Haitian Diaspora in Florida and Louisiana to be engaged in the law sector
activities in Haiti.
financially assisting a December 2002 workshop ofthe new Federation of Haitian Bar Associations
in Cap Haitien. The workshop's goal was to convince non-member bar associations to join the
Federation. One remaining bar decided to join, while another planned to let its whole membership
decide in March 2003. It also began to discuss the common interests among the 15 bar
associations, all of which are located in the regions with the exception ofthe Port-au-Prince Bar
Association.
funding an initial conference of National Association of Haitian Judges in January 2003. This new
professional association includes judges at all levels of court, prosecutors and investigative
magistrates (juges d'instruction). The judges adopted articles of organization for their association
which became a member ofthe IFES Legal Working Group.
funded a conference in February 2003 organized by CARLI on the issue of impunity and how it
relates to human rights violations. 216 persons attended this televised conference, including many
judges, which included the testimony of human rights victims.
Project activities slowed, but did not stop under this Objective following the 2003 Workplan issue described
in Section 3.3.3. Senior Advisors and Working Group members continued to attended the meetings and
conferences organized by IFES. However, no meetings at the working group-level appear to have been held
since November.
Several key issues identified for Objective No.2 during the Evaluation were:
whether such a large scale mechanism is needed by the Project to implement this activity given the
number of existing indigenous and donor-funded civil society efforts already underway in the
sector. This issue is discussed in more depth in Section 5.1
the inability ofseveral key CSOs to work together. This was most evident in the Media Working
Group where friction was reported between the two largest media associations. This dominance
may have overshadowed efforts ofsmaller and newer organizations within the Group and may
have limited the effectiveness ofthe Working Group as a whole. The Evaluation Team
recommends IFES concentrates its efforts on assisting of individual organizations.
the need to coordinate and work with other CSO programs in the sector. There is overlap with the
activities ofmany other organizations within the sector. With good coordination and cooperation,
such as the joint OAS/IFES/Bar Association effort with the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, the Project could increase its outreach and impact.
3.4.3 Results
The two USAID-approved work plans for the Project have several indicators to measure the progress ofthis
Objective. These are: "Improved ability of Working Group members to coalesce on judicial reform
advocacy" (2002); "Collaboration of Working Group sectors promoting human rights and justice reform"
(2003); and "A nationwide network of organizations/coalitions" (2003).
The Project made progress on these indicators. Most ofthe Project structure foreseen in the design is in
place and was functioning up until the November work plan incident. IFES did not collect baseline
information for this Objective, but the 2001 Agreement provides a descriptive baseline of "no cohesive
movement or coalition within Haitian civil society currently exists as a strong advocate for judicial
reform.,,20 It is clear that groups are meeting and discussing the issue ofjustice sector reform, although
developing a coalition that could design and implement activities has not yet occurred. The members of
the Working Groups and the Senior Advisors also appear to meet the selection criteria established in the
Agreement. Most ofthe coalition building activities to date, with the exception ofthe meeting ofthe
Federation of Bar Associations in Cap Haitien designed to encourage Cap Haitien membership in the
Federation. have been Port-au-Prince based.
CSOs, such as journalists', attorneys' and human rights advocate associations, do exist and continue to be
20 Program Descriptim, Section III. Background.
formed and IFES assistance and attention to the issue ofjudicial reform has jump started several key legal
sector associations to organize and become active. The advent ofthe Federation of Haitian Bar
Associations presents an opportunity to most, if not all, ofthe nation's 15 bar associations to advocate more
forcefully for justice sector reform. Both the Federation and ANAMAH have potential to make significant
impact on justice sector reform.
To help determine the results ofthis Objective, the Evaluation Team re-asked the 2001 baseline survey
question if CSO advocacy groups had a positive impact on judicial independence. It found an increased
level of positive responses in 2003 over the 2002 responses.
dence? a vocacy groups h da a positive Impact OUjU. d'ICla. I'Indepen
2003 Evaluation 2002 Baseline
Yes: 14 Yes: 5
Some: 7 Some: 9
No: 5 No: 7
N/A: 4
Have CSO d
The friction among some professional media associations, journalistic CSOs is splintering the media
sector's efforts on justice sector reform. A training program for journalists is being funded by Canada, and
the Evaluation Team strongly recommends that the IFES Project work closely with these on-going activities
that duplicates to some extent the activities being planned by IFES for Year II.
To date the working groups are not yet at a point where they can independently organize and complete
activities, as IFES senior adviser and civil society specialist input is required. This is not a realistic goal for
the Media Working Group within the life ofthe Project due to friction between its two largest members.
The links with the Haitian Diaspora and with the CSO community in the Dominican Republic are just being
created, and, at the time ofthe Evaluation, appear to have the potential to make a positive impact on the
activities ofthe Working Groups. The Evaluation Team tended to be skeptical of international trips.
However, the trip to the Dominican Republic appears to have made a visible impression on the Senior
Advisors interviewed by the Evaluators. In particular, the role ofthe private sector in the judicial reform
effort. This, with the determination ofthe Dominican legal sector to push the reform movement forward,
gave them food for thought and new ideas on how things could be done in Haiti.
The IFES/H Program Director also reported that after the trip to Florida, the President ofthe Port-au-Prince
Bar Association started an e-mail mailing list on justice and human rights issues that included the Haitian
lawyers in Florida. This type of networking is to be encouraged strongly and may serve a base from which
an Federation of Bar Associations website may be launched. 21 Another international trip is planned for
April 21-26, 2003, with the Project intending to sponsor 15 Working Group members and members ofthe
judiciary to attend the meeting ofthe Louisiana Bar Association which has a Francophone division. A joint
seminar is also planned with Tulane University Law School, Loyola University, Southern University Law
School and the Louisiana Bar Association. The Evaluation Team recommends that the Project follows up
with the participants following any ofthese types oftrips to ensure that the links established become
institutionalized and productive in terms ofthe Project purpose.
3.4.4 Recommendation
Review ofthe Working Group/Advisory Structure in order to streamline its functions and roles.
21 A website including codes. treatises, studies and other legal materials could also serve lawyers reference and CLE needs,
I s well as provide valuable resources for law students, journalists and human rights advocates.
The Advisory Council appears to be a good mechanism to lend weight and stature to Project
activities, but, if it is created, it should be used sparingly and not for the supervisory or
management purposes discussed in the initial work plans.
Ensure CSO activities are directly linked with the various segments ofthe population. This is
likely to be more effective, more widely publicized and more likely to foster the goal of broad￾based coalitions advocating for justice sector reform.
Consolidate Project objectives and its vision (see recommendations under Project Design) before
making a concerted effort to expand Project activities beyond the Port-au-Prince area.
3.5 Program Design and Project Management
3.5.1 Program Design
The Program Description in the Agreement provides USAID's vision on how a "broad range of civil society
organizations can draw on each others strengths to coalesce around judicial reform efforts and in developing
strong, knowledgeable constituencies that will reach well into Haiti's rural areas.,,22 This 2001 design was
based on a preliminary analysis by USAID on the feasibility ofsupporting some ofthe CSOs in judicial
reform efforts. "Extensive additional analysis will be required under this Agreement to finalize the
proposed program approach and to modify USAID's rule oflaw strategy where necessary.,,23
In January 2002, IFES undertook an assessment ofthe judicial sector to provide additional analysis and
develop the Project strategy and plan of action. This was formalized in the 2002 Workplan which was
submitted for USAID approval in February 2002. The work plan developed a performance and monitoring
plan in table format with a general list of indicators, types of measurement, data collection methods and
targets for each ofthe following objectives:
Increased capacity of working group members to advocate for judicial reform
Enhanced flow ofinformation between CSOs, media, judicial and government officials
Enhanced appreciation among Haitian media ofthe importance of civil society in judicial reform
Improved ability of working group members to coalesce on judicial reform activity
The plan was primarily descriptive and explained how the activities would be measured. The indicators
were expected outputs and the targets were general descriptions of expected results. None were quantified.
The 2003 Workplan uses the same table format but contains a different set of indicators:
A nationwide network of organizations/coalitions
Participatory methodology of program sustainability
Collaboration ofworking groups sectors, promoting human rights and justice reform/focusing on
freedom ofspeech
Compiling information/recommendations for the State ofthe Justice Report (Human Rights and
Judicial Independence)
These were also unquantified and descriptive in nature.
22 Agrccnlcnt Attachment 2, Program Description. Section II. Objective
23 Agreement Attachment 2, Program Description, Section III. Background.
Use of civil society
The Project's strategy of using civil society as a means to effect change in the judicial sector is one that is
being used by other donors in Haiti. However, the approach taken in the IFES Project is different from that
being used by Canada and the UNDP CSO project. The Canadians are directly funding established24 CSOs
with grants. Initially they gave priority to the large CSOs, but after their Year I evaluation, they changed
focus to build the capacity of and to fund promising young CSOs.
The Canadian-funded UNDP Project has provided contracts to three large CSOS25 which are each
responsible for a different aspect ofthe program and run the program conjointly through what they call a
Citizens Coordination Committee. This Committee works with associations at both the national and
regional levels (by sectors) to develop strategies and activities. These efforts are brought together in
national conferences (Citizen's Forum). Four such conferences are planned for the next two years.
The OAS Justice Specialist described the UNDP project as a set of widening circles- starting with a core
group of CSOs which then go out in larger and larger circles. By contrast, he described the IFES Project as
more intersectorial, which brings together the different sectors of Haiti. In this way, he believes the IFES
approach is able to reach more ofthe professional sectors, such as the lawyers, doctors and private
enterprise, than can be done through the UNDP approach. He also thought this approach made OAS-IFES
collaboration easier, as was done in the jointly sponsored Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
training.
Using civil society as a mechanism to advocate and serve as a catalyst for judicial reform also appears to be
timely, given the growing coalescence of Haitian civil society around the need for better governance and
quality oflife. Since the inception ofthe Project, the Group of 184 was established. According to CSOs
interviewed by the Evaluation Team, the group now numbers more than 230 institutions, organizations and
associations from civil society. From what the Evaluators could determine, 33 out ofthe 40 members ofthe
Working Groups are members ofthe Group of 184, including all members ofthe Private Sector and Media
Working Groups.
The Civil Society Initiative, a group of22 associations that originally grouped together to monitor the 2000
elections, has received 722,000 Euros in direct EU funding and issued a subgrant to a faith-based CSO to
provide legal assistance and training in the Artibonite. At least nine members ofthe Working Groups are
members ofthe Civil Society Initiative.
This growing trend ofCSOs banding together to effect change was also reflected in the responses to the
IFES baseline survey question "Can (CSO) groups realistically work together in a coalition on a set of
common issues to promote judicial independence? In 2002 the responses were Yes: 12, Maybe 10, No: 0
and N/A: 3. For the 2003 Evaluation, the results were: Yes: 19, Maybe: 4, No; 0 and N/A: 3.
Defining judicial reform and constituency building activities
The Program Description in the Agreement was written in general terms, as USAID felt additional analysis
would be needed to complete the program design. It did set the priorities to be funded under the
Agreement: independence ofthe judiciary, adherence to due process and the reform of commercial codes.
The Evaluation Team was told by IFES that USAID recently added human rights to this list of priorities.
24 To be eligible for Canadian funding under its Justice and Human Rights Fund. a CSO must be at least I to 3 yeas old
with experience managing donor funding.
25 Centre Eucumiqueque des Oroits Humains, Justice et Paix and Haiti Solidarite Internatimale. Respectiwly, they are
responsiblc for productioo of documentatim. diffusion of documents and lobby/PR for the project activities.
IFES developed the specific objectives listed above in its annual work plans. The Project and its activities
were to work towards those objectives. However, as noted, the objectives changed in each work plan. In
addition, the 2002-2004 Workplan elaborated by IFES/H and the Senior Advisors, used a third set of
objectives and indicators.
Several CSOs interviewed told the Evaluators there had been a "change of program" and that they needed
to redo their proposals. The Senior Advisors believe the 2003 Workplan elaborated by IFES/H changed the
orientation ofthe Project, but did not elaborate in what direction. The Evaluators noted the different titles
being used for this Project. For example, the title in the Agreement is Constituency-Building for Judicial
Reform in Haiti, while the IFES Project brochure calls it "Civil Society Strengthening Project for Judicial
Independence in Haiti," This is all indicative that the Project framework is too open to interpretation.
Results framework
This lack of a common vision is the cause of many ofthe implementation problems currently being
experienced. The Agreement does not have a life-of-project results framework, as the specifics for the
design were yet to be determined when the Agreement was signed. This framework was not provided in the
performance and monitoring plans used in the work plans as the work plans focused on annual activities and
objectives.
fhe Evaluation Team pulled together the relevant sections from the Agreement and the two AID-approved
work plans into a results-type framework (Annex C, Table I). The overlapping objectives and ensuing
confusion of indicators that developed is evident.
Before the 2003 work plan is redone by the Senior Advisors, and before the Project starts to expand its
activities outwards, the Project needs to develop a life-of-project results framework. In Annex C, Table, 2,
the Evaluation Team has consolidated some ofthe existing objectives and provided a possible starting point
for these discussions. Once this framework is completed, and approved by USAID, it should be used as a
base to redo the 2003 work plan and to ensure that all activities adopted feed directly into the anticipated
results. The work plan also needs to be done in a work plan format of who, what, where, when and how,
rather than the format currently used (which is more appropriate for a performance monitoring plan). At the
same time, the Project needs to adjust its performance and monitoring plan by developing quantifiable
indicators that will be able to adequately measure project performance. This should be done in a measuring
table format with annual targets for each indicator stated along with any available baseline information.
Terminology
The Legal Consultant noted confusion in the use of certain terminology used in reports: Federation of
Haitian Barons should be corrected to Federation of Haitian Bar Associations. Justice sector reform should
replace justice reform, as the goal ofjustice sector reform is a proper administration ofjustice that assures
that justice is delivered in conformity with the rule of law. Statutes and rules for judicial reporters should
be corrected to articles of organization (statuts), and regulations (by-laws) for judicial reporters' CSOs. A
code of ethics may be included in the regulations or may be a separate document.
Haitian "ownership" of Project
The design stressed the Haitian participants ownership ofthe activities and program. The Evaluators found
that IFES/H had been very successful at developing a sense Haitian ownership and interest in the Project.
This was most evident in discussions with the Senior Advisors. In addition, some ofthe Working Group
members referred to it as "our" project and saw their input into the 2002-2004 Workplan as critical and
grounding the project in the reality of Haiti.
However, their expectations as to the extent oftheir "ownership" were unrealistic. Disillusionment set in
when IFES/W replaced the Senior Advisors' 2002-2004 Workplan and their realization that only $52,000
would be available for subgrants out ofthe $3.5m project. The Senior Advisors said they felt ridiculous
going back to their Haitian partners (Working Groups) to tell them that IFES/W had changed the program
and that only 8% (by their calculation) ofthe $3.5m would be available for programming by the Groups.
Despite this rude awakening, the Evaluation Team found that the Senior Advisors still considered this
"their" project and were working to redo the IFES/W 2003 work plan. In the meantime, Project activity
through the Advisors and Working Group mechanism is almost at a standstill.
Working Group structure
The Project design calls for a very heavy project apparatus to be created. It starts with an Advisory Council
made up of notables. It then has four Senior Advisors who advise four working groups from different
sectors (legal, media, human rights and education and the private sector). Representatives from these
groups create a "Coalition" and these groups work out geographically as well as sectorally to a second tier
ofCSOs. The 2002 Workplan anticipates a project management and oversight role for these structures as
well as for the Project's use in coalition and network building.
The Evaluation Team found this to be a very heavy structure with too many layers. It reinforces the concept
of Haitian ownership ofthe Project, but it is not a realistic mechanism to use for project management
purposes. The Evaluation Team suggests the role ofthe Advisory Council, which is not yet established, be
limited to lending credence and value to Project activities. It should also be used strategically and sparingly
so it maintains its respect. The role ofthe Working Groups should not include any project management
responsibilities.
Another issue identified by the Evaluation Team is that this multi-tiered structure is an artificial creation by
the Project. It is conceivable that these groups could continue to meet after the end ofthe Project as a
coordination entity, especially ifthe Project is able to "bond" them together in some way. The
representative from the Chamber of Commerce told the Evaluators that civil society needed a "success." If
one ofthe Groups or the coalition of Groups has a "success"- this would certainly increase the potential for
post-Project collaboration. Due to internal friction within the members ofthe Media Working Group, it is
highly unlikely that this group would continue. There is a chance, however, that the other associations
within the Group can form a more lasting relationship among themselves.
The amount of existing Haitian structures and coalitions working to improve democracy and governance is
notable. IFES/H should ensure that the Working Groups and Senior Advisors more consistently coordinate
with these efforts, as linking with the existing coalitions may be the key to the long term sustainability ofthe
advocacy and networking aspects ofthis Project.
Allocation of budget
Many ofthe Haitian working group participants interviewed raised the issue ofthe budget and how little
money they learned was available for programming their activities. The Agreement total of$3.5m had been
widely publicized and they were dismayed that only $100,000 was available for subgrants.z6
The Evaluation Team reviewed the budget and found it was difficult to estimate how much money would be
available for in-country activities as many costs (such as commodity purchases of computers) would be
made in the United States. The Evaluators were struck however, by the number of international trips and
the small percentage offunds that appear to be directly going towards activities in Haiti.
26 Agreement allocation is $52,000 for subgrants but IFES intended to ask USAID for a reallocation of funds to increase
this to $100.000. The Evaluation Team found the Haitian participants used the $100,000 amount in their discussims.
The issue ofthe budget was discussed with the IFES/W Director of Operations who provide the Evaluators
with a $1.9m estimate ofthe amount of money to be spent directly on project activities in Haiti. With IFES
overhead, this comes to 2.3m. 27
IFES realigned its budget estimates before the start ofthe Evaluation. It decided to wait for the results of
the Evaluation before it submitted the realignment to USAlD for approval. The Evaluation Team
recommends that IFES wait until the results framework is completed along with the revised work plan for
2003. At that point, IFES could re-examine its budget to be sure that it corresponds to the priorities and
activities identified in those plans.
3.5.1.1 Recommendations
Develop a life-of-project results and indicators framework. Use this framework to re-view and re￾draft the 2003 work plan and to develop a performance monitoring plan with quantifiable
indicators.
Review the Project budget with an eye to maximizing Project funding for activities in Haiti and to
ensure the budget reflects the priorities developed in the results framework and revised work plans.
Consider co-funding projects with other NGOs, CSOs and entities like the OAS Special Mission
and UNDP. The OAS mission and UNDP have the expertise to support technical programs and
training for CSOs, lawyers and judges.
Encourage closer linkages with existing CSO efforts in the justice reform sector for sustainability
purposes.
The drafting of a Haitian commercial code, while a laudable goal, is not appropriate for the current
lFES agreement. It may, however, be the subject of a later contract or grant, especially in
connection with assistance to Haitian legal CSO(s) including law schools.
3.5.2 Project Management
The internal IFES assessment will provide an in-depth analysis ofthe administration ofthe IFES office and
its Project management. However, the Evaluation Team did take note ofseveral management issues that
affected project implementation.
These were:
The organization ofthe IFES office and the distribution oftasks. The organizational chart for
27 Amount is broken down as follows (in US$):
field Stall 504.560 Furniture/equiptrent/maintenanee 8,500
Direct benefits 162.196 Commodities 472.200
Consultants (local) 200.000 Subreeipients 52.000
Other personnel 122.980 Field Office expenses 192.300
Travel (per diem) 19.350 Special events 46.300
Local transportation 151.400 Other Field Office costs 7.000
SubTotal
Indirect Costs
Total
1,938,786
371.785
2.310.571
project management shows a diffused chain of command and overlapping responsibilities. This is
also evident in the job descriptions in the contracts ofthe local staff. There is also no second in
command who can take over in the absence ofthe Project Director.
The lack of project management systems. This was a general problem and affected the efficiency
ofthe Project and the flow of information between IFES/H and IFES/W and USAID/Haiti.
Systems need to be established for a standardized collection of data, report writing, filing,
reviewing and approving funding proposals, and monitoring the progress ofthe Senior Advisors
and Working Groups.
The lack of a good flow of information among IFES/W, lFES/H and USAID/Haiti. There were
complaints from every side that they lacked information from the other side. The Evaluation Team
found that much work in Haiti had been documented, but that these documents either did not make
their way up to IFES/W or over to USAID/H. Some ofthis is due to the lack ofmanagement
systems. Another problem is that the IFES/H and Senior Advisors usually work in French. Within
the IFES/H office, only the IFES/H Project Director can write in English, which meant reports
were late while he worked to translate them in between his other duties.
The lack of delegation of authority to IFES/H. The perception among IFES/H staff and the Senior
Advisors is that they require IFES/W or USAID/H approval for almost everything. The actual
level of delegation of authority was not clear to the Evaluators. However, the Team noted that the
lFES/H Project Director has to ask IFES/W for approval for anything over $500 and that this
approval can take two weeks. In practice, this means almost everything has to go back for
approval, including such things as renting a hall for a conference. This has slowed implementation
and we heard numerous references to waiting for "Washington" from the Haitian partners.
Contracting local staff at U.S. dollar rates but paying them in Haitian gourdes at the exchange rate
in effect when they initially signed their contracts. This results in their receiving about half ofthe
current dollar-to-gourde exchange rate. Salaries should be either paid in U.S. dollars or at the
dollar to gourde rate in effect on payday or another fixed day ofthe month.
The Evaluation Team learned of USAID/Haiti's concern that it is not receiving timely reports from IFES/H
and that USAID requires that all reports be (translated into) in English. Since only certain IFES reports and
publications are transmitted from USAID/Haiti to Washington, DC, the Evaluation Team suggests that IFES
submit all appropriate reports and materials to USAID/Haiti, whether in French or English. In the interests
oftime and money, IFES should translate only those reports deemed necessary for transmission to
Washington.
The Evaluation Team also heard from IFES that USAID requested IFES/W to hire an English speaking
deputy for the IFES/H office. They felt that this would solve the slow report delivery problem. The
Evaluators also heard from IFES that USAID had expressed concern over the lack of prominent display of
the USAID logo at conferences. As no conferences were being held during the time ofthe Evaluation, the
Team could not address this issue. However, given current anti-US sentiment among some ofthe CSOs,
lFES and USAID should examine USG grant guidelines to determine ifthe USAID logo may be used more
sparingly in connection with activities, especially large conferences. Rather than displaying a USAID logo
on a banner on a wall, a small USAID logo could appear in a comer ofthe front or back cover ofthe
conference materials. In connection with written materials it reviewed, the Team did note that IFES had
prominently displayed the USAID logo and acknowledged USAID funding. In fact, in its report ofthe
Judges Conference that led to the creation of ANAMAH, it listed one ofthe conference's objectives as
publicizing USAID's funding and IFES assistance.
The issue of logos raises the issue ofsome CSOs that do not want to work with the Project because of
USAID funding. This still includes the important human rights association, Platform des Draits Humains.
But this was a smaller number than the Evaluation Team members expected given the anti-IFES attitude
that existed among some during its assistance to the Elections Commission in the 2000 elections. At the
time, IFES was a political target and red paint graffiti with "Aba IFES" (Down with IFES) was scrawled on
many Port-au-Prince walls.
The change in perception of IFES is notable. It has worked on this Project for more than a year in a very
politicized sector, and the Project and its activities have not become a political issue. Several CSO
members told the Evaluators that they were initially leery of working with this Project because ofthe IFES
election reputation, but had been won over by its nonpartisan and nonpolitical work in the justice sector.
3.5.2.1 Recommendations
Reorganize and streamline the staffing at the IFES office. The position of Program Coordinator
should be turned into a deputy-director type position. The two Civil Society Specialists report to
this position which would ensure coordination oftheir efforts, be responsible for the timely
delivery ofreports and assume the IFES/H Director's duties when the latter is unavailable or
otherwise delegates responsibility.
Establish project management and office administration procedures and systems. In particular, the
motor pool should be scheduled through the Program Assistant, who is serving as Office Manager.
Review the level of effort expected by IFES from the Senior Advisors. Some Working Groups are
more active than others and may not require current the two days per week per Advisor level of
effort in their contracts. The tasks required from the Senior Advisors should also be clarified in
regards to the level of effort (such as whether Advisors are expected to provide written reports on
their work and the work oftheir Working Groups).
Once the management and program design issues are addressed, the Evaluation Team recommends
that sufficient delegation of authority be provided to the IFES/H office so that it can effectively
implement its program.
3. Conclusions
Conditions in Haiti are very difficult. It has a continuing political crisis which, according to the OAS
Special Mission has become so polarized "that unless the moderate elements regain control ofthe process,
there is a possibility of armed conflict.,,28 Human rights concerns and incidents of intimidation ofthe press
are increasing. Incidents of cases never prosecuted and the lack of accountability are flagrant. Accounts of
government corruption, including police and judges, stemming from drug-trafficking money were
mentioned in almost every interview held by the Evaluation Team.
Despite these difficulties, there remained optimism among the CSO members interviewed, that the situation
could be turned around, and that they could help do it. They appeared to be grimly determined to make a
change and extremely cognizant ofthe difficulties faced in effecting change through the existing system.
Many, especially those in the Private Sector Working Group, spoke ofthe coming together ofthe Group of
184 and how civil society is coalescing around the issues of better governance, accountability and the need
to end impunity.
In this regard, the Constituency Building for Judicial Reform Project, designed around the concept of
creating networks ofCSOs to advocate for reform ofthe justice sector, is timely. It has also managed to
28 GAS. Second Report ofthe Secretary General to the Permanent Council on the implementationofCP/RES 822. "Support
jiJr the StrengtheningofDemocracy in Haiti. .. November 4. 2002-January4, 2003.
remain apolitical in a very polarized and politicized environment. It has brought together almost 40
associations from different sectors and has incorporated the well-educated and strategic-thinking private
sector into its program.
It is not possible at this point in time, given the uncertainties on how the political situation will be resolved,
to determine whether this Project can make a significant difference in the justice sector. There is certainly
the potential to make a difference when many groups band together and advocate for a common cause.
There is power in numbers and the movement is growing.
The Project purpose, however, is just the first step in a process working towards judicial sector reform. It is
to help enable civil society to make more effective demands for reform. These objectives appear realistic
and achievable in the life ofthe project.
In its first year of operations, the Project has made a notable difference at the CSO level, particularly in
assisting with the creation of ANAMAH and the Haitian Federation of Bar Associations. These
organizations are strategically placed and are participants in the administration ofjustice. The Project has
also jump started several independent CSO activities through its discussions with its Working Groups,
including the Justice Fridays being sponsored by the AFPEC.
The Judges Association flexed its muscles and made a very visible statement with its recent strike. After
this incident, caused by the arrest ofthe Association's President for allegedly releasing a drug-trafficking
suspect, it seems to have gained the recognition ofthe Ministry ofthe Interior which returned the
confiscated passport of one of its members directly to the Association. Those who thought the strike action
was useful said it showed the power of collective action. But it also illustrates the need to ensure that
advocacy efforts encouraged by the Project be done in a legal and positive manner that does not harm others
(like thousands of pretrial detainees awaiting hearings and trials).
Most ofthe structures anticipated under the Cooperative Agreement for information sharing and to build
coalitions were established in Year I. The Project is a new effort and has had some teething problems. The
Working Group mechanism is heavy and needs streamlining. Its links with other CSOs and donor programs
in the sector, such as the Civil Society Initiative and the UNDP CSO program, need strengthening. The
Project lost momentum as a result of IFES/W changing of objectives, leaving the Working Groups "empty
envelopes,,29 that need to be filled. However, once these problems are addressed, the Project needs to
regain its momentum and effectively use the structure it has put in place to create the productive demand for
judicial sector reform conceived in the Agreement.
29 Analogy used by the Senior Advisor for Human Rights and Educatirn
Annex A
Scope of Work
MIDTERM EVALUATION
A. Summary
This is the Scope of Work (SOW) for the midterm evaluation ofthe USAID cooperative agreement Rule of
Law project in Haiti. The midterm evaluation will be a midterm evaluation will be an external evaluation
conducted by two consultants and an IFES employee ofthe operation departmeneo. The team will be lead
by a consultant who is an expert in programmatic issues and Democracy and Governance assistance
programs. The second consultant will be a lawyer with Haitian legal experience. The team will be assisted
by Lesley Richards, IFES Program Officer.
The evaluation will be conducted in the field from February 19-26, 2003, and spend four days in their
respective locations to compile their section ofthe Final Report, the team will travel to Haiti to review and
assess the IFES Constituency Building for Judicial reform in Haiti. This will be done through a review of
documentation and project outputs, meeting and interviews with key participants and actors in the justice
sector.
The evaluation will be conducted in an integrated manner with each team member focusing on specific
aspects ofthe agreement. Each evaluator should be also be expected to contribute to the other sections of
the report, which includes reading and making suggestions on the other teams drafts, to ensure an accurate
and complete draft. The roles and focus for each Team members are:
Team Leader: Coordinate the work ofthe evaluation team and ensure an integrated evaluation effort, focus
on programmatic issues as detailed in the TL's SOW, serve as point person for the evaluation report by
incorporating team members drafts into a final report, however the team leader is only responsible for her
part ofthe report and the executive summary and the conclusion, each evaluator is responsible for their
portion ofthe report in its entirety.
Legal Consultant: Focus on the legal aspects ofthe Constituency Building project and if/how each
objective's activities undertaken to date are leading to judicial reform and a strengthening ofthe ROL sector
as detail in the LC's SOW, provide this assessment in a finished draft format for incorporation into the Final
Report
IFES Operation Manager: Focus on the administrative aspects ofthe agreement and constituency building
project as detailed in the OM's SOW and provide findings in a finished draft format for incorporation into
the Final Report.
The Team Leader will provide a draft methodology and report outline for the team to discuss for the initial
evaluation team meeting in PAP. The team will adopt a methodology and divide up responsibility for
drafting specific sections ofthe Final Report according to their TOR and focus.
The final deliverable for the Evaluation will be the Evaluation Report that includes the executive summary,
introduction and conclusion.
B. Evaluation Objectives
The general objectives ofthe programmatic evaluation are as follows: I) to assess the level of attainment in
project results in relation to the existing cooperative agreement; determine ifUSAID mechanism is being
practiced in the project; 2) to determine ifthe IFES project is sufficiently well-equipped to work towards
the achievement of the objectives for project year in a way accountable to its participants and is capable of
30 Note: It was later decided that the internal administrati\e assessment would be done separately from this independent
Midterm Evaluation.
adjusting its strategies to the changing political environment for the sake of its effectiveness; 3) and assess
the physical progress, efficiency and adequacy, in terms of delivery of project inputs and outputs.
C. Scopes of Work
Programmatic Assessment
Assess the efficiency of project organization and management with respect to its size and
composition, organizational structure, personnel management and policy, the qualifications with
the local staff and consultants, reporting, effectiveness ofthe monitoring and evaluation system
and follow -up on primary stakeholders reactions to projects activities
Assess the planning and financial management/determine ifthe budget functions as a toll for
planning/Determine if IFES monitor progress according to planning
Determine whether IFES is able to develop and maintain fruitful relationships with all actors in
civil society, including academic institutions such as the l'Ecale de la Magistrature in order to
advance its vision and advocate justice reform/ monitor the strategic alliances IFES maintains/
Assess IFES' projected plans for expansion to the provinces of Haiti
Determine whether IFES has strategic alliances with key actors on justice reform from all political
spectrums
Determine whether there is a sense of ownership ofthe project among its participants
Assess the prospect ofsustainability ofthe project once IFES has left the country/determine
whether the necessary mechanisms for sustainability are being implemented
Determine whether IFES is deviating from its planning, for example changing programs or
carrying out activities that have not been planned before, if yes how are these deviations valued by
USAID/Haiti and USAID/Washington: do they express a positive flexibility, do they still comply
with the long-term objectives, short term objectives and strategies of IFES, have these changes
been beneficial to IFES' participants and constituency
Assess how issues of policy advocacy decided upon
Assess the inter-relationships between the several NGOs in the working groups and between the
several activities in the work plan
Identify where project design needs adjusting/reorienting in order to increase its effectiveness in
reaching the populace. This includes organizational/institutional setup and implementation plan
Analyze which factors and constraints have influenced the project
Achievements
What are the major achievements ofthe rule oflaw project (according to IFES/Haiti, the working
groups and USAID)
Assess whether verifiable indicators have been stated in the plans and used to measure
achievements
Determine what have been the unplanned side effects ofthe IFES project, if any, both in the
positive and negative sense
Implementation
Are activities implemented according to planning
Are activities carried out with the assigned inputs (staff, funds, services)
Are there often over or expenditures, if compared to the budget
Detennine ifthere have been technical and/ or management constraints or problems in implementing the
activities/determine
Legal Assessment
Detennine whether IFES is able to develop and maintain fruitful relationships with all actors in the
legal and judicial community including the I'Ecole de la Magistrature and the Conseil Superieur
de la magistrature in order to advance its vision and advocate justice reform/ monitor the strategic
alliances IFES maintains
Assess IFES' projected plans for expansion to other legal and judicial stakeholders in the
provinces of Haiti
Detennine whether IFES has strategic alliances with key actors on justice refonn from all political
spectrums, as well as key judicial stakeholders and strengthen these alliances
Assess the prospect ofsustainability ofthe project once IFES has left the country/detennine
whether the necessary mechanisms for the sustainability of rule of law objectives are being
implemented
Determine if lFES is deviating from its planning, for example changing programs or carrying out
activities that have not been planned before, if yes how are these deviations valued by
USAID/Haiti and USAID/Washington: do they express a positive flexibility, do they still comply
with the long-tenn objectives, short tenn objectives and strategies of IFES, have these changes
been beneficial to IFES' participants and constituency
Assess how issues of legal advocacy are decided upon Assess the inter-relationships between the
several NGOs in the working groups and between the several activities in the work plan
Identify where project design needs adjusting/reorienting in order to increase its effectiveness in
reaching the populace. This includes legal outreach and education and implementation plan
Analyze the factors and constraints affecting the achievement ofthe rule of law objectives
Achievements
What are the major achievements ofthe rule of law project (according to IFES/Haiti, the working
groups and USAID)
Assess whether verifiable indicators have been stated in the plans and used to measure
achievements
Determine what have been the unplanned side effects ofthe IFES project, if any, both in the
positive and negative sense
Implementation
Are activities implemented according to planning
Are activities carried out with the assigned inputs
Are activities reaching the assigned outputs
Determine whether there have been constraints or problems, especially of a legal or political
nature in implementing the rule of law activities and how these problems and constraints are dealt
with
Annex B
Evaluation Methodology
Framework
Performance monitoring plan detailed in the Agreement and 2002 Workplan, taking into consideration
changes to the performance monitoring plan detailed in the 2003 Workplan
Scope of Work for the Midterm Evaluation and individual terms of reference for each consultant
Assessment
Interviews with IFES/Haiti and IFES/Washington, AID/Haiti, project and non-project assisted CSOs,
Working Groups, project Advisors, relevant GOH and MOl officials, other international NGOs and
donors working in the civil society and rule of law sectors.
Re-ask several questions from the IFES 2002 ROL assessment that are relevant to Year I activities and
compare against the 2002 baseline. These questions are:
Has a legal association, like a judges association or bar association contributed to judicial
independence?
Have civil society advocacy groups had a positive impact on judicial independence?
Rank the kind of groups, if any, that have been most active in promoting judicial independence.
Can these groups realistically work together in a coalition on a set of common issues to promote
judicial independence?
Rank the biggest barrier to your participating in coalition building/advocacy on behalf ofjudicial
independence.
Review project documentation and other relevant documents and reports.
Review project sites, outputs and products.
Annex C: Results and Indicators Framework
Table No.1: Results and Indicators in Agreement and Work plans3!
Strategic Objective: Establish a strong knowledgeable constituency that will advocate for judicial reform in Haiti
IR I Haitian CSOs provided with necessary skills and IR2 Strategic plans lor Haitian CSOs developed and IR3 Critical Mass ofCSOs built that arc coalescing around
information to actively participate in judicial reform proccss implemented to advocate for justice reforms judicial reform issues to produce greater popular dcmand tor
retorm
IRl.1 Increased capacityofWG members to advocate tor IR2. I Enhanced appreciatim among Haitian media of
judicial reform (2002) importance of civil society injudicial reform (2002) IR3. I Improved ability ofWG members to coalesce on
judicial reform advocacy (2002) &Collaboration of WG
Indicatcrs: Indicatcrs: sectors promoting human rights & justice reform (2003)
a) # know how to etTectivdy acccss into on judicial a) WG activitics attcndcd by media Indicatcrs:
system & govt officials b) articles/broadcasts on WG. JR activities a) # able to organize & complete proposed
b) degree to which access media to hold activities (02)
knowledgeable public dialogue on JR IR2.2 Compiling information/recommendatims tor the b) # joint activities carried out between WGs
State ofJustice Report (2003) (02)
IRI.2 Enhanced flow of information between CSOs. media. c) # civic ed materials released/prcduced (03)
judicial & governmental ofticials (2002) IndicatlTs: d) # groups rcachcd (03)
a) groups collecting HR into/law changcs e) # reports written (03)
lndicatcrs: b) NGO subgranted to write SoJ rcport
a) # dissimilar orgs attcnding WG evcnts IR3.2 A nationwide network of organizatims/coalitions
b) # WG tcchnical public info pieccs produced (2003)
IR1.3 Participatcry mcthodology of program sustainabitity Indicatcrs:
(2003) a) # orgs in coalition
b) # links with intI. natl. Diaspora
Indicatcrs: c) # local/inti orgs encouraged to join
a) associations formed w/ int'! Diaspora d) # linkages local/inti journalists/judges
b) degree of ownership of project e) # articles press on target issues
f) quality of info produced
g) # policy recommendatims in SoJ report
h) draft policies developed/proposed
i) # of documented HR violation cases
31 Objectivcs and Indicatcrs pulled by Evaluators from the Cooperative Agreement. 2002 and 2003 Workplans and stated in terms oflntermediate Results (IRs)
Strategic
Objective
I SO Indicatcr
Intermediate
Results (IR)
IR Indicatcrs
I Sub-Irs I
Sub-IR
Indicatcrs
Table II: Suggested starting point for discussions to adjust Results and Indicators32
Establish a strong knowledgeable constituency that will advocate for judicial reform in Haiti
% WG members with basic knowledge and understanding ofthe justicc system and advocating for its improvement.
(Would probably require a pre/post test for knowledge plus an advocacy scale as in (2)
I
IRI lR2 IR3
Haitian CSOs with necessary skills and Haitian CSOs develop and implement strategic plans to advocate Critical mass ofCSOs coalesce around
information to actively participate in for judicial reform improving the justice sector
judicial reform process
I I
I (I) (2) % increasc in the # of CSOs attending
WG cvents and/or working with WG on
substanti.e issues
IR2.l IR3.1
Enhanced appreciaticn among Haitian media of importancc of Nationwide network of organizatirns/
due process, judicial reform and human rights coalitions established and working on justice
sector reform issues
I I
% increase in substanti.e % increase on a network index
media coverage of HR &
due process violations based on joint efforts between WG
& of efforts made for its members in PAP with regions.
improvement different sectors, Diaspora & intI
NGOs on judicial reform issues
32 Table done in formatofIR tables from USAID/Haiti's Performance MonitoringP/an
IR2.2
Documentin the State ofJustice in Haiti
I
Outputs might be indicatITs:
>databank of HRidue process violations
established & maintained
>Substantive SoJ report issued
>databank of good justice decisions created
IR2.3
Building public awareness & appreciatim for a
rule by law
I
% increase in knowledge & interest of
targeted population in ROL (would require
pre/post test or survey. USAID has
previous ycars info on ROL issues from its
Gallup polling. Some ofthat data might be
appropriate for a baseline
IR2.4
Improved efTectiveness ofparticipatingCSOs
to influence justice sector policy
I
(3) or % increase in the # of changes/efforts
made by GOH to improve administratim
ofjustice & HR (attributabl:: to Project)
(I) USAID/Haiti used an mdicator "Effectiveness of Haitian Human Rights Organizations" for their IR results "People increasingly treated
according to the rule of law." This was measured on an 8 point index described below in (3). The unit of measurement was the average score of
organizations on the index.
(2) USAID/Haiti uses an indicator that might be adaptable for this IR. It is their SO level indicator of "Number of cases in which an organized
dialogue on policy cases is carried out by CSOs and national public institutions." The definition of an organized dialogue is CSOs and national
public institutions hold meetings or encounters where both sides have been given timely notice and information about meetings and issues. Cases =
examples of policy oriented dialogue. National public institutions = Ministries, agencies ofministries, Parliament, the president and/or executive or
legislative commissions. Unit = number of cases.
(3) USAID/Haiti developed an index to measure their IR: "Civil society organizations positively influence policies." This has a performance
indicator of" Target Haitian CSOs progress in developing their institutional capacity to advocate for policy change. This index examines CSO's
ability to articulate objectives, collect information, formulate a policy position, obtain and allocate resources, publicize network, lobby and monitor
policy positions an government actions. The IFES Project might be able to develop a similar 3 or 4 point index to measure this indicator for IR2.4
Note: USAID/Haiti also developed a CSO Institutional Capacity Index to measure their capacity for election monitoring and a Human Rights Index
to measure the effectiveness ofthe human right CSOs. Some ofthe indicators in these indexes might be relevant to the IFES Project.
In-depth guidance on developing Strategic Objectives and Intermediate Results is available on USAID's website in its Source Book: Managingfor
Results. 33 The USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation has also developed guidelines for Building a Results Framework in its
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips. 34
33 www.usaid.gov/pubs/SOlITcebooklusgov/mfr.html
34 Located at www.
Annex D
List of Working Groups
Legal Working Group
Civil Society Specialist: Jacques Miguel Sanon
Senior Advisor: Bernard Gousse
I. Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de PAP*+
2. Association Haitienne des Femmes Juges
3. Faculte de Droit et des Sciences Economiques de UEH
4. Amicale des Juristes
5. Academie de Formation et de Perfectionnement des Cadres (AFPEC)
6. Ecole de la Magistrature*
7. Association Nationale des Magistrats Haitiens (ANAMAH)*
8. Federation des Barreaux d'Haiti (FBH)*
Private Sector Working Group
Civil Society Specialst: Jacques Miguel Sanon
Senior Advisor; Guilaine Malbranche
I. Fondation Nouvelle Haiti (FNH)*
2. Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie d'Haiti (CCIH)*+
3. Association Developpement Economique du Sud-Est (APOESE)*
4. Groupe Croissance*
5. Reseau National d'Information Economique*
6. Association des Industries d'Haiti (ADIH)*+
7. Chambre Franco Haitienne de Commerce*+
8. Association Touristique d'Haiti*+
9. Chambre Haitiano-Americaine de Commerce*+
10. Association des Assureurs d'Haiti*+
II. Ordre des Comptables Professionnels Agrees d'Haiti (OCPAH)*
12. Centre pour la Libre Entreprise et la Democratie (CLEO)*+
Media Working Group
Civil Society Specialist: Francois Jean
Senior Advisor; Edwidge Balutansky
I. Assocation des Journalistes Haitiens (AJH)*
2. Federation Haitienne de Presse (FPH)*
3. Association Nationale des Medias Haitiens (ANMH)*
4. Syndicat National des Travailleurs de la Presse Haitienne (SNTHP)*
5. Echo Inter 2000*
6. Amical des Femmes Haitiennes Journalistes (AMIFEHJ)*
7. Centre Haitien de Presse (CHP)*
8. Reseau d'Information Juridique et Droits Humains (RIJOH)*
Human Rights and Education Working Group
Civil Society Specialist: Francois Jean
Senior Advisor; Marc Antoine Noel
I. Federation des Etudiants Universitaires d'Haiti FEUH
2. Centre Toussaint pour les Dr oits Humains (CTOH)
3. Centre de Rechercehe et de Formation Economique et Sociale pour Ie Developpement (CRESFEO)
4. Confederation Nationale des Educateurs Haitiens (CNEH)+
5. National Coalition for Human Rights (NCHR)*
6. Femmes en Democratie*
7. Comite des Avocats pour Ie Respect des Libertes Individuelles (CARLI)*
8. Haiti Solidarite Internationale (HSI)*
9. Initiative Citoyenne (IC)*
10. Centre Ecumenique des Droits de I'Homme (CODH/CEDH)*
II. Organisation Generale Independente des Travailleurs Haitiens (OGITH)*
12. Centrale Autonome des Travailleurs Haitiens*
* Also members ofthe (expanded) Group of 184
+ Also members ofthe Civil Society Initiative
Annex E
Questionnaire Results
Total Number of Questionnaires completed in the February 2003 Evaluation: 2635
(Civil Society/Human Rights = 8, Academia = I, Judges = 6, Lawyer = 3, Media = 6, Private
Sector + 2)
Total Number of Questionnaires from January 2002 Baseline: 2536
(Civil Society = 5, Academia = 7, Judges - 9, Private Sector = 4)
2003: Number of respondents assisted by IFES:
Yes: 19 (CS:5, J:2, M:6, PS:2, L:3)
No: 4 (CS:2, J:2)
N/Answer: 3 (A:I, J:2)
(Note: all ofthose who completed a questionnaire but one (CS) were members of an IFES Working
Group, so the actual number of respondents assisted by IFES should be 25)
Question I: Has a legal association, like ajudges association or bar association contributed to judicial
independence?
2003 Evaluation
Yes: 12 (CS: 3. .1: 3. L:3. M: 2. PS: I)
Somc: II (CSA, .1:2. M: 4, A: I)
No: 1 (PS:I)
N/A: 2 (CS:1. .1:1)
2002 Baseline
Yes: 3 (CS:L A:l. .1:1)
Some: 7 (C5:2, .1:2, 1'5:3)
No: 12 (CS:2. A:5, .1:4, PS:1)
N/A: 3 (A:1, .1:2)
Question 2: Have civil society advocacy groups had a positive impact on judicial independence?
2003 Evaluation
Yes: 14 (.l:4. L: 3. C5:5. M:1. 1'5:1)
Somc: 7. (CS:2, .1:1, MA)
No: 5 (CS:2. .1:1. M:l. A:1)
2002 Baseline
Yes: 5 (C5:1. 1\:2, 1'5:2)
Some: 9 (CS:3. A:3, .1:2, PS: I)
No: 7 (A:2,.1:4, PS:1)
N/A: 4 (CS:1, .1:3)
35 Questionnaires were completed by all ofthe persons interviewed during the Evaluation from civil society organizations.
1(, Baseline data is trom the II-loS assessment done .1anuary 2002.
Question 3: Rank the kind of groups, if any, that have been most active in promoting judicial
independence.
2003 Evaluation
CS: HR Groups, Legal Assistance/Judicial
Groups. Elite, Religious Groups. Political Parties,
Labor. Private Sector, Environmental Groups.
None
A: HR Groups, Legal-Judicial
Groups/Labor/Religious Groups
.I: HR Groups, Labor, Legal Assistance/Judicial
Groups. Elite, N/A
PS: IIR Groups, Legal Assistance/Judicial
Groups
2002 Baseline
CS: HR Groups; Legal/Judicial Groups;
Religious Groups; Labor. Environmental Groups
A: HR Groups/Legal/Judicial Groups; Business;
Labor. Religious Groups
.I: HR Groups; Legal/Judicial, Labor, Religious
Groups; Social Elites
PS: HR Groups; BusinessslNone,
Legal/Judicial/Environmental/ Religious Groups
Question 4: Can these groups realistically work together in a coalition on a set of common issues to
promote judicial independence?
2003 Evaluation
Yes: 19 (CS:6, .1:5. L:2. M:4, PS:2)
Maybe: 4 (.1:1. M:1. CS:I. A:I)
No: 0
N/A 3 (L:I. M:1. CS:l)
2002 Baseline
Yes: 12 (CS:3, A: 3, .1:3, PS:3)
Maybe: 10 (CS:I, J:5, PS:I)
No: 0
N/A: 3 (CS:1. A:I, J:1)
Question 5: Rank the biggest barrier to your participating in coalition building/advocacy on behalf of
judicial independence.
2003 Evaluation
CS: Lack of Resources, Access to Information.
rime. Communications. Training. Career. Lack
ofYision/Security, Econmic. Transportation
A: Lack of Resources, Security/Time/
Communications/Information
.I: Lack of Information. Security/
rransportation/Career, Resources.
Communications. Time Economy
PS: Timc.. Resources/Communications/
Information/Career
2002 Baseline
CS: Access to Information: Time/Communication
Problems/Transportation/Physical
Security/Career Threats
A: Time: Resources: Communication Problems:
Access to Information: Transportation
J: Physical Safety; Career Threats: Time: Access
to Information: Resources
PS: Resources: Access to Information; Physical
Safety/Time; Transportation; Communication
Problems
Annex F
Persons and Agencies Contacted
Academie de Formation et de Pel/ectionnement des Cadres (AFPEC)
Henri Dorleans, Director
Richard Casimir, Center Director
Amicale des Femmes Hailiennes Journalistes (AMIFEHJ)
Maryse Balthazar, Coordinator
Kettia Marcellus, Financial Officer
Association des Journalistes Haitiens (AJH)
Jospeh Guyler C. Delva, General Secretary
Association Nationale des Magistrats Haitiens (AN AMAH)
Josiard Agnant, President
Rosemberg Jocelyn, Treasurer
Association Haitienne des Femmes Juges (AHFJ)
Norah A Jean-Francois, Executive Director
Raymonde Jean, Treasurer
Johanna Lundy, Public Relations
Canada
Philippe Vixamar, Coordinator, Justice and Human Rights Fund
Centre de Recherche et de Formation Economique et Sociale pour Ie Developpement (CRESFED)
Suzy Castor, Director
Nicole Edouard, Member, Training Division
Centrale Autonome des Travail/eurs Hailiens (CATH)
Fignole St-Cyr, Secretary Genereal
COlllite des Avocats pour Ie Respect des Libertes lndividuelles (CARLl)
Renan Hedouville, General Secretary
Nadia Charles, Coordinator of the Friday Program of CARLl
Challlbre de Commerce et d'industrie d'Haiti (CClH)
Maurice Lafortune, President
Danielle St Lot, Executive Director
Creative Associates International
Terry Thielen, Chief of Party
Kim Mahling Clark, Management Associate
Federation des Barreaux d'Haiti (FBH)
Me Joseph Rigaud Duplan, President
Me Gervais Charles, General Secretary
Me Jean SeIde, Treasurer
Federation de la Presse Haitienne (FPH)
Jean Willio Dessources, Responsible for Audio-Visual Production
Duval Evans, Program Coordinator and Secretary General ai.
Gerdes Gilot, Public Relations
Mireille Sylvestre, Executive Secretary
Groupe Croissance
Hans Tippenhauer, Senior Consultant
Haiti So/idarite Internationale
Micha Gaillard, Assistant Director
lFES/Haiti
Almami Cyllah, Project Director
Jean Jacques Descartes, Program Coordinator
Francois Jean, Civil Society Specialist
Isabelle Lafleur, Program Assistant (Office Manager)
Myrtho Manigat, Receptionist
Jacques Miguel Sanon, Civil Society Specialist
IFES Project Senior Advisors
Dr. Bernard Gousse, Legal Advisor
Guilaine Victor Malebranche, Private Sector Advisor
Marc Antoine Noel, Human Rights and Education Advisor
IFES/Washington
Keith Henderson, Rule of Law Advisor
Steve Connolly, Director of Operations
Lesley Richards, Program Officer
Initiative de la Societe Civile
Rosny Desroches, Executive Director
NDI
Fellix Ulloa, Country Director
OAS
Anne Fuller, Human Rights Specialist
Denis Racicot, Senior Justice Specialist
Ordre des Comptables Professionnels Agrees d'Haiti (OCAPH)
Joseph Paillant, President ofthe Administrative Council
Reseau Liberte
Real Barnabe, President
UNDP
Maria de Los Angeles Loayza, Technical Advisor, Justice Project
University of Haiti, Faculty of Law and Economics
Gelin I. Collot, Rector
USAlD/Haiti
David Adams, Director
Pam Callen, Deputy Director
Sharon Bean, Director ai, Office ofJustice, Democracy and Governance
Philippe Cantave, Chief Technical Officer, IFES Cooperative Agreement
Connie Paraskeva, former Deputy Office Director, Justice, Democracy and Governance
Erin Soto, Former Director, Office ofJustice, Democracy and Governance
Annouck Hudicourt, Contracting Specialist
US Embassy
Michael Oreste, Political Counselor
Annex G
Documents Consulted
A & B Communications Services. Proposal to assist CARLI conference on impunity. Dated January
3 L 2003
Academie de Formation et de Perjectionnement des Cadres (AFPEC), proposal dated 5Aug 2002,
received by IFES on Aug. 27, 2003 for support ($1 m) for its JustiCentre due to start 11 Oct 2002
Academie Nationale de la Plaidoire. L 'Education aux Droits de L 'Homme a la Citoyennete et aux
devoirs civiques. Proposal dated July 3,2002.
L 'Amicale des Juristes. Undated proposal received May 24,2002. for Celebron 2004 avec des
Citoyens Haitiens Responsables (a nationwide civic education contest).
Al71icale des Femmes Haitiennes Journalistes
o Projet de Sensibilisation sur les Droits Juridiques des Femmes. Proposal for flyer on rights of
women and justice in Haiti. January 2003
o Role/droits des femmes dans les medias et soLidarite pour une corporation plusforte et plus
efficace. Proposal May 15,2002
ANAMA. La magistrature pour exister doit s 'organiser. Proposal dated October 1, 2002, for its first
congress
Association des JournaListes de Petit Goave. Proposal dated May 17,2002 for funding for a peace
walk on June 3, 2003
Association des Journalistes Haitiens (AJH).
Undated letter received August 20,2002 asking for support for a Fonds pour la Liberte de la
presse et d'expression
n Proposal for funding a Code d'ethique professionnelle pour lesjournalistes Haitiens. August
2002
o AJH with SNTPH, FHP, CHP, AMIFEJH, Radio Echo 2000. Undated proposal for funding for a
forum on the freedom ofthe press and impunity in Haiti.
Association Hai/ienne des Femmes ,luges (AHFJ), undated proposal received July 31,2002 to fund
So/idarite de la Magistrature pour une contribution effective dans la promotion de la justice
(conference).
ASCS. Proposal dated Oct 2002 for Renlorcement de L 'Association de Sensibilisation pour le
changement social
Canada
o Fonds d'appui a lajustice et aux droits humains (FAJDH) brochure. Undated
o FAJDH, Orientations et interventions strategiques, Section 2 , Presentation du FAJDH to Section
3 Lecons apprise de la phase I
CARLI
o With Federation Nationale des Travailleurs en Education et en Culture (FENATEC) and L'Union
des Parents d'Eleves Progressistes Haitiens (UPEPH). Proposal for a human rights education in
the schools. August 5, 2002
Letter to IFES forwarding USAID/H letter dated October 9,2002 telling CARLI USAID funds are
provided through IFES.
Projet de publication d'un ouvrage Droits Humains et realite haitienne. Proposal. August 5, 2002
Vendredis du CARLI. Proposal to fund December 20,2002 Friday meeting.
Centrale Autonome des Travailleurs Haitiens,
:) Proposal for training on judicial reform. Dated September 12, 2002
Letter dated August 26,2002 asking for assistance. No proposal attached.
Centre de Droit Publique, Construire I'Etat Haitien de Droit. dated January 31,2003. Proposal for
anniversary ofthe 1987 constitution.
Centre Haitien de Presse, La Semaine de L'Information. Proposal for annual patronage dated May 21,
2002.
Centre Toussaint Lourverture pour les droit.I' de L 'homme, la democratie et Ie developpement.
Independance judiciaire, garant des droits humains, Undated proposal to restart its monthly
publication of Etat de Droit.
Le Club £Spoil', Initiative Citoyenne, Programme Semestriel, May -November 2002. Proposal to aid
club set up Port-au-Prince office.
Commission CCIHIOCPAH, Lajiscalite: un instrument de solidarite pour Ie developpement
national. Proposal dated Setpember 2002
Confederation Nationale des Educatrices et des Educateurs d'Haiti (CNEH).
:) Education civique pour Ie respect de la constituion et pour un etat de droit. Undated proposal
received July 5, 2002
Reseau Juridique des Enseignants pour une Justice Independante, Proposal dated August 26,
2002
Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2001 Human Rights Practices,
Haiti, March 2002
Federation des Barreau d'Haiti (FBH). Programme de renforcement de la FBH. Undated proposal to
organize its meeting in August.
Federation des Etudiants Universitaires d'Haiti (FEUH) Form letter asking for assistance to go to a
Latin American conference. October 16,2002.
Federation de la Presse Haitienne, Resolution du Conjlit et hitie contre la violence pour la promotion
des droits humains. Undated proposal for Miami conference in May 2002
General Accounting Office, Foreign Assistance. Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System Should be
Linked to Performance-Related Conditions, GAO-O 1-24, October 2000
Haitian Resource Development Foundation, Compte-rendu de la reunion de suivi du Forum Juridique
de Miami, 16 janvier, 2003 along with a Proposition d'un Plan de Travail, undated
IFES
lere Congres Association Natonale des Magistrats Haitiens (ANAMAH), Undated. IFES Report
on ANAMAH congress.
:) Atelier de Travail, 13-14 Juin 2002, Undated
() Activites pour Ie mois de janvier 2003
Budget 2002, undated spreadsheet with activity cost attached
Civil Society Strengthening Projectfor Judicial Independence and Justice in Haiti, Handout,
undated
CSO Eligibility Criteria. Undated
Fichier d'information completed on: Organisation des Jeunes de Cite Soleil. Undated. One page
proposal attached: Wanting to make democracy a reality
Financial Status Report, Haiti Judicial Reform Program, 1/22/03 for Billing Period ending
12/31/02
) How to bring independence in the judiciary, the Dominican experience, Trip Report by Dr.
Bernard Gousse, October I, 2002
) Initial Findings.from the IFES Haiti Civil Society/Rule ofLaw Program, January 2002
) Job Summary Report as of 12/31/02, Haiti Judicial Reform Program, (accrural worksheet)
C) Judicial Independence Survey Results, Undated
C) Judicial Independence Surveys (January - August 2002), Undated
Local National Employee Contracts between IFES and:
o Gerald Augustin, for Finance
o Jean Jacques Descartes as Program Coordinator
o Francois Jean as Civil Society Specialist
o Isabel Lafleur, as Program Assistant
o Jacques Miguel Sanon as Civil Society Specialist
Judicial Independence Questionnaire, Haiti, 2002
Local National Senior Advisor Contracts between IFES and:
o Edwidge Balutansky
o Bernard Gousse
o Guilaine Malebranche
o Marc Antoine Noel
Monthly Activities Planned: February 2003
o Preaward Survey, form from IFES/W Americans ROL: (Examen (avant octroi d'une subvention)
du questionnaire sur Ie system comptable et la sante financiere de ONG internationales
recipiendaires). Completed for:
o Centrale Autonome des Travailleurs Haitiens
o Amicale des Femmes Haitiennes Journalists
o Confederation Nationale des Educatrices et Educateurs d'Haiti
o Quarterly Report, July I 2002- September 30, 2002. Haiti Constituency Building for Judicial
Reform. Undated
o Quarterly Report, October I-December 31, 2003. Haiti Constituency Building for Judicial
Reform. Undated
C) Meeting Notes with Senior Advisorsfor: 2417102, 31/7/02, 817102, 9/4/02,9/25/02,10/2/02,
10/9/02, 1117102 and 12/18/02
o Rapport sur Ie Renforcement des Barreaux. August 2002
o Rapport sur Ie Renforcement des Associations des .luges, August 2002
o Report: Meeting with Bernard Gousse, March I, 2002
o Summary ofHaitian Judicial Independence Paper, June 2002
o Workplan 2002: Constituency-Building for Judicial Reform. February 2002
o Workplan 2003: Constituency-Building for Judicial Reform. November 2002
o Workplan 2002-2004 undated. (Workplan submitted by IFES/H to IFES/W for 2003)
Initiative de la Societe Civile, Pour une Societe Civile Haitienne Forte et Structuree, Februrary 19,
2001
NCHR, Letter dated 13/2/03 regarding threats to NCHR staff.
Le Nouvelliste
Le pouvoirjudiciare: quelle independence, 1/30/03
A crise du ,Iystemejudiciare en Haiti, (coverage of Ist Congress of ANAMAH) 1/31/03
Arret de travail..menAce de demission, on ANAMAH action, 13/2/03
L '()rdre des Avocats de Port-au-Prince, Section d'lnstruments Internationaux: Charte des Nations
Unies, Our Internationale de Justice, Charte de L 'OEA, Droits de I'Homme, Imprimax S,A., Port-au￾Prince, March 2002
Organisation des Jeunes de Cite Soleil pour Ie Developpement Economique et Social (OJSODES).
One page letter asking for aid to make democracy a reality. Dated October 24,2002
Organization of American States
o Second Report ofthe Secretary General to the Permanent Council on the Implementation of
CPIRES 822, "Support for the Strengthening ofDemocracy in Haiti ", November 4, 2002-January
4,2003.
o La Mission Speciale de L '()EA deplore Ie recent actes de violence et d'intimidation en Haiti,
February 19, 2003
Special Rapporteurfor Freedom ofExpression expresses serious concern over the situation of
journalists and the media in Haiti, February 21,2003
Report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Haiti, 1999
Reseau d'lnformations Justice et Droits Humains (RIJDH)
L 'Information au Service du Droit, Proposal dated September 2002
Proposal dated November 26, 2002, to launch its organization in December 2002
Radio Echo 2000 Inter, Programme des Manifestations du IeI' Anniversaire de la mort de Brignol
LindoI' Proposal dated November 5, 2002.
University of Haiti, Faculty of Law & Economics, Revue Haitienne de Droit et de Jurispurdence.
Proposal dated December 5, 2002
USAID/Haiti
Associate Cooperative Agreement No: 521-A-00-OOI-0070-00, dated September 28,2001
E-mail dated January 31,2003 from Philippe Cantave, CTO to Leslie Richards, IFES/W on
Midterm Evaluation team and objectives
FY 2002 Annual Report, March 4, 2002
::J IFES Assessment Objectives: Undated e-mail from Erin Soto to Rebecca Reichart at IFES with
USAID's expectations on an IFES assessment o/a Jan 2002
PellOrmance Monitoring Plan, USAID Development Strategy jor Haitifor FY1999-2004
AFPEC
AMIFEHJ
ANAMAH
AHFJ
AJH
CARLI
CCIH
CATH
CAlI
CLE
CRESFED
CSO
CTO
FBH
FPH
FY
GAO
GOH
IFES
ISC
JOG
MOJ
NDI
NGO
OAS
OCAPH
UNDP
USAID
USG
WG
Annex H
Acronyms
Academie de Formation et de Perfectionnement des Cadres
Amicale des Femmes Haitiennes Journalistes
Association Nationale des Magistrats Haitiens
Association Haitienne des Femmes Juges
Association des Journalistes Haitiens
Comite des Avocats pour Ie Respect des Libertes Individuelles
Chambre de Commerce et d'lndustrie d'Haiti
Centrale Autonome des Travailleurs Haitiens
Creative Associates
Continuing Legal Education
Centre de Recherche et de Formation economique et Sociale pour Ie Developpement
Civil Society Organizations
Chief Technical Officer
Federation des Barreaux d'Haiti / Haitian Bar Association
Federation de la Presse Haitienne / Haitian Press Association
Fiscal Year
General Accounting Office
Government of Haiti
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Initiative de la Societe Civile / Civil Society Initiative
Office ofJustice, Democracy and Governance (USAID/Haiti)
Ministry ofJustice
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
Nongovernmental Organization
Organization of American States
Ordre des comptables Professionnels Agrees d'Haiti
United Nations Development Programme
US Agency for International Development
US Government
Working Groups
Transparency International:
USAID/Haiti recently signed a $200,000 one year agreement with La Fondation d'Heritage pour Haiti
(LFHH). LFFH proposes to create a Center for Public and Private Ethics and Integrity addressing the
problems of corruption in Haiti. USAID is funding LFFH throug the LAC regional grant to Casals
associates who will provide technical assistance to the program. Although not yet an official chapter of
Transparency International (they are currently a chapter in formation), LFHH have closely collaborated in
the development oftheir five year program. Due to resource constraints, USAID has the resources
available to fund the Center for Public and Private Ethics and Integrity's start-up activities in FY03 for one
year. Proposed activities include a baseline Corruption Perception Survey (CPS) after which Haiti will
officially figure on Transparency International's corruption index, and become a local chapter of
Transparency International. Once the baseline is complete, LFFH will launch a mass media campaign on
anti corruption, including a two day media-covered international conference on "The Impact of Corruption
on Developing Countries and New Democracies where 200 government, civil society, private sector,
religious and political party leaders will be invited, provide technical assistance to private sector
organizations and the Federation of Bar association in formulating a Code ofEthics, begin to form a
coalition for an Ethics, Integrity and Transparency for Haiti Coalition and begin to publish an Ethics￾Integrity- Transparency newsletter.
Independence of the Media:
The objective ofthis program is to provide nationwide community radio station coverage on civic
education and to promote independence ofthe media. Creative Associates is working to strengthen
journalists' ability to report on issues related to democratic development and to advocate for greater
freedom ofthe press. USAID is supporting civic education radio programming aimed at encouraging
citizens to exercise their rights and responsibilities in their daily lives. Civic education will cover anti￾corruption subjects such as accountable leadership and transparent government practices.
TI for update ofJDG:
Americas' Accountability/Anti-Corruption Project ($200,000).
This new cooperative agreement through the regional LAC activity implemented through Casals
and Associates will fund the local 'Chapter in formation' of Transparency International, La
Fondation d'Heritage pour Haiti ( LFHH) to develop an "Ethics-Integrity-Transparency"
Resource Center that will undertake research, studies and conduct surveys that document the
policies and practices of state and private entities. USAID will support the first year ofa five
year plan.