Cluster Munition Victims & Assistance 2012

States/areas with cluster munition casualties

The rationale behind the Convention on Cluster Munitions is found in its preamble, which affirms that States Parties are “[d]etermined to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions.” This landmark humanitarian disarmament agreement is the first and so far the only international treaty to make the provision of assistance to victims of the weapons a formal requirement for all States Parties.

Casualties from cluster munition remnants have been recorded by at least 30 states and three other areas where cluster munitions have been used.[1]

Of the 30 states with casualties that therefore have responsibility for cluster munition victims, 11 are States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions: Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, ChadGuinea-Bissau, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Montenegro, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone and five have signed, but not yet ratified the convention: AngolaColombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], Iraq, and Uganda. Compared to 29 states with casualties reported in 2011, this is an increase of one country (Colombia).[2]

top

Victim assistance

Under Article 5 of the convention, States Parties have a legal obligation to ensure that the rights are met for members of their population whose lives have been impacted by cluster munitions. In order to make a difference in affected communities, there must be a clear understanding of the needs of victims and victim assistance responses must be coordinated, focused, and measurable.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions requires that States Parties with cluster munition victims implement the following victim assistance activities:

  • Collect relevant data and assess the needs of cluster munition victims;
  • Coordinate victim assistance programs, including by designating a government focal point;
  • Develop a national plan, budget, and time frames for implementation;
  • Report and monitor obligations regarding implementation;
  • Consult with and actively involve cluster munition victims;
  • Provide adequate assistance, including medical care, rehabilitation, psychological support, and social and economic inclusion for victims;
  • Implement national legislation according to the principles of international law; and
  • Provide assistance that is gender- and age-sensitive as well as non-discriminatory.

In the two years since the convention entered into force on 1 August 2010, States Parties have reported making more efforts than ever before to improve the lives of cluster munition victims, demonstrating that the convention is making a difference particularly in those countries most affected. While there has been progress on victim assistance during the reporting period, it remains generally uneven due to lack of funding to the NGOs which deliver most services, and due to inadequate infrastructure, conflict, and other challenges. States Parties are doing more than ever before to improve the lives of cluster munition victims, but far greater effort is needed by all.

top

Assessing needs

States Parties must make “every effort to collect reliable relevant data” and assess the needs of cluster munition victims. According to the Vientiane Action Plan, within one year of the convention’s entry into force for each State Party, all necessary data should have been collected and disaggregated by sex and age, and the needs and priorities of cluster munition victims should have been assessed.[3]

In 2011 and the first half of 2012, efforts to assess and address the needs of victims remained focused on survivors, with some inclusion of the family members of survivors and those people who were killed. Little attention was given to surveying the needs of cluster munition-contaminated communities and/or to determining the appropriate way to address their needs through data collection.

States Parties have taken steps to improve casualty data collection and/or needs assessments. Since entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, most have attempted to compile the information necessary to assist cluster munition victims, yet all failed to do so within the one-year target proposed by the Vientiane Action Plan except Albania, which already had the information in place. Afghanistan still did not have a needs assessment or data collection system in place as of mid-2012. In June 2011, BiH stated that it had identified previously unrecorded cluster munition casualties and in May 2012 it reported more casualties, but the data lacked specific details and was not fully disaggregated.[4] Croatia continued efforts to compile data from several sources. The Lao PDR government recognized the poor quality of the data available in early 2012 and authorities introduced a “survivor tracking system” which made good progress in collecting information on needs by mid-2012.[5] The Lebanon Mine Action Center completed the first phase of a national victim survey and needs assessment in 2010, but data still had not been consolidated within a single national database by mid-2012.In September 2011, Mozambique said that it required international assistance to identify and survey cluster munition victims. Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, and Sierra Leone have made no, or extremely limited, efforts to survey and assess the needs of cluster munitions victims.

Some signatory states made progress in assessing the needs of cluster munition victims in 2011 and the first half of 2012. By mid-2012, Angola had completed needs assessments in four of its 18 provinces through a survey that began in October 2010.[6]In DRC, efforts to assess survivor needs continued in 2011 and 2012.[7] Iraq launched a needs assessment during 2011 that is to cover the 15 provinces of central and southern Iraq by February 2015.[8] In Colombia, no comprehensive needs assessment was conducted during the year but efforts were made to include new sources of information and to improve verification of data in the national victim database.[9] Uganda, however, appeared to have made no efforts toward the goal of conducting a needs assessment in 2011.

In non-signatory countries and other areas, little or no progress was recorded in 2011 with respect to assessing the needs of cluster munition victims. There was ongoing data collection in Cambodia and Georgia, but no progress was reported in assessing the needs of survivors, as in the past. A very limited survey pilot was conducted in South Sudan. In Western Sahara, a needs assessment was carried out in coordination with the local government in early 2012.

top

Coordination

The convention requires that States Parties with cluster munition casualties designate a focal point within the government to take responsibility for ensuring that victim assistance efforts are coordinated and that work is implemented. The focal point should be announced within six months of the convention’s entry into force for that State Party and should have the authority, expertise, and adequate resources to carry out its task.

All States Parties with known cluster munition victims have designated a focal point for victim assistance activities as of 31 July 2012, except Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, which have no known cluster munition survivors but where many people have been disabled from conflict. In Montenegro, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the de facto focal point and has reported on victim assistance activities.[10] The Albanian Mine Action Center was transformed into the Albanian Mine and Munitions Coordination Office in 2011, which retains coordination responsibilities for victim assistance.[11] The BiH Ministry of Foreign Affairs was declared to be the victim assistance focal point for the convention in 2011.[12] In Mozambique, the chief of the Department for Persons with Disabilities within the Ministry of Women and Social Affairs was listed as focal point for the convention rather than the National Demining Institute.[13]

Afghanistan, Albania, BiH, Croatia, Lao PDR and Lebanon have victim assistance coordination structures in place which either met regularly or effectively coordinated assistance, often in response to a particular issue or need. No improvements were identified in the coordination of victim assistance in Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, Mozambique, or Sierra Leone.

All signatory states with cluster munition victims had a designated victim assistance focal point in 2011, though of the six, only the Colombian focal point—Mine Action Program (PAICMA)—could be described as effective. Victim assistance coordination throughout Iraq improved in 2011.[14]

top

National plans

The Vientiane Action Plan reiterates the Convention on Cluster Munitions obligation to adapt or develop a comprehensive national plan of action, including time frames and budget to carry out victim assistance activities, but no specific time limit was set for this to be achieved.

Among the States Parties, Afghanistan’s victim assistance plan ended in 2011 and had not yet been renewed or replaced as of mid-2012.[15] Lebanon developed a basic strategy for victim assistance in 2011. A complex victim assistance plan was still under development in Lao PDR (as it has been since 2008), but the plan and related policy papers had not been completed by mid-2012.BiH adopted a ten-year victim assistance plan in 2009, but it has not been adapted to address its new obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the objectives are not measurable.[16] Albania [17] and Croatia[18] have victim assistance plans in place, which have been revised to take into account the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Mozambique’s national plan for persons with disabilities explicitly includes cluster munition victims; as of mid-2012, the plan had been completed but not yet approved.[19]

All victim assistance plans lacked dedicated funding, although plans for BiH, Croatia, Lao PDR, Lebanon and Mozambique included budgets or estimated costs. No victim assistance plan has been developed by Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, or Sierra Leone.

Among signatories, Angola’s existing plan ended in 2011.[20] A victim assistance plan for Chad was approved in May 2012.[21] Colombia lacked a national victim assistance plan, but legislation passed in June 2011 dedicating significant government resources for conflict victims was expected to improve access to victim assistance.[22] The DRC developed a new plan in 2011.[23] Iraq has developed some national action points instead of a victim assistance plan.[24]Uganda was working from a victim assistance plan that was comprehensively revised in 2010.[25]

top

Reporting and monitoring

Under Article 7 of the convention, States Parties are required to submit reports on the status and progress of implementation of all victim assistance.[26] In their Article 7 reports, Lao PDR reported on international funding to victim assistance NGOs, while Lebanon reported on victim assistance activities that were supported with national funds and those for which international assistance was needed. Mozambique reported on progress to develop the second National Plan of Action on Disability, which includes cluster munition victims, and indicated the need for national and international funds for its implementation. Albania, BiH, and Croatia also included victim assistance reporting in the appropriate form of their transparency reports.

Several States Parties with few casualties have yet to submit their Article 7 reports (Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, and Sierra Leone), while Afghanistan’s initial report is due by 28 August 2012. The DRC submitted a voluntary Article 7 reporting for 2011, but included only brief information on victim assistance.

top

Role of survivors

Cluster munition victims were key in the development and adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the convention calls on States Parties to “closely consult with and actively involve cluster munition victims and their representative organisations” to fulfill victim assistance obligations. The Vientiane Action Plan states that States Parties must actively involve cluster munitions victims and their representative organizations in the work of the convention, placing responsibility on all States Parties, and not just those with cluster munition victims, for promoting the participation of cluster munition victims.

Of the seven States Parties with victim assistance coordination structures in place, six involve survivors or their representative organizations in victim assistance or disability coordination mechanisms.[27]

Among signatory states, only in DRC did survivors participate actively in regular coordination mechanisms. In Colombia, survivor participation was extremely limited within the ongoing coordination. Both coordination and survivor participation were limited in the other four signatories: Angola, Chad, Iraq, and Uganda.

In 13 of the 16 States Parties and signatories with known cluster munition victims, survivors were involved in ongoing victim assistance activities.[28] Survivors implemented, and in some cases helped to design, physical rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion initiatives. Survivors provided peer support and referrals to help other survivors to access services in many countries with cluster munition victims, including in Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, BiH, Croatia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda, and Vietnam. In almost all identified cases, survivor involvement in the implementation of victim assistance activities was through NGO programs and most often these were countries where survivor networks also existed.[29]

As highlighted by the Vientiane Action Plan, survivors and cluster munition victims should be considered as experts in victim assistance and included on government delegations to international meetings and in all activities related to the convention. BiH was the only State Party known to have included a survivor as a member of its delegation to an international meeting of the convention in 2011 and the first half of 2012.By contrast, many cluster munition victims have participated in international meetings as part of the Cluster Munition Coalition delegation.

top

Providing adequate assistance: key indicators and challenges

States and areas with cluster munition victims continue to face significant challenges in providing holistic and accessible care to affected individuals, families, and communities. Each State Party should take immediate action to increase availability and accessibility of services, particularly in remote and rural areas where they are most often absent. Economic and psychological needs remain the least fulfilled by existing services and the Monitor has not identified any recent efforts by States Parties to address the gaps in these areas.

All States Parties continue to provide some form of victim assistance services despite reliance on international funding and the poor global economic outlook. However, in the two years since the convention entered into force on 1 August 2010, few significant or readily measurable improvements in the accessibility of services have been recorded in States Parties or signatories with cluster munition victims.

Some accomplishments were identified in States Parties during 2011:

  • In Afghanistan, physical accessibility continued to improve due to the work of NGOs with the cooperation of local authorities;[30]
  • In Albania, the national victim assistance NGO provided some sustained economic reintegration assistance to survivors throughout the year, while international financial support decreased significantly following the completion of clearance activities.[31]
  • In BiH, the national survivor NGO was able to provide support to all new mine/ERW casualties, while state authorities continued to provide economic reintegration support; a new victim assistance fund was in its first year.[32]
  • In Croatia, psychosocial support increased through the work of NGOs as planned in the national victim assistance strategy.[33]
  • In Guinea-Bissau, the national rehabilitation center reopened following a renovation completed with the support of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the ICRC.[34]
  • ·In Lao PDR, access to medical care and prosthetics services also improved in remote areas through outreach programs.[35]
  • In Lebanon, quality physical rehabilitation was provided despite a decrease in funding that resulted in fewer actual services.[36]
  • In Montenegro, the government’s recognition of cluster munition victims has allowed them to register for national insurance, increasing their ability to receive medical care and physical rehabilitation.[37]
  • In Mozambique, availability of information on services for survivors increased with the development of new support services through the cooperation of an international NGO and the national survivor organization.[38]
  • Although no specific progress was reported in Sierra Leone, it has ongoing services for persons with disabilities, including survivors and victims of war.[39]

The Monitor unfortunately identified a range of implementation inadequacies and resource challenges in the provision of victim assistance by States Parties in 2011 and the first half of 2012.

Decreased funding reduced the availability of victim assistance services in Albania, BiH and Lebanon, where service providers struggled to make the most of limited resources and to identify new sources of funding. The cost of some medical services increased in Lebanon, affecting the affordability for mine/ERW victims. During the same period, the government raised awareness about the right for persons with disabilities to receive free medical attention, though some survivors reported being rejected despite being eligible. Increased awareness about the availability of free medical and rehabilitation services in Mozambique, without any corresponding increase in number of medical professionals or medical and rehabilitative supplies available, lengthened waiting lists for care. In Lebanon and Montenegro, ineffective implementation or regulation of national insurance systems led to survivors and other persons with disabilities being refused medical care to which they were entitled.

Physical rehabilitation was generally more available and received greater focus and resources as compared to the other core victim assistance services, such as economic inclusion and psychological support. In Albania, prosthetics centers faced a lack of funding, although the rehabilitation sector was strengthened through training. In BiH and Croatia, no change or improvement was reported and the quality of prosthetic devices was variable. The number of survivors receiving physical rehabilitation services in Lebanon decreased due to reduced international funding; some organizations postponed physical rehabilitation projects planned for 2011 until 2012 due to their involvement in Lebanon’s hosting of the convention’s Second Meeting of States Parties, in September 2011.

Psychosocial support remained one of the most neglected areas of victim assistance; States Parties supporting such services reported little or no progress. In Afghanistan and BiH, funding decreased for peer-to-peer support provided by NGOs.

Economic inclusion services were lacking; the services that did exist were generally provided by NGOs. State quotas for the employment of persons with disabilities were often reported but never fulfilled, as in Croatia and Lebanon.

Regulations requiring physical accessibility for persons with disabilities were not adequately enforced in any State Party.

Many ongoing victim assistance challenges were faced in Guinea-Bissau, which for years had no victim assistance program due to poverty and lack of infrastructure, and in Sierra Leone, which has many victims of conflict (including amputees) but which has limited rehabilitation services.[40]

Signatories to the convention continued to face numerous victim assistance challenges. In Angola and Uganda, availability of physical rehabilitation and other victim assistance services continued to decrease as international organizations closed their programs. No significant changes were identified in Chad, where a lack of resources and infrastructure has interfered with the provision of adequate services.[41] In DRC, new targeted funding for victim assistance has increased the availability of, and access to, medical and physical rehabilitation services, though the programs remain limited.[42] Iraq is decreasing its dependence on the ICRC for emergency medical care supplies, and access to physical rehabilitation increased as a new rehabilitation center opened; three more are under construction.[43] In Colombia, the availability of rehabilitation services decreased in 2011 following a decline in international funding for victim assistance.[44]

Countries with cluster munition victims that have not joined the convention (Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Serbia, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Vietnam) generally achieved less progress and faced greater challenges in providing victim assistance. In Libya, the 2011 conflict disrupted the delivery of victim assistance, but by the end of the year national and international organizations had begun to rebuild infrastructure, including national physical rehabilitation capacity.[45] There was little to no progress in the three areas with cluster munition victims (Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Western Sahara). More information about victim assistance in these countries and areas is available in the Landmine Monitor report and through their Monitor country profiles.

top

National and international laws

States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions are legally bound to provide adequate assistance to cluster munition victims; according to the convention, victim assistance should be implemented in accordance with applicable international humanitarian and human rights law. Applicable international law includes the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Mine Ban Treaty. Other instruments with relevant provisions that could support the implementation of the victim assistance obligations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions include the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Of the ten States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions with cluster munition victims, six were party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (BiH, Croatia, Lao PDR, Mozambique, Montenegro, and Sierra Leone) and two had signed but not yet ratified (Albania and Lebanon) while Afghanistan and Guinea-Bissau have not yet joined.

Under the Vientiane Action Plan, Convention on Cluster Munitions States Parties are supposed to review their national laws and policies within one year of entry into force to ensure that they are consistent with their victim assistance obligations under the convention. National legislation should ensure “the full realisation of the rights of all cluster munition victims,” as called for by the convention.

Most states with cluster munition victims have taken steps to develop and implement national laws and policies relevant to persons with disabilities, often as a result of their implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, overall legislation remains inadequate and weak, and is poorly enforced in most countries.

Developments in 2011 and the first half of 2012 with respect to national legislation included:

  • In BiH, legislation was adopted to improve the economic inclusion of persons with disabilities, including survivors.[46]
  • In Croatia, the position of Ombudsperson for Persons with Disabilities was strengthened in order to monitor implementation of legislation. There was extensive legislation relevant to the rights of persons with disabilities, but it remained fragmented.[47]
  • In Lao PDR, a law on the rights of persons with disabilities prepared in 2008 was under still being considered and other relevant regulations were adopted, including on physical accessibility.[48]
  • Mozambique ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in January 2012, but lacks adequate legislation.[49]
  • Montenegro adopted a new disability law that clarified which discriminatory actions were illegal.[50]

At the Convention on Cluster Munitions intersessional meetings in April 2012, states discussed how to improve integration of the implementation of victim assistance provisions of the Convention on Cluster Munitions into other existing national coordination mechanisms, such as those of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. At the Second Meeting of States Parties in September 2011, the Cluster Munition Coalition called on States Parties to use existing designated victim assistance focal points within governments to strengthen the connections between the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[51] In 2011, the ICBL-CMC produced a guidance document to enhance victim assistance by emphasizing accessibility, employment, and education for survivors and persons with disabilities.[52]

top

Gender- and age-sensitive assistance and non-discrimination

States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions commit to adequately providing age- and gender-sensitive assistance to cluster munition victims.[53] Yet both age- and gender-sensitive assistance remain the least reported aspects of the convention’s victim assistance provisions. Almost all reported efforts were limited to disaggregating data on casualties, rather than the needs indicated by assessments and any services provided to address them. For most States Parties and signatories, little information was available about the availability of age- and gender-sensitive assistance.

In 2011 and the first half of 2012, few activities were reported that were designed to increase services appropriate to the needs of women, men, girls, and boys. In Afghanistan, programs sought to provide female medical practitioners and therapists for women. In Lebanon, affirmative action efforts by NGOs prioritized the inclusion of women and children in their programs.[54]In Uganda, a signatory state, gender-appropriate services still are not available to all survivors at health centers and it was difficult for children to access services when needed.[55]

According to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, States Parties cannot discriminate against or among cluster munition victims, or between cluster munition victims and those who have suffered from other causes. In signatory Iraq, the Kurdistan regional government and victim assistance service providers in that region indicated that differences in treatment were based only on survivors’ needs. Montenegro reported the same. However, the obligation for States Parties to provide assistance without discrimination between persons with disabilities remains largely unaddressed.

For most countries where discrimination was reported, it was due to preferential treatment for veterans, or against particular gender, age, or regional groups, rather than differences in treatment based on the cause of disability or the type of weapon that caused injury. For example, disabled war veterans are often given a privileged status above that of civilian war survivors and other persons with disabilities. Few plans or efforts were reported to address this in the provision of services to civilians and military survivors.

*

The information on this page is an abridged except from the Cluster Munition Monitor Report 2012, ICBL-CMC.


[1] Angola, Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya,
Montenegro, Mozambique, Russia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Vietnam,
and Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Western Sahara. See also, “Draft Beirut Progress Report,” CCM/MSP/2011/WP.5, 25 August 2011, pp. 10-11.

[2] The addition of Colombia follows the Inter-American Commission’s investigation into the use of a cluster munition in Santo Domingo, Colombia in 1998, which made more details available on cluster munition casualties. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 12.416, Santo Domingo Massacre v. Republic of Colombia, 8 July 2011.

[3] Such data should be made available to all relevant stakeholders and contribute to national injury surveillance and other relevant data collection systems for use in program planning.

[4] Statement of BiH, Convention on Cluster Munitions Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 16 April 2012; and Statement of BiH, Convention on Cluster Munitions Intersessional Meeting, Session on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 28 June 2011.

[6] CNIDAH, “Relatório Anual de Actividades de 2011,” (“Annual Activity Report 2011”), Luanda, March 2012, p. 13.

[7] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Louis Ibonge Numbi, Victim Assistance Focal Point, Ministry of Social Affairs, Kinshasa, 25 May 2012; “Mapping of Mine Action VA Project in DRC,” UNMACC, 24 March 2011.

[8] Statement of Iraq, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, Geneva, 23 May 2012.

[9] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Director, Multilateral Policy Issues, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 19 April 2012.

[10] See Statement of Montenegro, Convention on Cluster Munitions Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 16 April 2012. Various government ministries have responsibilities for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. US Department of State, “2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Montenegro,” Washington, DC, 24 May 2012.

[11] Interview with Veri Dogjani, Albanian Mine and Munitions Coordination Office (AMMCO), Geneva, 24 May 2012.

[12] BiH, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 report, (for Calendar year 2011) Form H, April 2012.

[13] Mozambique, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 report (for the period 1 September 2011 to 31 May 2012), Form H, July 2012.

[14] Statement of Iraq, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, Geneva, 23 May 2012; interviews with Maythem Obead, Head of Community Liaison Department, DMA; Bakshan Asaad, Head of Rehabilitation Department, Kurdistan Ministry of Health; and Soran Majeed, Mine Victim Assistance Officer, General Directorate of Mine Action (GDMA) for Iraqi Kurdistan, Geneva, 21 May 2012.

[15] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Suraya Paikan, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD), Kabul, 9 April 2012.

[16] See, BHMAC, “Victim Assistance Sub-Strategy in BiH: 2009–2019,” (“Podstrategija za pomoć žrtvama mina u Bosni i Hercegovini: 2009–2019”), Sarajevo, (undated but 2010).

[17] Statement of Albania, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, Geneva, 23 May 2012.

[18] Croatia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Form H, 10 April 2012; and Statement of Croatia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Intersessional Meeting, Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 16 April 2012.

[19] Email from Macario Dubalelane, Head of Department for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Women and Social Action (Ministério da Mulher e da Acção Social, MMAS), 24 June 2012.

[20] CNIDAH, “Draft relatório do workshop de avaliação do pniavm 2007 – 2011, (“Draft Report of the Workshop to Evaulate the PNIAVM 2007-2011”), Luanda, 13 April 2012.

[21] Statement of Chad, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socioeconomic Reintegration, Geneva, 23 May 2012

[22] Regulations to implement the law were approved in December 2011 and it had not yet had an impact on the lives of survivors as of April 2012. Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas, National Mine Action Coordinator, Handicap International (HI), 30 March 2012; and by Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Director, Multilateral Policy Issues, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 19 April 2012; and Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, Geneva, 22 June 2011.

[23] Statement of DRC, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration, Geneva, 22 June 2011; and interview with Jean Marie Kiadi Ntoto, UN Mine Action Coordination Center (UNMACC), Kinshasa, 17 April 2011.

[24] Interviews with Maythem Obead, Head of Community Liaison Department, Directorate of Mine Action (DMA); Bakshan Asaad, Head of Rehabilitation Department, Kurdistan Ministry of Health; and Soran Majeed, Mine Victim Assistance Officer, GDMA for Iraqi Kurdistan, in Geneva, 21 May 2012

[25] Statement of Uganda, Mine Ban Treaty Eleventh Meeting of States Parties, Phnom Penh, 29 November 2011.

[26] Victim assistance reporting under the Convention on Cluster Munitions is obligatory, unlike the Mine Ban Treaty’s voluntary reporting on victim assistance.

[27] No survivor involvement was identified in Guinea-Bissau’s planning and coordination mechanisms.

[28] No survivor involvement in victim assistance activities was identified in Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro or Sierra Leone.

[29] See Monitor victim assistance country profiles, http://www.the-monitor.org.

[30] Email from Chris Fidler, Afghanistan Country Director, Clear Path International – Kabul, 30 May 2012.

[31] Email from Jonuz Kola, Executive Director, Albanian Assistance for Integration and Development (ALB-AID), 19 July 2012; Statement of Albania, Convention on Cluster Munitions Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 16 April 2012.

[32] Statement of BiH, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 22 June 2011; and Anes Alic, “BiH disabled needs lack initiative,” SETimes, 28 January 2012.

[33] ITF, “Annual Report 2011,” Ljubljana, 2012; email from Marija Breber, MineAid, 2 June 2011; Croatia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, (for the calendar year 2011), Form H; and Croatia, Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, 10 April 2012.

[34] Email from César de Carvalho, General Director, National Mine Action Authority (CAAMI), 3 August 2011.

[35] Interview with Bountao Chanthavongsa, Victim Assistance Officer, National Regulatory Authority for the UXO/Mine Action Sector in the Lao PDR (NRA), Vientiane, 23 March 2012; email from Courtney Innes, UXO Victim Assistance Technical Advisor, NRA, 9 July 2012; and Email from Kerryn Clarke, Project Coordinator, COPE, Vientiane, 3 July 2012.

[36] Response to Monitor questionnaire from Habbouba Aoun, Coordinator, Landmines Resource Center in Lebanon (LMRC), 8 March 2012; and Response to Monitor questionnaire from Khaled Yamout, NPA, 17 June 2012.

[37] Statement of Montenegro, Convention on Cluster Munitions Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 16 April 2012.

[38] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luis Silvestre Wamusse, RAVIM, 7 June 2012; interview with Macario Dubalelane, Head of Department for Persons with Disabilities, MMAS, in Geneva, 21 May 2012.

[40] HI, “Where we work – Africa: Sierra Leone, A nation of amputees” (undated but 2012); Statement of Guinea-Bissau, Mine Ban Treaty, Eleventh Meeting of States Parties, Phnom Penh, 29 November 2011.

[41] ICRC, Physical Rehabilitation Programme, “Annual Report 2010,” May 2011, Geneva, p. 25.

[42] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Louis Ibonge Numbi, Victim Assistance Focal Point, Ministry of Social Affairs, Kinshasa, 25 May 2012.

[43] ICRC, “Annual Report 2011,” Geneva, May 2012, pp. 379-383.

[44] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas, National Mine Action Coordinator, Handicap International, 30 March 2012.

[45] Overstretched health service needs sustained support,” IRIN News (Benghazi), 1 September 2011; and WHO, “Libya Crisis Update,” August 2011.

[46] Statement of BiH, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committeeon Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 22 June 2011; European Commission (EC), “Bosnia and Herzegovina 2011 Progress Report: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011–2012,” Brussels, 10 October 2011, p. 40.

[47] Croatia, CCW Protocol V Article 10 Report, Form C (for calendar year 2010), 31 March 2012; Association for the Promotion of Equal Opportunities, ” Hrvatska dvadeset godina poslije – žrtve mina gdje su, što rade i što trebaju” (“Croatia Twenty years later – victims of landmines: where they are, what they are doing and what they need”), 2011, pp. 21-22 & 42; and EC, “Croatia 2011 Progress Report,” Commission staff working document, Brussels, 12 October 2011, pp. 10 & 51.

[48] Lao PDR, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report (for the period of 1 December 2010 to 31 December 2011), Form H, Page 11, 22 March 2012.

[49] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luis Silvestre Wamusse, National Coordinator, Network for Mine Victims (RAVIM), 7 June 2012.

[50] US Department of State, “2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Montenegro,” Washington, DC, 24 May 2012.

[51] The CMC also urged governments to ensure that focal points have authority, credibility and adequate capacity to champion the inclusion of survivors in existing national disability councils, disability registers and plans; CMC also urged them to coordinate with disability actors who are working on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Statement of the Cluster Munition Coalition, Convention on Cluster Munitions Second Meeting of States Parties, Beirut, 15 September 2011.

[52] The Guide looks at victim assistance in the frameworks of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Mine Ban Treaty, including its Cartagena Action Plan (2009-2014). ICBL-CMC, “Connecting the Dots: Detailed Guidance,” April 2011.

[53] Children require specific and more frequent assistance than adults. Women and girls often need specific services depending on their personal and cultural circumstances. Women face multiple forms of discrimination, both as survivors themselves or as those who survive the loss of family members, often the husband and head of household.

[54] Response to Monitor questionnaire from Khaled Yamout, MRE/MVA Program Coordinator, NPA, 17 June 2012.

[55] Interview with Herbert Baryayebwa, Commissioner for Disability and Elderly, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD), in Geneva, 17 April 2012; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Margaret Orech, Director, Uganda Landmine Survivors Association, 4 May 2012.

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: