Guidelines for AI relief work, FIN 50/01/95 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 september 1996

INTERNAL (for AI members only)
AI Index: FIN 50/01/95 Distr: SC/CO
No. of words: 16,292
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 8DJ
United Kingdom

To: All Sections
Relief Officers

From: Research and Mandate Program (RMP)

Date: August 1995

GUIDELINES FOR AI RELIEF WORK

Summary

These guidelines for AI relief work were approved by the IEC in August 1995. They revise and update AI's earlier guidelines on relief policies and procedures in light of the conclusions and recommendations of the February 1993 International Review of Relief Policies and Procedures, held in Gripsholm, Sweden, adopted by Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM in Boston, USA. This paper replaces all earlier guidelines on relief policies and procedures.

Part 1 sets out AI relief policy in its general principles, as well as with regard to beneficiaries and purposes, and relief sent to projects and through intermediaries.

Part 2 describes relief procedures, i.e. the respective functions and responsibilities of the IS, sections and groups, and the consultation, approval and reporting procedures they should follow. It describes how the relief program is financed and planned. It also includes brief guidelines for relief activities at the membership level.

The Appendices include relevant ICM decisions; guidelines on areas of AI refugee work which are relevant to relief to refugees; and list earlier and other AI papers relevant to AI relief work.

Distribution

This circular is being sent to all sections via the Weekly Mailing and direct to section relief officers.

Keywords

RELIEF1 / WORKING RULES /

Recommended actions

Please bring the guidelines to the attention of those in your section involved in relief work, including local AI groups, coordinators and co-groups and board members.

Please note that the implementation of some of the new provisions of this policy are scheduled to be reviewed in due course.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: RELIEF POLICY 1

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AI RELIEF POLICY 4

1.1 General objectives of relief 4
1.2 Relief in relation to the interests of
beneficiaries and to AI's objectives 4
1.3 General principles of impartiality and balance 5
1.4 Balance at the country level ("10 per cent rule") 5
1.5 Balance and impartiality in relation to particular
beneficiaries 5
1.6 Setting priorities 6
1.7 Nature and quantity of relief 6
1.8 Assessing needs 7
1.9 Duration of relief 7
1.10 Confidential nature of relief; low profile; publicity 8

CHART: Beneficiaries and purposes (general) 9
CHART: Beneficiaries and purposes (refugees) 10

2. BENEFICIARIES AND PURPOSES OF RELIEF 11

2.1 Beneficiaries 11

B1: Current, former and probable Prisoners of Conscience

(POCs) and their dependants 11
B2: People who have "disappeared" or been tortured
and their dependants; dependants of those who have been extrajudicially executed 11
B3: Refugees and asylum-seekers; internally displaced 12
B4: People who have suffered abuses by political
non-governmental entities 14

2.2 Purposes 15
P1: General needs 15
P2: Legal aid 17
P3: Medical treatment and related costs 18
P4: Travel costs: Assisting emigration; family reunification 20

3. USING INTERMEDIARIES/CHANNELS/DISTRIBUTORS 21

4. SUPPORT TO PROJECTS 22

4.1 Criteria for selecting projects to be supported by AI 22
4.2 Conditions governing AI support to projects 22
4.3 Accountability 24
4.4 Evaluation 24

PART 2 : PROCEDURES 25

5. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 25

5.1 ICM, IEC and its standing committees, Financial Control

Committee 25

5.2 International Secretariat (IS) 25
5.3 Sections 25
5.4 Coordination groups and coordinators 26
5.5 Delegation of tasks to sections or coordination groups 26
5.6 Local groups 26
5.7 Channelling funds 27

6. CONSULTATION AND APPROVALS 28

6.1 International Secretariat 28
6.2 Sections and coordination groups 28
6.3 Local groups 29

7. REPORTING 30

7.1 International Secretariat 30
7.2 Sections 30
7.3 Coordination groups 30
7.4 Local groups 30

8. FINANCIAL ASPECTS 31

8.1 International relief funds 31
8.2 Financing the international relief program 31
8.3 Unearmarked contributions 31
8.4 Earmarked contributions 32
8.5 Seeking other sources of relief assistance 32
8.6 Section relief funds 33
8.7 Fundraising 33
8.8 Publicity in fundraising 33

9. PLANNING, DEVELOPING AND FINANCING THE RELIEF PROGRAM 34

APPENDIX 1 : Assisting emigration 35
APPENDIX 2 : Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM 37
APPENDIX 3 : Previous papers on AI relief policy and procedures 38

INTERNAL (for AI members only)
AI Index: FIN 50/01/95
Distr: SC/CO
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 8DJ
United Kingdom

Date: August 1995

GUIDELINES FOR AI RELIEF WORK

PART 1: RELIEF POLICY

Introduction

AI relief can be given to victims of human rights violations for their general needs; for medical treatment; for legal aid; to assist people to leave countries where they are at risk of severe human rights violations; and to prevent the forcible return of refugees to countries where they would be at such risk.

In broad terms, AI's relief work can be seen as having two main aspects:

Humanitarian assistance focuses directly on personal needs; in most instances this type of relief is given only to those (or the dependants of those) who have not used or advocated violence.

Some aspects of AI relief work also have preventive elements, insofar as they focus on the prevention or alleviation of certain human rights violations of primary concern to AI; the provision of some of these types of relief is not limited to those who have not used or advocated violence.

However, the distinction between these two aspects is not clear-cut. For example, it is arguable that relief to provide medical treatment for people who have been tortured can be regarded either as "humanitarian assistance" or as "preventive" relief. And in many cases where the criterion for providing relief is preventive, the relief also has a strong humanitarian element, focusing on the needs of the individual.

In a wider sense, all aspects of AI's relief program, with its overall focus on the needs of individuals, can be regarded as humanitarian. As such it is distinct from any other use of AI funds to serve its wider strategic aims of combating human rights violations. (The 1993 relief review and Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM identified a possible new area of AI activity, outside the relief program, where AI might provide financial assistance for purposes that would further its strategic aims, and suggested some types of financial assistance which could fall into such an area of AI work. Because of its strategic focus such work cannot be considered part of the relief program.)

Relief in AI's statute

The broad terms of AI's policy on relief are set out in the Statute of Amnesty International, Articles 2f) and 2g):

2. In order to achieve the [object and mandate set out in Article 1 of the Statute] AI shall (...)

f) provide financial and other relief to prisoners of conscience and their dependants and to persons who have lately been prisoners of conscience or who might reasonably be expected to be prisoners of conscience or to become prisoners of conscience if convicted or if they were to return to their own countries, to the dependants of such persons and to victims of torture in need of medical care as a direct result thereof;

g) provide legal aid, where necessary and possible, to prisoners of conscience and to persons who might reasonably be expected to be prisoners of conscience or to become prisoners of conscience if convicted or if they were to return to their own countries (...).

General principles of AI relief policy

AI's relief policy is based on certain general principles. All relief provided by AI must be fully in accordance with these principles, which are set out in §1 of this paper.

Relief beneficiaries and purposes

AI's relief policy also defines the specific beneficiaries eligible for relief, for what purposes, and in what circumstances. Not all beneficiaries can be given relief for all purposes, and vice versa. The inter-relationships between beneficiaries and purposes are governed by specific criteria and in some cases are quite complex. The guidelines in this paper are set out in such a way as to make it possible, by following the cross-references given, to identify whether particular cases fall within AI's criteria.

The inter-relationships showing which beneficiaries can be given relief for which purposes are indicated in the listings B1 to B4 (beneficiaries) and P1 to P4 (purposes) in §2 of this paper. They are also illustrated in a simplified form in the charts at the beginning of §2.

Other policy matters

There are also questions relating to distributing relief through intermediaries, and using AI relief funds to support projects, which should be applied as appropriate in AI's relief work. These are set out in §3 and §4 respectively.

Review of new areas of relief policy

Following the recommendations of the 1993 relief review, Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM asked the IEC to ensure that the implementation of certain new elements of policy are reviewed after the policy has been in practice for three years, in time for the 1997 ICM (see §2: B2.2/P1.2; B3.10/P1.4; B3.11; B3.12, and B4 in the present paper, as well as questions referred to in comment §1bii) and in §5a) of International review of relief policies and procedures: Conclusions and Recommendations [FIN 50/01/93]). However, as the new policy will not have been in operation for three years by the 1997 ICM, a new deadline for the review will be decided by the IEC.
Relief implications of recent and future mandate changes

In the early 1990s AI made some major changes in its mandate, some of which have a bearing on AI relief policy. The 1993 relief review considered the question of relief to people who have suffered abuses by political non-governmental entities, set out in Beneficiaries B4 in the present guidelines, and which should be reviewed after three years ( see above ). The 1993 relief review also called for the relief implications of two other new aspects of AI policy, on fair trial and on house destruction, to be examined at a later date; possibly these questions could be examined in the context of the review referred to above.

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AI RELIEF POLICY

The following general principles apply to all AI relief, for whatever beneficiaries or purposes, whether to individuals or to projects, direct to beneficiaries or through intermediaries; they apply to particular payments and to AI's relief activities as a whole.

1.1 General objectives of relief

(a) AI provides relief to people who have suffered human rights violations and, where appropriate, their dependent families in an attempt to help them cope with the situation they suffer from, to prevent it, or to alleviate its consequences.

(b) AI does not aim to compensate such people for the total loss of income which may result from the human rights violations they have experienced (even if it were possible to assess such loss).

(c) The provision of relief must be directly related to a need arising from actual or threatened violation of human rights within AI's mandate.

(d) While AI should distribute relief in accordance with principles of impartiality and balance, AI does not and cannot provide assistance in all circumstances that come within its relief policy.

1.2 Relief in relation to the interests of beneficiaries and to AI's objectives

The aim of relief is humanitarian, that is, to alleviate some of the situations AI fights or their consequences. As such, it is one of several techniques employed by AI to address human rights violations in a given country, situation or case. However, it should not normally take precedence over AI's other human rights work and should not distract human or financial resources which are essential to pursue AI's primary objectives in a particular country, situation or case, and overall a reasonable ratio should exist between such resources allocated to relief activities and to other activities undertaken by AI in general and the International Secretariat (IS) in particular.

By providing relief assistance, AI does not implicitly condone the practices that have given rise to its concerns. In some cases a conflict may arise between relief activities and AI's human rights objectives, and in such cases AI should not provide relief. For example, relief should never be provided in a manner or for a purpose that:

could be perceived as condoning the violation of human rights within AI's mandate or related repressive practices;

affects AI's image or otherwise hampers its effectiveness;

the beneficiary (or someone who can speak for him/her) considers to be to the detriment of his/her dignity or otherwise unacceptable.

1.3 General principles of impartiality and balance

AI's work must be impartial. In principle, the policies set out in these guidelines should be applied uniformly whenever opportunities for relief activities arise, regardless of the country of origin, political background or other attributes of the potential beneficiary.

However, in practice AI's relief work is determined by need, access and availability of funds, so it is more difficult to achieve balance in relief work than in AI's work generally. However, when funds are available, when there is a need within AI's relief mandate, and when it is possible to channel relief to the beneficiaries, AI should provide relief assistance impartially to appropriate recipients.

1.4 Balance at the country level ("10 per cent rule")

AI should not normally plan for relief expenditure in any one country in any one year to amount to more than 10 per cent of its total international relief program. In such planning, ten per cent should be regarded as a rule of thumb, not a rigid rule; it should be applied flexibly with regard to such factors as the size (population) of the country concerned and the number of potential beneficiaries there.

However, sometimes substantial needs and/or opportunities may arise in a particular country which require an exceptional response. In such circumstances the IS should in the first instance bring this to the attention of sections, who may themselves provide additional relief funds, and/or may encourage other organizations to provide funds, either through AI, or directly to beneficiaries in that country. If such measures prove insufficient, further recourse may be made to the international relief fund beyond the 10 per cent limit.

If relief to any one country is likely to substantially exceed 10 per cent, this should be taken as a signal:

to examine the overall relief program supported from the international relief fund, with particular reference to whether the amount spent on the country concerned is an accurate reflection of the relief needs and possibilities within AI's mandate or whether it reflects a major imbalance arising from different approaches on research and action in relation to different countries;

to alert AI sections to the need to become actively involved in raising additional relief funds in order to address the relief needs in the country concerned;

to involve other agencies, including NGOs, IGOs and governments, in addressing needs and developing their own relief programs in the country concerned.

1.5 Balance and impartiality in relation to particular beneficiaries

In principle, in providing relief AI should aim to assist all who fall within its relief mandate, although in practice this will be subject to the factors identified above.

The principle of balance should be observed in the relief provided to different beneficiaries and/or their families in a given prison, city or country. Due care should be taken (either directly or by informing intermediaries of AI's criteria) to provide for as fair a distribution of resources as possible, always taking into consideration the importance of the purpose and the needs of the beneficiaries concerned. In order to achieve fair and balanced distribution of relief it will often be necessary carefully to coordinate the relief efforts of AI groups working on similar cases.

1.6 Setting priorities

Both broad types of relief, humanitarian assistance and relief with preventive elements, should be treated as complementary; neither should take precedence over the other. In setting priorities, AI should take into account:

the gravity of the violations suffered;

the level and degree of need;

the likely effectiveness of AI assistance;

the likely long-term help such relief would provide to the beneficiaries.

If and when financial or other constraints make it necessary to set priorities, preferential consideration should be given to those which achieve the maximum benefit of the resources available.

1.7 Nature and quantity of relief

In considering the nature and quantity of relief to be provided, AI should give due regard to the following:

(a) There should be a reasonable relation between the type and amount of assistance, on the one hand, and the benefits it provides, on the other -- especially where large sums are involved.

(b) AI should allocate relief equitably, avoiding any actual or perceived preferential treatment of any individual or group (see §1.5).

(c) AI's primary aim should be to ensure that those to whom it gives relief have the basic minimum necessities, taking into account their needs and the relationship of those needs to the violations they have suffered (see §1.8) . Such relief can be an important expression of moral as well as financial support.

In addition to providing basic necessities, there may be cases where it is appropriate for AI to assist by responding also to additional special needs. AI should give positive consideration to making such additional provision where these needs clearly arise from human rights violations within AI's mandate, and where assistance towards fulfilling such needs is likely to be of significant benefit to the individual concerned.

AI should aim at all times to avoid encouraging dependency on relief. In cases where some dependency has already developed, AI should aim to overcome it. While it is often desirable for relief assistance to continue for a period after a POC's release, or after a refugee arrives in an asylum country, long-term dependency should at all times be avoided and, as a matter of principle, assistance should not continue indefinitely. In appropriate cases it may often be best to give only a one-off payment.

Wherever possible AI should try to focus its relief efforts in a way that provides meaningful assistance likely to be of longer-term benefit to the beneficiary/ies. Initiatives and ideas for self-help projects coming from people who have suffered human rights violations and/or their dependants should be considered positively.

In cases where a substantial amount of assistance is likely to be needed, whether for one individual or a project, or for relatively small payments to a large number of individuals in a similar position, AI should initially try to seek out -- or, where appropriate, encourage the beneficiaries themselves to seek out -- alternative sources of assistance before deciding to pay a major part of, or even the full, amount required. In such cases it may be useful for AI to encourage or promote the development of a project substantial enough to provide the necessary assistance, as well as to make an appropriate AI contribution to that project.

1.8 Assessing needs

In assessing the amount of AI's contribution in any given case, AI should aim to make an objective assessment of the need, taking into account the following:

(a) the person's actual needs (including his/her own assessment of those needs);

(b) the causal link between those needs and the human rights violations which the person has suffered;

(c) the likely benefit that such assistance will have on the individual(s) concerned;

(d) the likely effect on his/her/their situation in the community (for example, sometimes only some of a group of individuals in a given prison, town or country fall within the terms of AI's relief mandate and it may be divisive if it becomes known that AI has provided relief to only some of the group and not to others; in such cases, where it has not been possible to find a means of overcoming this problem, AI may decide that is preferable not to provide relief);

(e) other potential sources of help for the beneficiary/ies concerned.

In providing relief to refugees AI should bear in mind the need for balance in its overall relief program. Such considerations may be particularly important when deciding on the level of assistance which AI should provide for legal fees for asylum-seekers.

1.9 Duration of relief

In judging how long AI relief should continue, AI should generally take a flexible approach, based on an assessment of needs and the possibilities for providing effective help.

The principles which follow are illustrated in the chart below. In some cases it may be necessary to adjust the timing illustrated here, for example if AI makes contact with or gets to know about a particular beneficiary, or if for some other reason it is possible to provide relief, only after some months, or even years, have elapsed.

	TIME	RELEASE	REVIEW
POC and family	during imprisonment	6-12 months after release	(review may lead to a decision to continue general needs relief for a while)
	TIME	REVIEW
Family of "disappeared" or EJE victim	6-12 months after "disappearance" or EJE	(review may lead to a decision to continue general needs relief for a while)		relief for "preventive" purposes can be provided if appropriate at a later date

Relief should not continue for so long as to lead recipients to become dependent on AI relief. Whenever AI provides relief it should do so with a view to encouraging self-sufficiency and enabling recipients to become independent of relief.

In principle relief for general needs for POCs and their dependants should be provided in the period during imprisonment and shortly after the POC's release, and for dependants of victims of "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution it should be provided in the period shortly after the violation has occurred, when the family's needs are most clearly directly related to the human rights violation in question. Depending on the particular case, AI may, on reviewing the situation, judge it appropriate to continue relief for some time longer, although it should not routinely do so.

In appropriate cases, AI can provide relief at a later date for "preventive" purposes, such as legal aid to establish the fate of a "disappeared" person, or assistance to family of a "disappeared" person when the body is exhumed or discovered.

1.10 Confidential nature of relief; low profile; publicity

AI relief activities in many countries cannot be publicized for security reasons, so any publicity about relief is liable to give an unbalanced picture of AI's overall relief program.

In most cases, relief not only does not need publicity to achieve its purposes but is better achieved without it. This and other self-evident reasons related to the security and dignity of the individuals involved and to the need to avoid creating expectations that cannot be met call for as low a profile as possible for specific relief activities.

For these reasons, without affecting AI's principles and practices regarding the publicity of its accounts, specific AI relief activities should not, as a rule, receive publicity (see AI Handbook [ORG 20/02/92], Chapter 5). In particular, AI -- whether local groups, co-groups, sections or coordinating structures, or the IS -- should never publicize the recipients of relief, the amounts sent, or the channels used, nor should they disclose such information to anyone who is not directly involved.

However, general publicity about AI relief can be valuable (for example, see Helping the Victims , AI Newsletter Focus , April 1993). As well, in exceptional cases AI may publicize some information about a "good news" relief story for the purpose of increasing awareness of the relief program or of supporting fundraising projects for relief. The IS must be consulted in all such instances.

		P1: General needs	P2: Legal aidP3: Medical treatment
Beneficiaries and purposes (general) _ BENEFICIARIES PURPOSES _		P1.1/P1.2: financial and material aid for basic requirements	P1.3: self-help and rehab. projectsP2.1: to secure the release of POCsP2.2: to prevent people becoming POCsP2.3: to prevent people being subjected to torture, EJE or "disappearance"P2.5: to establish the fate of "dis"/EJEd relativeP3.1: medical expensesP3.2: travel costs for treatment abroad
B1.1:	current POCs/probable POCs	_	__
B1.2:	people who, if convicted, would become POCs	_	_
B1.3:	former POCs and probable POCs	_	__
B1.4:	dependants of B1.1 - B1.3	_	_
B2.1:	people at risk of torture, "disappearance" or EJE		_
B2.2:	dependants of "disappeared" or o people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture	(_) exceptional	__ (specific circs for dependants of "disappeared")
B2.3:	dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture and have not used or advocated violence	_	_
B2.4:	people suffering ill-health or injury as a result of torture		__
B2.5:	people suffering ill-health or injury resulting from an EJE attempt		__
B2.6:	"disappeared" who "reappear", and who are in need of medical treatment because of denial of medical care or ill-treatment in detention		_ _
B4:	people subjected to abuses by NGEs	(see text of relief guidelines)

NOTES: This chart must be used only as a guide; for more detail see the text of the guidelines.

A similar chart setting out the different types of relief which can be provided to refugees is shown over the page

		P1: General needs	P2: Legal aidP4: Travel costs
Beneficiaries and purposes (refugees) BENEFICIARIES PURPOSES		P1.3: self-help and rehabilitation projects	P1.4/P1.5: financial and material aid for basic requirements after getting to an asylum countryP2.4: to pursue asylum claim or other action to prevent *refoulement* P4.1: to leave the country or travel to a safer area of the same countryP4.2: for family reunification
B3.1:	people threatened with *refoulement* to a country where they risk being imprisoned as POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution	_	___
B3.2:	dependants of B3.1	_	__
B3.3:	people threatened with *refoulement* to a country where they risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance", or execution		(_) (conditional)_
B3.4:	people whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE	_	___
B3.5:	people whose emigration AI assists to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE		___
B3.6:	dependants of B3.4 and B3.5		_
B3.7:	people who, to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, have fled by their own efforts, but whom AI would have regarded as falling under B3.4 had it been asked to help them leave		__
B3.8:	people who need to move to a safer area of their own country to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, and who, had they needed to flee abroad, AI would have considered as falling under B3.4 or B3.5		_ (analogy)_
B3.9:	people who, to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, have fled to another part of their own country and whom AI would have assisted under B3.9 had it been asked to do so		_ (analogy)
B3.10:	individuals who have not used or advocated violence who have been subjected to forcible exile		_(_)
B3.11:	people who have been forcibly relocated		(_)

NOTES: This chart must be used only as a guide; for more detail see the text of the guidelines.

A similar chart setting out the different types of relief which can be provided to other categories of beneficiaries is shown over the page

2. BENEFICIARIES AND PURPOSES OF RELIEF

This section of the paper describes which beneficiaries can be given relief and for which purposes. The inter-relationships between beneficiaries and purposes are also illustrated in a simplified form in the charts on pages 8 and 9. It may be helpful to refer to those charts to clarify some of the inter-relationships between beneficiaries and purposes described below.

These lists of beneficiaries and purposes are not necessarily exhaustive, and any requests for relief which seem to fall outside their framework should be dealt with in consultation with the Research and Mandate Program (RMP) in the International Secretariat (IS).

2.1 BENEFICIARIES

B1 CURRENT, FORMER AND PROBABLE PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE (POCs) AND THEIR DEPENDANTS

In the guidelines which follow, the term "probable POCs" refers to prisoners who are not adopted by AI as POCs and/or about whom AI does not have sufficient information to make a definitive judgment that they are POCs, but who, on the basis of the available information, might reasonably be considered to be POCs.

B1.1 POCs and probable POCs. [Purposes: P1.1: Financial and material aid for basic requirements; P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects; P2.1: Legal aid to secure the release of POCs]

B1.2 People facing court proceedings who, if convicted, would become POCs. [Purposes: P1.1: Financial and material aid for basic requirements; P2.2: Legal aid to prevent people becoming POCs]

B1.3 People who have recently been POCs or probable POCs whose need is manifestly related to their imprisonment. This includes cases of "disappeared" people who have not used or advocated violence and who have "reappeared". [Purposes: P1.1: Financial and material aid for basic requirements; P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects; P3.2: Travel costs for treatment abroad]

B1.4 Dependants of people in categories B1.1 to B1.3. [Purposes: P1.1: Financial and material aid for basic requirements; P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects]

B2 PEOPLE WHO HAVE "DISAPPEARED" OR BEEN TORTURED AND THEIR DEPENDANTS; DEPENDANTS OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN EXTRAJUDICIALLY EXECUTED

B2.1 People at risk of "disappearance", extrajudicial execution or torture. Normally, although not in all cases, such people will be, or believed to be, in detention. [Purposes: P2.3: Legal aid to prevent people being subjected to torture, EJE or "disappearance"]

B2.2 Dependants of people who have "disappeared" or been extrajudicially executed or who have died as a result of torture. The 1993 relief review explicitly noted that the provision for exceptional general needs assistance (Purpose P1.2) should apply only in cases where people had "disappeared" or been killed as a result of extrajudicial execution or torture; it would not apply to the dependants of long-term prisoners who are not POCs. [Purposes: P2.5: Legal aid to establish the fate of relatives who have "disappeared" or been extrajudicially executed; P1.2: Financial and material aid for basic requirements (in exceptional cases only); P3.1: Medical expenses (in specific circumstances, for dependants of "disappeared")]

B2.3 Dependants of people who have "disappeared" or been extrajudicially executed or have died as a result of torture and who have not used or advocated violence . [Purposes: P1.1: Financial and material aid for basic requirements; P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects]

B2.4 People suffering ill-health or injury as a result of torture, whose medical need is directly related to their torture. [Purposes: P3.1: Medical expenses; P3.2: Travel costs for treatment abroad]

B2.5 People in need of medical treatment for ill-health or injury resulting from an attempted extrajudicial execution. [Purposes: P3.1: Medical expenses, P3.2: Travel costs for treatment abroad]

B2.6 "Disappeared" people who have "reappeared" and are in need of medical treatment because of deprivation of medical care or other severe conditions amounting to ill-treatment during their incarceration. [Purposes: P3.1: Medical expenses, P3.2: Travel costs for treatment abroad]

B3 REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS; INTERNALLY DISPLACED

In the guidelines which follow, "threatened with forcible return" should not be interpreted unduly strictly: AI should be able to provide relief for general needs or legal aid while asylum-seekers are pursuing their asylum claim.

B3.1 People threatened with forcible return from one country to another where they might reasonably be expected to become POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, face the possibility of being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution. [Purposes: P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects; P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country; P2.4: Legal aid to pursue asylum claim or other action to prevent refoulement; P4.2: Travel costs for family reunification]

B3.2 Dependants of those specified in B3.1. [Purposes: P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects; P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country]

B3.3 People threatened with forcible return from one country to another where they might reasonably be expected to be subjected to torture, "disappearance", or execution. [Purposes: P1.5: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country (conditional); P2.4: Legal aid to pursue asylum claim or other action to prevent refoulement]

B3.4 People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or who have not used or advocated violence and face the possibility of being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution (see Appendix 1). [Purposes: P1.3: Self-help and rehabilitation projects; P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country; P2.4: Legal aid to pursue asylum claim or other action to prevent refoulement]; P4.1: Travel costs to leave the country or travel to a safer area of the same country]

B3.5 People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution (see Appendix 1). [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country; P2.4: Legal aid to pursue asylum claim or other action to prevent refoulement; P4.1: Travel costs to leave the country or travel to a safer area of the same country]

B3.6 Dependants of people in categories B3.4 and B3.5. [Purposes: P4.2: Travel costs for family reunification]

B3.7 People, who have not used or advocated violence, who have fled their country by their own efforts and whom AI would have helped to emigrate had it been asked at the time (i.e. they would have fallen under category B3.4). [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country; P4.2: Travel costs for family reunification]

B3.8 People needing to move to a safer area of their own country in order to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution in cases where AI would have helped them flee abroad if they had asked (as under B3.4 or B3.5). [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country (by analogy); P4.1: Travel costs to leave the country or travel to a safer area of the same country]

B3.9 People who have not used or advocated violence and have fled to another area of their own country to prevent their being imprisoned as POCs or subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution and whom AI would have helped to flee had it been asked at the time (analogous to B3.7). [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country (by analogy)]

In principle "general needs" relief (P1.4) in these cases is limited to internally displaced people who have not used or advocated violence. However, when providing such relief on a group basis -- e.g. through a project to assist people who have fled from rural areas to shanty towns -- AI would not apply this rule rigidly if that would lead to relief being withheld from a whole group of whom a large proportion have not used or advocated violence.

B3.10 People forcibly exiled who have not used or advocated violence and are in need in the period immediately following their expulsion. [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country; (P4.1: Travel costs to leave the country or travel to a safer area of the same country)]

B3.11 Where people have been subjected to forcible relocation within their own country, and where there is a clear need and opportunity for AI to support an appropriate project for a whole group of people who have been forcibly relocated, AI should consider doing so according to similar criteria to those governing projects for the internally displaced (see B3.9) . The 1993 relief review noted explicitly that AI would not normally provide relief in individual cases where people have been forcibly relocated within their own country. [Purposes: P1.4: Financial and material aid for basic requirements in the period after getting to an asylum country (by analogy)]

At the time of finalizing the present relief guidelines, AI does not have guidelines for acting on cases of forcible expulsion and forcible relocation. Once those guidelines are finalized, it will be necessary to review their implications for relief.

B4 PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED ABUSES BY POLITICAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES

In principle AI policy on relief to people who suffer NGE abuses mirrors its policy on relief to those who suffer human rights violations at the hands of governments. However, the normal presumption should be that the State is responsible for providing protection and financial assistance in such cases. Therefore, in practice, AI would provide relief only exceptionally, in the following cases:

(a) where it is reasonable to assume that the government would refuse or be unwilling, or be genuinely unable, to provide such assistance, or where for other reasons it would not be reasonable to expect the government to do so;

(b) where the government is doing a reasonable amount to fulfil its own responsibility to provide assistance, but where that is insufficient to cover the needs, and where there are additional needs to be met which fall within AI's mandate. In such cases AI should also, where appropriate, remind the government of its obligations to make adequate provision for the individuals concerned.

AI should be very cautious in providing relief in such cases if, for example, it appears that the government's non-fulfilment of its obligation to provide assistance might be an attempt to force AI to take over responsibility. Any such case where it is proposed that AI provide relief should be explicitly drawn to the attention of the IS Research and Mandate Program.

2.2 PURPOSES

P1 GENERAL NEEDS

P1.1 Financial and material aid for basic requirements such as food, housing, clothing, heating, school fees, medical expenses, etc . [Beneficiaries: B1.1: Current and probable POCs; B1.2: People who, if convicted, would become POCs; B1.3: Former and probable POCs; B1.4: Dependants of B1.1-B1.3; B2.3: Dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture and have not used or advocated violence]

P1.2 Financial and material aid for basic requirements (as defined in P1.1) to dependants of people who have been subjected to human rights violations and have not used or advocated violence (as defined in Beneficiaries B1.4 and B2.3). However, exceptions may be made to this rule in exceptionally compelling circumstances and for purely humanitarian reasons , for example:

extreme hardship;

no other source of support;

certainty that aid will not be diverted to, or be perceived as supportive of, violent ends;

any assistance given would be for the clear and direct benefit of the individuals concerned.

In deciding on such exceptional cases AI would focus on cases brought to its attention; it would not be expected to initiate investigations into all possible cases that might fall under this category. [Beneficiaries: B2.2: Dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture (exceptional)]

Such exceptional assistance should apply only in cases where people have "disappeared" or been killed; it would not apply to long-term prisoners who are not POCs or to the dependants of such people. Dependants of victims of the judicial death penalty would

not

fall under this exceptional provision, but any requests made during the three-year review period should be noted and examined in the course of the review, to consider whether, if the policy is to be continued, such dependants might be brought within its scope.

P1.3 Self-help and rehabilitation projects. [Beneficiaries: B1.1: Current and probable POCs; B1.3: Former and probable POCs; B1.4: Dependants of B1.1-B1.3; B2.3: Dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture and have not used or advocated violence; B3.1: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being imprisoned as POCs, or not having used or advocated violence, risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution; B3.2: Dependants of B3.1; B3.4: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE]

There is no clear definition of "self-help and rehabilitation projects". But it could include such things as former POCs undertaking vocational training courses in order to improve their employment prospects, or purchase of tools to enable beneficiaries to become self-supporting (e.g. a sewing machine to enable someone obtain work as a tailor). Medical aid can also, in appropriate cases, be an important element in rehabilitation. A self-help and rehabilitation project may be one for a single individual, or a group or community-based project which benefits a number of individuals within AI's relief mandate.

The potential costs of such assistance may in some cases be relatively high, but, generally speaking, if such a payment in a particular case would be crucial in enabling the beneficiary/ies to become self-sufficient, AI should, where possible, give positive consideration to making a significant contribution. In providing relief for such purposes AI should pay particular attention to the principles outlined in §1.5 and §1.7 of this paper.

P1.4 Financial and material aid for basic requirements (as defined in P1.1) in the period after getting to an asylum country. [Beneficiaries: B3.1: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being imprisoned as POCs, or not having used or advocated violence, risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution; B3.2: Dependants of B3.1; B3.4: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE; B3.5: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE; B3.7: People who, to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, have fled by their own efforts but whom AI would have regarded as falling under B3.4 had it been asked to help them leave; B3.9: People who need to move to a safer area of their own country to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, and who, had they needed to flee abroad, AI would have considered as falling under B3.4 or B3.5 and B3.10: People who, to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, have fled to another part of their own country and whom AI would have assisted under B3.9 had it been asked to do so (by analogy); B3.11: Individuals who have not used or advocated violence who have been subjected to forcible exile; B3.12: People who have been forcibly relocated (by analogy)]

In the case of Beneficiaries B3.1, such assistance may in appropriate cases include paying or contributing to travel costs to enable their dependants to join them.

P1.5 Financial and material aid for basic requirements (as defined in P1.1) in the period after getting to an asylum country if:

there is no other source of help for the individual(s) concerned;

and

without such assistance they would be compelled, because of economic need, to abandon their asylum claim.

Such assistance should be conditional on these two specific points: the lack of other sources of assistance, and the fact that without AI assistance the asylum claim would have to be abandoned. [Beneficiaries: B3.3: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution]

P2 LEGAL AID

(a) AI does not provide relief assistance for legal aid in any case (including those identified under P2.5) where the purpose of the legal action is of a punitive nature (against the perpetrator) or to seek compensation.

However, the 1993 relief review took the view that some form of AI assistance in such cases should not be ruled out, particularly in view of the future development of AI's work for ensuring that human rights violations are fully investigated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. So in certain instances AI might decide to provide legal aid in such cases if this would be effective in furthering human rights jurisprudence, or would in some other way be crucially important to furthering AI's strategic aims. However, AI assistance in such cases should not be provided from relief funds, and Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM asked the IEC to consider possibilities for establishing a budget line in the general program budget to make provision for such purposes.

(b) There is not a firm rule as to whether AI should pay professional fees, or only disbursements (costs) of lawyers acting pro bono ; AI should apply a criterion of what is a reasonable contribution.

P2.1 To secure the release of POCs. [Beneficiaries: B1.1: Current and probable POCs]

P2.2 To prevent people becoming POCs. [Beneficiaries: B1.2: People who, if convicted, would become POCs]

P2.3 To prevent people being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution. In order not to become involved in the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused, AI would normally limit the type of legal actions where it would give such legal aid assistance to, for example, habeas corpus or amparo actions, where the question of guilt or innocence is not at issue. [Beneficiaries: B2.1: People at risk of torture, "disappearance" or EJE]

P2.4 To pursue their asylum claim or other action to prevent their being forcibly returned to a country where they might reasonably be expected to become POCs or subjected to torture, "disappearance", extrajudicial execution or the death penalty. [Beneficiaries: B3.1: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being imprisoned as POCs, or not having used or advocated violence, risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution; B3.3: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution; B3.4: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE; B3.5: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE]

P2.5 To establish the fate or whereabouts of the relative who has "disappeared" or is believed to have been extrajudicially executed or died as a result of torture. This includes investigation of past cases of "disappearance" where the person is not expected to be found alive. [Beneficiaries: B2.2: Dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture]

P3 MEDICAL TREATMENT AND RELATED COSTS

(a) The level of AI assistance for medical treatment in any individual case should be proportional in terms of AI's overall relief program.

(b) Preference should be given to assisting as many individuals as possible who fall within AI's relief mandate. This implies that AI should favour low-cost treatment. However, AI relief should also, to the extent possible, be used to contribute to or to provide essential high-cost treatment for serious, particularly life-threatening, conditions where there is a reasonable expectation that such treatment will be successful in saving the life or preserving or restoring the health of the person concerned.

Where possible, when high costs are involved, AI should aim to ensure that contributions are obtained from other sources. Such contributions could be financial or in kind, e.g. doctors or other professionals providing services at reduced cost.

AI should aim to make clear at the outset what it can contribute in a particular case, both to the beneficiary and to the professionals involved in the case with the aim of encouraging them to provide treatment at the most reasonable cost.

(c) The nature of the professional treatment or treatments appropriate in a given case may vary with the cultural and social context, but should always be focused on alleviating the direct effects of torture on the individual concerned.

(d) Timescale/level of AI contribution: It is not possible to set a fixed timescale for how long after torture or attempted extrajudicial execution AI can continue to provide relief for medical treatment.

An assessment of whether AI should provide relief in a given case, the level of assistance it would provide, and the relative priority that AI would assign to that case, depends on a combination of factors such as time elapsed since the torture took place, relation between the medical need and the torture, the (subjectively) perceived and (objectively) assessed gravity of the individual's condition.

The following chart indicates a general framework which might help in making such assessments:

PRIORITY _ TIMESCALE _ _ GRAVITY OF INJURY _ DEGREE OF NEED	IMMEDIATE	DELAYED	LONG-TERM
Life-threatening -- or otherwise extremely severe	major contribution -- e.g. full range of medical treatment, including (if necessary) transfer to a country where treatment can be provided
Severe : treatment necessary to enable the person to function		substantial contribution
Non-critical / less severe --but treatment would improve the person's situation			some contribution

(e) Treatment for psychological or similar problems arising from "disappearance" of family members: AI should give particular consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to the special needs of family members that may arise in cases where the body of a "disappeared" person is exhumed or discovered after a period of time. Since this often happens in the context of a new or changing government, in making decisions on whether and how to assist, AI should consider the need to press the government to fulfil its own obligations in such cases.

P3.1 Medical expenses. This should include a reasonable amount for additional associated costs, such as local travel to obtain the treatment. [Beneficiaries: B2.2: Dependants of "disappeared" or of people who have been subjected to EJE or have died as a result of torture (in specific circumstances only -- see comment e) above); B2.4: People suffering ill-health or injury as a result of torture; B2.5: People suffering ill-health or injury resulting from an EJE attempt; B2.6: "Disappeared" who "reappear" and who are in need of medical treatment because of denial of medical care or ill-treatment in detention]

P3.2 Travel expenses where, for reasons related to their imprisonment, torture, attempted extrajudicial execution or "disappearance", the person requires medical treatment abroad which is not available to them in their own country. [Beneficiaries: B1.3: Former POCs and probable POCs; B2.4: People suffering ill-health or injury as a result of torture; B2.5: People suffering ill-health or injury resulting from an EJE attempt; B2.6: "Disappeared" who "reappear" and who are in need of medical treatment because of denial of medical care or ill-treatment in detention]

P4 TRAVEL COSTS: ASSISTING EMIGRATION; FAMILY REUNIFICATION

P4.1 Travel costs to leave the country or to travel to a safer area of the same country. [Beneficiaries: B3.4: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE; B3.5: People whose emigration AI assists to prevent their being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE; B3.9: People who need move to a safer ares of their own country to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, and who, had they needed to flee abroad, AI would have considered as falling under B3.4 or B3.5; (B3.11: Individuals who have not used or advocated violence who have been subjected to forcible exile)]

In practice most cases where AI assists emigration are of people who have not used or advocated violence (i.e. Beneficiaries B3.4). It is relatively rare for AI to assist emigration of others.

^{Guidelines for this area of work are outlined in §2 of the 1985}

^{IEC-approved guidelines for AI's work on behalf of refugees}

(POL 33/02/85) (relevant extracts are set out in Appendix 1 of this paper)

"Emigration" need not be (or intended to be) permanent. But, in cases where people have fled abroad for their own safety (with or without AI assistance), AI should

not

normally assist them if/when they wish to return to their country. Whereas, people who have been forcibly exiled, i.e. Beneficiaries B3.11, could be given assistance with travel costs if, at a later date, they are allowed to return home, but do not have the means to pay the costs involved.

P4.2 Travel costs for purposes of family reunification of those whom AI has or would have helped to emigrate [Beneficiaries: B3.6: Dependants of B3.4 and B3.5; B3.7: People who, to prevent their imminently becoming POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or EJE, have fled by their own efforts but whom AI would have regarded as falling under B3.4 had it been asked to help them leave] or, in line with the principles for family reunification ^{Guidelines for this area of work are outlined in §4 of AI's 1985}^{IEC-approved guidelines for AI's work on behalf of refugees} (POL 33/02/85) (relevant extracts are set out in Appendix 1 of this paper)., to people threatened with forcible return to a country to where they might reasonably be expected to become POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, face the possibility of being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution [Beneficiaries: B3.1: People threatened with refoulement to a country where they risk being imprisoned as POCs or, not having used or advocated violence, risk being subjected to torture, "disappearance" or execution]. (In appropriate cases, financial and material aid to Beneficiaries B3.1 may also include an element for such family reunification.)

3. USING INTERMEDIARIES/CHANNELS/DISTRIBUTORS

AI does not normally have its own representatives in the countries where it has a relief program, so there are practical limitations to AI itself undertaking the administration of expenditure of its relief funds. It is often necessary, therefore, for AI to work through individuals or organizations who act as intermediaries. Intermediaries may be local agencies (e.g. human rights groups, church groups, medical doctors, individuals) in the country concerned, or international organizations (e.g. relief or development NGOs) which run projects in that country.

In sending relief through intermediaries the following principles should apply:

The intermediary should be independent of the government in the country concerned. But exceptionally (for example, after a change of government and if no other reliable channels exist) it may be appropriate for AI to channel relief funds through a government agency. AI may also in certain instances channel relief through a second government agency or through an intergovernmental (e.g. UN) agency.

Any intermediary which is in any way linked to a government (including a second government) or intergovernmental agency must fulfil all the criteria noted below and should be used only after obtaining the approval of the IS Research and Mandate Program.

(a) AI should be satisfied that the intermediary can be relied on to ensure that AI funds are used for the stated purposes, for beneficiaries within AI's relief mandate, and in all other respects in accordance with AI relief policies.

(b) When an intermediary, on their own account, distributes relief to beneficiaries not all of whom fall within AI's relief mandate, AI should inform the intermediary clearly of AI's own policy regarding relief beneficiaries, and the intermediary should be asked to distribute AI funds only to such people.

(c) Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, AI may ask the intermediary to distribute funds to a number of beneficiaries identified by AI, or may ask the intermediary to identify beneficiaries according to criteria specified by AI.

(d) Unless special security considerations do not permit it, intermediaries should be required to report to AI accounting for the distribution of the AI relief funds entrusted to them, and, so far as possible, to provide receipts from the beneficiaries. Any subsequent distribution of AI relief through the intermediary should be dependent on such satisfactory reporting back of AI funds previously entrusted to them.

(e) Intermediaries should be required to be discreet about the fact that they are distributing AI relief funds ( see §1.10 ). They should not reveal this to anyone not directly involved, except with the agreement of the IS.

(f) AI relief funds should never be channelled through the private bank account of an AI staff member.

4. SUPPORT TO PROJECTS

In some instances it may be the best use of relief resources for AI to contribute to projects administered by other organizations and which, in whole or in part, work for purposes and beneficiaries within AI's relief mandate. AI should adopt a flexible approach towards cooperating with such projects and organizations in instances where, by using the expertise and contacts of the project or organization concerned, AI is enabled to provide effective relief assistance to a significant number of potential beneficiaries. In providing support to such projects, AI should take account of the following points (in addition to those already identified above in §3).

More detailed guidance on AI support specifically to medical projects can be obtained by consultation with the IS Research and Mandate Program.

4.1 Criteria for selecting projects to be supported by AI

Any project which AI supports or contributes to from its relief funds must satisfy the following criteria, with regard to both the project itself and the agency or organization which administers the project:

(a) It should be non-partisan and independent of any government.

(b) Within its field of work it should provide assistance without discrimination as to ethnic origin, political affiliation, religion, sex, colour or language.

(c) It should currently or potentially have the technical and organizational capacity to carry out effective work within AI's relief mandate.

(d) It should currently or potentially assist a significant number of beneficiaries within AI's relief mandate.

(e) Its administrative costs should be low in relation to its overall costs.

4.2 Conditions governing AI support to projects

Any AI contributions to projects run by other organizations should be fully in accordance with the following:

(a) AI should make explicitly clear to project organizers, normally in writing unless special security considerations do not permit, the basis for, and the conditions attached to, AI's contribution. This is particularly important in the case of projects which deal only in part with AI concerns. Where some of the beneficiaries of a project, or some aspects of a project's work, fall outside AI's relief mandate, AI should make clear to the project organizers that they should not regard these areas as being financed from AI's contribution.

(b) The amount of AI's contribution relative to a project's overall expenditure should be assessed in light of:

the proportion of people the project assists who fall within AI's mandate; and
the extent to which the nature of the project's work falls within the purposes of AI's relief mandate.
(c) AI support should in principle be for a limited term. At the outset when a decision is made to contribute to a project, an assessment should be made as to how long it is envisaged that AI support should continue, so that AI makes a meaningful contribution to the project, but also aims to encourage the project to seek out and develop other sources of funding. Normally such a period would be three or four years, although this may vary according to the particular project. In addition, it should normally be planned for AI's contribution to decrease after two or three years as the project obtains other sources of funding. These matters should be reviewed annually from the outset of AI's support for a project.

In any instance where it is proposed that AI support to a project continue after a fourth year, AI should make a thorough review of the effectiveness and value of the project's work in terms of AI's relief program and the importance to the project of AI's support, taking into account also other actual and potential demands on AI's relief funds.

(d) AI's support should not make projects, or the people they assist, dependent on that support. AI should not normally provide 100 per cent support to a project, even if its work and the beneficiaries fall entirely within AI's relief mandate.

In order to ensure that projects do not become dependent on AI, and because AI support to projects cannot continue indefinitely, AI should encourage projects to seek other sources of funding.

(e) That said, AI support can be invaluable in the initial stages of a project, and in exceptional cases AI should not rule out providing up to 100 per cent support for a short period, which would normally be during a project's first year, so long as all the following criteria are fulfilled:

the project's work falls entirely within AI's relief mandate;

it cannot reasonably be expected to obtain any other support;

without such support from AI the project could not become established;

having become established with AI's support it will seek other sources of funds with a view to enabling AI's support to be reduced as soon as possible to only a partial contribution.

(f) A modest contribution from AI at an early stage can often enhance a project's ability to obtain funds from other sources. While bearing in mind the requirement of no publicity it may be helpful to inform other potential funders, on a discreet basis, that a project has received support from AI.

(g) In contributing to a project it has not supported before, AI should normally make its proposed contribution in instalments, requiring a report-back from the project organizers before contributing a further instalment.

At a later stage, for example in the second or third year of AI support to a project, longer intervals can be allowed to elapse between the instalments of AI's contributions and between the project's periodic reports to AI.

It may also be advisable for AI to make contributions in regular instalments when a project is based in a country which has a high inflation rate.

(h) AI support can include a contribution to administrative costs, where both the following criteria are fulfilled:

such costs are appropriate and reasonably low;

and

if AI does not contribute to such costs, the work of the project could not go ahead.

(i) In principle AI cannot contribute to capital costs of projects, such as purchase of premises, although, in providing assistance under (e), it may make a reasonable contribution to items of basic equipment where the costs are modest and where, without that equipment, the project could not start its work.

(j) Projects should not make public the fact that they are receiving support from AI. They should not give information on this matter to any outside body not directly concerned except with the agreement of the IS (unless conditions as in (f) apply).

(k) AI relief funds cannot be used to support human rights organizations or others whose work does not fall within the specific categories of beneficiaries and purposes in AI's relief mandate. (For example, AI cannot provide assistance to projects undertaking human rights education (HRE) work, etc.)

4.3 Accountability

(a) Projects receiving AI support should be held accountable to AI and should be expected to report back to AI on a regular basis, showing the accounts of the project as a whole, and indicating particular budget lines or other areas of their work which have been financed wholly or partly by AI's contribution.

As well as requiring projects to provide information about their expenditure, AI should normally also require them to provide information about their income and any other sources from which they have sought or received funding.

(b) During the first year of receiving AI support, projects should be asked to report back at least twice (i.e. at least every six months); depending on the nature of the project it may be necessary to ask for more frequent reports than this.

After the first year, less frequent reports will normally be sufficient, but projects should always report back to AI at least one each year.

(c) At the start of contributing to a project, AI should make clear to the project organizers the type and frequency of the reports required. AI should not normally make any further payments to a project until it has received a satisfactory report-back on the use of funds already sent.

4.4 Evaluation

AI should aim to evaluate the effectiveness of its support to any given project, and in particular ascertain whether it is/has been an effective use of AI funds for beneficiaries and purposes within AI's relief mandate, so as to help further develop criteria for the types of projects AI should assist in the future.

PART 2 : PROCEDURES

5. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1 ICM, IEC and its standing committees, Financial Control Committee

Overall responsibility for determining AI's relief policy and the broad lines of AI's relief program lies with the ICM, with delegated authority resting with the IEC. The IEC may delegate specific tasks relating to relief to the Standing Committee on Research and Action (SCRA) or any other of its standing committees it may consider appropriate. The Financial Control Committee (FCC) monitors the financial aspects of relief in the context of its regular review of the financial administration of the IS and ensuring adherence to all financial procedures; the FCC reports to the IEC and the ICM.

5.2 International Secretariat (IS)

The IS is responsible for the overall coordination of the international relief program, as carried out by the IS itself, sections, coordination groups and local groups.

Within the IS, the Research and Mandate Program (RMP) is responsible for ensuring the proper implementation of AI's relief policy and for coordinating the planning and implementation of the relief program by the five Regional Programs. A staff member in the Research and Mandate Program is designated as Relief Program Coordinator with day-to-day responsibility for this work.

Proposals for relief expenditure are normally initiated by the relevant research/action teams
in the IS Regional Programs (see also §6.1 below) .

5.3 Sections

Sections are each responsible for relief activities by all parts of their own membership and are responsible for raising and providing funds to finance the international relief program (see also § 8).

Sections may be active in sending relief in consultation with the relevant research/action teams in the IS and may provide relief to refugees in their country who fall within the guidelines set out in this paper.

Sections should not raise or distribute relief funds for current or former prisoners or people who have suffered or been threatened with torture, "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution in the section's country, or to the dependants of such people.

Sections involved in relief work should develop their own relief procedures, which should be consistent with the guidelines set out in this paper.

Sections should appoint a relief officer to ensure the proper implementation of the section's relief work, to coordinate and monitor the relief work done by groups and coordination groups in the section, and to act as the section's contact point on relief matters with the IS Research and Mandate Program. Section relief officers are also responsible for providing advice on relief matters to local groups and coordination groups, and for liaising on those matters between the IS Research and Mandate Program and the membership in their section. Sections should keep the IS Research and Mandate Program informed of changes in holders of the relief officer post.

5.4 Coordination groups and coordinators

Coordination groups may be active in sending relief to the countries they work on, in consultation with the relevant IS research/action teams and the relief officer in their section; they may also provide relief to refugees in their country who fall within the guidelines set out in this paper.

Coordination groups should provide advice as needed to the section (relief officer) and to local groups on relief matters relating to the country/ies they work on.

5.5 Delegation of tasks to sections or coordination groups

In some instances the IS may decide to delegate all or part of the task of operating a relief program to a particular section(s) or coordination group(s). Such decisions should be made by the research/action team in consultation with the Research and Mandate Program. Such delegated tasks may include:

examining requests for assistance submitted to AI and assessing whether they fall within AI's relief mandate;

making relief payments direct to (a) particular project(s) and obtaining reports from the beneficiary/ies and/or distributor(s);

acting as channel for relief contributions from other sections to (a) particular project(s);

seeking out relief possibilities and channels.

5.6 Local groups

Local groups undertake relief activities as appropriate according to the options for action in Action Files or RAN (Regional Action Network) actions assigned to them. Such activities may include:

raising and sending relief funds to the beneficiaries identified;

raising and sending relief funds via the IS or some other intermediary to be channelled to the beneficiaries identified;

looking for possibilities for channelling relief to particular beneficiaries.

In carrying out these activities groups should consult with and report to the relief officer and relevant coordinator (coordination group or RAN coordinator) in their section as appropriate.

The 1993 relief review noted that relief to dependants of people who have "disappeared" or been extrajudicially executed might be an area of relief particularly suitable for groups to do in the context of their work on Action Files.

Any group which is not itself able to raise sufficient money to carry out appropriate relief work should in the first instance apply to their section for assistance. If the section is not able to assist, the group should approach the IS who will consider whether to refer them to another section which is willing to use its relief funds to support relief activities of such groups, or to provide assistance from relief funds held at the IS.

Some general guidelines for relief work by groups are set out in Chapter 5 of the AI Handbook (ORG 20/02/92).

5.7 Channelling funds

Sometimes, for administrative or security reasons, the IS may advise local groups that their relief contributions should be channelled through the IS (or, less frequently, through a particular section or coordination group). Similarly, the IS may advise coordination groups or sections wishing to make contributions to a particular individual or project that their relief contributions should be channelled through the IS or a particular section or coordination group.

In such cases the IS research/action team should provide the groups with detailed guidelines for sending money to the IS and should inform groups and relevant relief officers and country coordinators about the allocation of the groups' contributions to the beneficiary/ies in question.

6. CONSULTATION AND APPROVALS

It is the responsibility of the IS to ensure the overall coordination of AI's relief program in line with the guidelines set out in this paper and that there is no duplication of relief payments made by different parts of the movement. As well, because of the sensitive nature of sending relief, and the potential risks this may incur for the beneficiaries and distributors in many countries, it is essential to ensure in each particular case that all precautions are taken which may be necessary, and in some cases the potential risks may be such that the IS research/action team may judge that it is not advisable to send relief or to attempt to do so.

For reasons such as these, all relief carried out by sections and groups, apart from the exceptions noted in §6.2 below, must be approved by the IS. Within the IS, too, relief is subject to consultation and approval procedures.

6.1 International Secretariat

All relief expenditure from funds held at the IS is subject to the IS's own consultation and approval procedures. These may change in detail as necessary from time to time. Currently these procedures require consultation with the Medical Program Coordinator (in appropriate cases) and the Relief Program Coordinator, and approval by the Directors of the relevant Regional Program and of the Research and Mandate Program for payments as follows:

from relief funds held at the IS;

by sections or coordination groups at the request of the IS;

direct by sections or coordination groups on their own initiative and which are substantial enough that they should be regarded as a significant part of the international relief program. (Smaller or routine payments made by local groups, coordination groups or sections direct to individual beneficiaries may be approved by the relevant research/action team in consultation as appropriate with the IS Research and Mandate Program.)

In addition, research/action teams who wish sections or coordination groups to send relief funds to the IS for a specific beneficiary/ies or project should first consult the Research and Mandate Program. Research/action teams should not normally themselves make major requests for funding to sections, although on occasion they may do so after consultation with the Research and Mandate Program.

6.2 Sections and coordination groups

Sections and coordination groups may make relief payments to refugees in their country according to the guidelines set out in §2/B3 of this paper; for most such payments IS approval is not required, but any relief to refugees which relates to assisting emigration (see §2/B3.4 and §2/B3.5) must be approved by the IS ( see Appendix 1) .

Sections and coordination groups may also make relief payments according to the options for action in Action Files or RAN actions assigned to groups in their section, and for this no additional IS approval is required.

If sections and coordination groups wish to make any relief payments other than those specified above, they should first consult and obtain the approval of the IS.

6.3 Local groups

Groups may wish to consult the relevant coordinator (coordination group or RAN coordinator) and/or section relief officer for advice on implementing options for action relating to relief in an Action File or RAN action assigned to them.

If local groups, coordination groups or sections wish to send relief which is not according to the options for action in an Action File or RAN action assigned to them, or where the relevant Action File or RAN action contains no options for action on relief, they should consult the relevant coordinator or their section relief officer who will in turn consult the IS as to whether relief is appropriate in the particular case.

Where there is no coordinator or relief officer in the section, groups should consult the section board, who will in turn consult the IS as to whether relief is appropriate in the particular case.

7. REPORTING

7.1 International Secretariat

A statement of IS relief funds showing total relief funds received and expenditure by region is included in the quarterly accounts sent to sections by the IS Accounting Services Program. This is also included in the annual report and accounts of the International Secretariat. In addition, the Amnesty International Report contains a general description of the relief program for the past year.

More detailed figures, showing relief expenditure by country, should be issued by the Research and Mandate Program at least annually and sent to relief officers, the IEC and the Financial Control Committee (FCC). As the country-level detail in these figures is sensitive information, such figures are for the information of relief officers, board members and others in an equivalent position only, and should not be disseminated throughout sections.

The Research and Mandate Program should also keep relief officers informed regularly as necessary of the funding needs of particular relief programs and of the international relief program overall. Because of the sensitive nature of such detailed information about relief, such reporting is often done by informal communication with relief officers.

The Research and Mandate Program reports to sections at least annually giving general details about AI's relief activities and about policy and other matters relevant to AI relief work.

7.2 Sections

Sections should report to the IS Research and Mandate Program annually on the relief activities and expenditure of the section and its membership. These reports should include a detailed account of all relief payments made by the section itself (beneficiaries, amounts sent, distributors used), and an account detailed by country of all relief expenditure by the section's coordination groups and local groups.

Normally sections should make their reports on the reporting form issued by the IS for this purpose. In the absence of such a reporting form, sections should submit reports according to their own format.

7.3 Coordination groups

Coordination groups should report regularly on any relief activities to the relevant IS research/action team and to their section. These reports should include a detailed account of all relief payments made by the coordination group (beneficiaries, amounts sent, distributors used).

7.4 Local groups

Local groups should include in their regular group reports to the relevant IS research/action team details of any relief payments they have made, including details of beneficiaries, amounts sent, and distributors used. These reports should be sent also to the relevant coordination group and section relief officer.

8. FINANCIAL ASPECTS

8.1 International relief funds

The international relief funds held by the IS are held in separate bank accounts from other IS funds. Relief funds are not used to finance any other area of AI activity.

Banking and foreign exchange charges relating to relief transactions are charged to the relief fund, as well as an administrative charge of five per cent of payments made (the latter was authorized as a result of discussions at the 1979 ICM -- see Report of Working Party D).

Research/action teams are responsible for obtaining receipts for all relief payments made from the international relief fund. Such receipts can take the form of an acknowledgement or letter of thanks from the beneficiary where possible, or from the distributor. It is, however, recognized that for security reasons it is not always possible to obtain a receipt, and in such cases a written note to this effect should be prepared for the file. The file of relief receipts is among the items examined in the annual audit of the IS accounts.

8.2 Financing the international relief program

The international relief program is not part of the international operating budget and is not financed by section assessments -- it is a separate fund financed by voluntary contributions specifically for relief, mostly from AI sections and groups. It may be necessary at some stage for AI to reconsider this dependence on voluntary contributions for financing the overall relief program. Specifically, the 1993 ICM requested the IEC to "consider possibilities for (...) making some provision in AI's general budget for contributing towards those areas of relief which have a major preventive element" ( 1993 ICM Decision 15 ).

In the past the international relief fund has received direct donations. The largest and most long-running of these were funds from the 1984 Norwegian Fundraising ("AINAC"), but most direct contributions are one-off and much smaller. However, at present the IS does not undertake any direct fundraising for relief, so any direct contributions it receives are relatively few and made at the donor's initiative.

As well, in instances where the IS coordinates a significant relief program for beneficiaries assigned to local groups under Action Files or RAN actions, those groups may make significant relief contributions specifically for those beneficiaries (see §5.7) .

Aside from the few exceptions previously mentioned, the international relief program currently depends on voluntary contributions from sections (and occasionally coordination groups). Such contributions may be made by means of:

payment direct to beneficiaries or projects as approved by the IS

(see §5.5, §6.1)

;

unearmarked contributions to the international relief fund;

earmarked contributions to the international relief fund.

8.3 Unearmarked contributions

The international relief fund depends on a substantial level of unearmarked contributions in order to retain the flexibility it needs to respond to urgent requests and in order to maintain the appropriate balance in AI's overall relief program. Therefore sections and other contributors are encouraged to offer unearmarked contributions so far as possible.

8.4 Earmarked contributions

The IS sometimes makes special requests to sections or groups for relief contributions earmarked for a particular country, project or group of beneficiaries (see §6.1) . In these instances the IS indicates the amount of money needed and how it will be used.

Sections or groups may themselves take the initiative to offer earmarked contributions to the international relief fund. Also, in some instances, sources outside AI may offer earmarked relief contributions. But the acceptance of earmarked contributions should not in any way distort the balance and priorities of AI's overall relief program.

Where relief contributions are offered as earmarked for relief in a particular country and where AI has an ongoing relief program in the country in question, such contributions can usually be spent as earmarked. But where contributions are offered earmarked for countries where AI does not have an ongoing relief program, or where total contributions offered for a particular country exceed what AI can reasonably spend, it may not be possible for such money to be spent as earmarked.

Sometimes relief funds may be offered earmarked for a particular region or group of countries, or a particular category of beneficiaries (for example children, women, medical treatment, etc.), but the IS accounting procedures do not easily allow for such earmarking. In such cases, therefore, before the IS can accept such earmarked funds, some special arrangement will normally be necessary between the IS and the contributing section, group or other donor as to how the funds will actually be used.

Sometimes the expenditure of earmarked funds cannot go ahead as originally planned because of a change of circumstances or for other reasons.

For all these reasons, whenever earmarked money is accepted for the international relief fund, it is normally on the understanding that where possible it will be spent for the purpose earmarked, but that ultimately the final decision as to how it is spent will depend on the overall priorities and balance of the international relief program. In instances where it becomes necessary to spend earmarked contributions in a way which is substantially different from that agreed with the contributor(s), the IS should consult the contributor(s) about the proposed "unearmarking" or reallocation of the funds.

For these reasons, sections and groups should always consult the IS Research and Mandate Program when offering earmarked contributions to the international relief program.

Sections and groups should also bear these points in mind if they themselves are offered money earmarked for specific areas of AI's relief program. Where substantial earmarked relief funds are offered to sections, they should before accepting them consult the IS Research and Mandate Program, who will consult the IEC as appropriate.

8.5 Seeking other sources of relief assistance

Support to potential beneficiaries within AI's relief mandate is in the first instance AI's own responsibility. However, the 1993 relief review recommended that AI should also try to encourage other organizations to undertake relief programs for beneficiaries and purposes in its own mandate, since this indirectly increases AI's capacity for providing financial assistance, and can directly benefit people within AI's relief mandate by providing them with assistance beyond what AI itself can provide. AI should therefore aim to find other bodies which can also provide support to the projects or organizations it assists, and where possible and appropriate should aim to work towards building "relief coalitions" in cooperation with such bodies. The current guidelines governing AI's cooperation with other NGOs are set out in Amnesty International's relations with non-governmental organizations (IOR 08/01/95).

It is envisaged that the work of seeking out other bodies to provide relief in this way would be primarily done by sections (relief officers), and could also be done by groups according to the options for action included in Action Files assigned to them.

8.6 Section relief funds

There is no fixed model for financing relief at the section level, and sections may make their own decisions as to how to do this, subject to AI's guidelines on fundraising (see below). Some sections have one or more specialized relief funds which they use to finance the section's own relief activities, its contributions to the international relief fund, and to provide financial assistance to groups undertaking relief activities. Other sections finance such work out of their overall budget.

8.7 Fundraising

AI may seek and receive funds for its relief work from the broadest possible spectrum. The use of such funds should be administered directly by AI according to the movement's agreed relief policies and procedures, and relief funds should be sought and received only on this basis.

Fundraising for relief is subject to the fundraising guidelines adopted by the 1987 ICM and set out in the AI Policy Manual (ORG 20/03/92).

The main types of relief donations which, under these guidelines, cannot be accepted by AI are those:

from any national government (donations from other public bodies are subject to approval according to the procedures set out in the fundraising guidelines);

which, by earmarking for work on a specific country or otherwise, would distort AI's previously agreed priorities, or require AI to adjust its programs to rules established by the donor.

8.8 Publicity in fundraising

Any publicity about AI's relief work for fundraising purposes should take account of the particularly sensitive nature of AI's relief activities and should be in line with the principles set out in §1.10 of this paper.

So far as possible the IS should from time to time provide sections with material that can be used or adapted for fundraising purposes, and should also endeavour to do so when particular sections request it. Apart from using such material provided by the IS, sections should always consult the IS about any plans to publicize AI relief activities for fundraising purposes; and groups should consult the relief officer in their section on such matters, or the IS directly if there is no relief officer.

9. PLANNING, DEVELOPING AND FINANCING THE RELIEF PROGRAM

IS Regional Programs include relief in their overall strategic planning. Sections (in particular relief officers and coordination groups) should contribute to the process of planning and developing AI's relief work. Where appropriate the IS also includes investigation and development of relief possibilities as a component of AI research missions, and from time to time for this purpose may include on missions delegates with specialist knowledge and experience of this area of AI work.

In order to plan ahead for relief, the IS needs to know how much money is likely to be available from sections. Similarly, sections need to know how much relief money is needed to finance the international relief program so that they can raise the necessary funds. This requires that the IS keeps sections informed so far as possible of planned expenditure and any changes in those plans, and, on the other hand, that sections keep the IS informed in advance of how much money they plan to contribute to the international relief program.

It is not possible in practice to construct a formal budget for relief, because much of AI's relief expenditure depends on factors which cannot be reliably planned for. But the IS aims to estimate, for each country, the likely needs in the coming year which it is hoped AI may be able to fulfil. The IS plans the international relief program annually, taking into account the need for balance at a country and regional level (see §1.4) . Each year the IS estimates afresh the amount of money needed to finance planned relief expenditure in the coming year; this estimate includes both new plans and plans originally made the previous year but not yet implemented.

Having made initial plans and a provisional estimate of the amount needed to finance them, the IS then informs relief officers of the plans, asking sections each to give an advance indication of the earmarked or unearmarked contributions they will be able to provide (including in the form of direct payments) over the coming year to finance the planned program. If sections' responses indicate that the total contributions from sections over the coming year will not be sufficient to finance the planned program, the IS reassesses the plans in order to reduce or postpone some of the planned expenditure.

The annual estimates do not include provision for unforeseeable emergencies, and, in the event of such, the IS may make special appeals to relief officers as needed for earmarked funds.

The detailed information which the IS sends to relief officers about plans for relief should be treated as sensitive information and for the information of relief officers, section treasurers, board members and others in an equivalent position only; it should not be disseminated throughout the section.

APPENDIX 1 : ASSISTING EMIGRATION AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION

Extracts from IEC-approved guidelines for AI's work on behalf of refugees (POL 33/02/85)

2. ASSISTING EMIGRATION

2.1 The basic principles
AI may, in furtherance of its objects, assist the emigration of persons, if they so desire, to one country from another where they are held as prisoners of conscience or can reasonably be expected to become prisoners of conscience imminently or to be subjected to torture, "disappearance" or politically motivated extrajudicial execution. In taking any decision on such assistance, the following points should be borne in mind:

(a) Full consideration should be given to the political situation in the country.
(b) Assistance to emigrate should only be given if the person in question has clearly stated his/her urgent wish to leave the country.
(c) AI should never offer to help persons leave their country if they have not themselves indicated there urgent wish to leave.

In practice, AI takes such actions to assist emigration far less often that it undertakes initiatives regarding the prevention of refoulement. Since a decision to assist in such cases requires a determination regarding actual or potential human rights violations in the country where the would-be emigrant find himself or herself, such a decision lies in all cases with the Research Department.

(...)

2.2 Determining when a person can reasonably be expected to become a prisoner of conscience imminently
The 1979 international meeting of refugee coordinators proposed the following reference points for determining when persons can reasonably be expected to become prisoners of conscience imminently. These reference points are meant to be an aid in decision-making rather than immutable criteria. It should always be borne in mind that AI does not recognize emigration as a solution.

(a) Where charges have been made against them which would lead to their becoming prisoners of conscience or when there are warrants out for their arrest.
(b) Where there is a pattern of serious threats of arrest (e.g., interrogation, house searching, dismissal from job) by the police, judicial or other authorities, or when persons have been arrested repeatedly for short periods of time.
(c) When members of the group or political party or trade union, etc., a person belongs to have been arrested or threatened with arrest because of their similar role in the organization.
(d) When members of the family have been arrested or threatened with arrest.
(e) When after a coup d'état a group of former government officials face a serious threat of being detained and this would lead to their becoming prisoners of conscience.

(...)

4. FAMILY REUNIFICATION

1980 International Council Meeting decision 4 resolved that "working for the reuniting of families with former Prisoners of Conscience who have been forcibly separated from them is a legitimate form of AI activity". The June 1985 IEC agreed to extend this principle to include the families of individuals who fall within AI's refugee concerns if they can reasonably be expected to become prisoners of conscience. The following guidelines were formulated by the March 1981 IEC and have since been applied by AI in implementing the 1980 ICM decision. Their language has been adjusted to reflect the extension agreed by the June 1985 IEC.

(a) The decision refers to cases where a released prisoner of conscience or a person who could reasonably be expected to become a prisoner of conscience (hereinafter a "would-be prisoner of conscience") is outside his or her country or where the family is outside the country, and the government prevents them from joining one another. The normal form of this forcible separation would be for the government to refuse permission for one or the other to emigrate, while those who had already left the country were not permitted to return or could not do so without risk of persecution.
(b) The decision entails AI's calling on a government to allow a former or would-be prisoner of conscience (or the family) to emigrate to rejoin the family (or the former or would-be prisoner of conscience), where the government is preventing their voluntarily rejoining in this way. (It also could entail AI's asking a government to accept into its territory and offer protection to a former or would-be prisoner of conscience whose family is already in the country, or to accept and offer protection to the family of a former or would-be prisoner of conscience who is already in that country.)

(...)

(d) Implementation of this ICM decision should not be such as to encourage the wrong impression that AI assists emigration in any but precisely defined circumstances, or to detract from AI's prisoner-oriented image and identity. The relevant section's refugee
coordinator should be consulted in each case of implementation of this decision.
(...)

(f) There are many cases in which former or would-be prisoners of conscience and their families have difficulty in rejoining but for reasons other than that home governments are preventing them from voluntarily doing so. This relates, for example, to difficulties in finding a suitable country of residence, or a host government willing to accept them. In all such cases, AI's normal mandate and guidelines for refugee work apply.
(g) AI should not work towards anyone's emigration unless he or she has indicated willingness to emigrate.
(h) The term "family" is loose and flexible. For the purposes of this type of AI activity, the "family" should be understood in narrow terms, taking into account both the closeness of the family relationship and the dependence of family members on the former or would-be prisoner of conscience, or vice versa.

In actual fact, AI is often impeded by considerations of effectiveness from intervening directly with the government involved in cases where a refugee's family is being prevented from leaving the refugee's home country to join him or her in exile. In such situations, it may often be judged that direct intervention by AI would be seen as provocative and thus counterproductive, particularly with respect to countries where AI has a high profile in publicizing a wide range of concerns. In such situations, however, the organization can and does make its concerns known to UNHCR, other appropriate governments and other individuals or organizations who might be able to make effective interventions on humanitarian grounds.

APPENDIX 2 : DECISION 15 OF THE 1993 ICM

The International Council

recalling Decision 51 of the 1991 ICM which called for a thorough review and revision of AI's relief policies and procedures (FIN 52/03/86, adopted by Decision 7 of the 1985 ICM),

recalling also that relief, however important, is not a core objective of AI,

taking account of the need to adjust the guidelines dealing with AI's relief procedures to reflect practice arising from organizational changes since 1985,

noting the review which was accordingly carried out in 1992-3, leading to the recommendations made by the intersection meeting convened by the Swedish and Swiss Sections (Gripsholm, Sweden, 19-21 February 1993),

WELCOMES the recommendations put forward by that meeting, in particular:

- that generally "humanitarian" relief for general needs should continue to be limited to victims in the "POC category", but in exceptionally compelling cases where there is no possibility that relief will be seen as supporting violence, AI's relief policy should allow relief to be given to dependants of non-"POC-type" victims of "disappearance" and EJE;

- while maintaining this "humanitarian" aspect of AI's relief program, also to expand the preventive use and other aspects of AI relief for purposes which address certain specific forms of human rights violations whether or not the victims fall in the "POC category", such as by the provision of legal aid in order to prevent people becoming victims of torture, "disappearance" or EJE, and medical relief to people injured in EJE attempts and to victims of prolonged "disappearance" who "reappear" and who require medical treatment as a result of ill-treatment;

- that AI's relief policy relating to victims of NGE abuses should in principle mirror the policy towards victims of violations by governments, but in normal circumstances AI would expect governments to respond to the needs of victims of NGE abuses.

INSTRUCTS the IEC to issue new guidelines on AI's relief policies and procedures in accordance with these recommendations of that meeting and taking into account other recommendations of that meeting;

NOTES that on issuance of those guidelines all previous policies and procedures on relief will be superseded;

REQUESTS the IEC in the future to consider possibilities for:

- establishing a non-relief budget line for developing AI work in providing financial assistance in instances which would have a strategic advantage in furthering AI's aims but which cannot properly be treated as part of AI's relief program (for example, provision of legal aid in death penalty test cases, as set out in 1991 ICM Decision 52);

- making some provision in AI's general budget for contributing towards those areas of relief which have a major preventive element;

ASKS the IEC to ensure that a review of the practice of certain aspects of the new elements of relief policy, identified in the recommendations of the meeting, be carried out in time for the 1997 ICM.

(Arising from Resolution A71)

APPENDIX 3 : PREVIOUS PAPERS ON AI RELIEF POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Recommendations regarding relief procedures

(NS 115), approved by the November 1974 IEC;

Relief distribution (NS 35/76), approved by the Relief Committee in February 1976 (supplementing NS 115);

Relief policies and procedures (RLF 01/01/78), approved by July 1977 IEC (superseding NS 155 and NS 35/76);

Relief procedures (FIN 22/IEC 01/79), approved by April 1979 IEC;

AI relief policies and procedures (FIN 52/02/80) approved by November-December 1979 IEC;

Guidelines on aftercare for AI cases after their release from imprisonment (ACT 01/02/82) August 1982;

AI relief policies and procedures , adopted by Decision 7 of the 1985 ICM and issued under AI Index FIN 05/03/86 in April 1986.

The present paper, which was prepared as instructed by Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM, incorporates relevant elements of and supersedes all these previous papers. (Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM is attached as Appendix 2 of this paper.)

Other relevant papers

The 1985

IEC-approved guidelines for AI's work on behalf of refugees

(POL 33/02/85) set out guidelines for AI's work in assisting emigration and family reunification, which is reflected also in its relief work

(see Purposes P4 in the present paper)

. Relevant extracts from §2 and §4 of those 1985 refugee guidelines are attached as Appendix 1 to the present paper.

For a detailed account of the questions considered in the 1993 relief review, which led to the present paper, see

Relief policy review: Discussion paper

(FIN 50/03/92).

For an account of the discussions at the relief policy review meeting and its conclusions which were adopted by Decision 15 of the 1993 ICM, see

International review of relief policies and procedures: Conclusions and recommendations

(FIN 50/01/93). (That paper also identifies some types of financial and other practical assistance which AI might provide for purposes of furthering its strategic aims, which would be outside the scope of relief work.)

Mötesdatum: 1-2 september 1996
Index: ORG 53/042/1996
Läs även protokollet »