What is a Universal Periodic Review

November 4th.

That's the day that the UN conducts hearings as part of its Universal Periodic Review of the state framework for human rights in Honduras.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a once every four years dialogue between the 47 members sitting on the Human Rights Council and the national government of the country under review, plus any registered non-governmental organizations that ask to participate. The result, no sooner than 2 days after the hearing, is a report which contains a summary of the discussion plus a series of recommendations for the national government. It is up to the national government to carry those recommendations out. It is up to the UN to hold the governments accountable for non-compliance.

In the case of Honduras, the submissions can be found at the UN Office of the High Commissioner website here. The submissions include the government's report to the Human Rights Council, in every UN official language, a compilation of UN agency comments on conditions that arose since the last review, a summary of comments by third parties, and a series of questions submitted in advance by governments who are part of the Human Rights Council.

Honduras's own report was submitted on August 23, 2010. The report Honduras submitted is about the government structures, rules, and regulations that support the various areas of human rights that Honduras must report on in its periodic review. A quick review of the recent submissions by other Central American countries suggests that this is the correct content. The entire report consists of 134 paragraphs.

Paragraph 4 of Honduras's submission states

"The approach adopted in the universal periodic review involved the various Government agencies and branches of the State, all of which provided input to this report in their own areas of competence."

Except, of course, when they did not provide input.

A Tiempo article from Saturday noted that according to sources in the Executive branch, the report was completed without the collaboration of the Ministry of Security or the Supreme Court.

After a brief introduction, paragraphs 7-13, on the current political situation in Honduras, contain just about the only references to the coup of June 28, 2009 and the subsequent human rights violations that continue through the present. Paragraph 8 notes that Porfirio Lobo Sosa has complied with the terms of the Guaymuras Accords. Paragraph 9 identifies the official truth commission and its mission statement. Paragraph 12 lumps all human rights violations, from any time period, together and notes that investigations are either ongoing, or the cases have been determined to be common crimes.

Paragraphs 14-37 discuss political and civil rights, including the right to life, integrity of person, eradication of torture, prisons, access to justice, and freedom of expression.

Paragraphs 38-74 are concerned with economic and social rights, such as health, education, culture, ethnic groups, work, housing, and food.

Paragraphs 75-125 are concerned with the rights of vulnerable groups, such as some ethnic minorities, women, children, migrants, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered people, the old, disabled, and the right of everyone to a healthy environment.

The remaining paragraphs contain the report's conclusions.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNOHCR) conducted its own review on each of the above topics over the last year. For example, there is a report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, another Special Rapporteur's report on extrajudicial killings, another on the independence of judges, and so forth. Each of these reports presents the UN's own take on the topic in question, and was available to the government of Honduras in crafting its own report. In addition, collectively the reports are summarized in a UN document included in the paperwork of the UPR for Honduras.

The UN paperwork notes that sixteen stakeholders submitted comments on the report, and provides a 14 page summary of those comments. You'll need to read Spanish, English, and French to take in the whole document, since not everything has been translated. The ten page Amnesty International submission from April, 2010 is located here on the UN website. Article 19, a group interested in freedom of the press, published their comment on their own website, located here. The other comments are probably filed in the same document archive as the Amnesty report, but I did not take the time to locate them.

Finally, there are a series of questions that the countries that make up the Human Rights Council have compiled. The countries who submitted questions include the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland. Their questions primarily focus on human rights violations arising out of the events of June 28, 2009, the de facto regime, and that of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.

A group of three representatives from the Human Rights Council, representatives of Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation, will compile a summary of the discussion and a series of recommendations for Honduras after the meeting. Honduras will then have a chance to respond to this document, and then it will be adopted in a subsequent meeting.

Honduras will be represented in the hearing by several cabinet ministers and presidential advisers, including Maria Antonietta Guillén, Áfrico Madrid, and Ana Pineda. Also representing Honduras will be the head of the legislative committee concerned with human rights, Orle Solis, and the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights, Sandra Ponce. The hearing will last 3 hours on the morning of November 4.

The UN may broadcast a webcast of the hearing. Currently only webcasts for November 1 are listed. Technical note, the webcast requires Real Player be installed.

Who's in Charge (and what are they doing)?

On June 14, Honduras' El Heraldo newspaper reported concerns about the informality of the arrangements for continuity in the executive branch of government while Porfirio Lobo Sosa is away in South Africa watching the World Cup.

El Heraldo reported that according to "lawyer and political analyst" Raúl Pineda, there should have been a formal written document naming the designate in charge. The media had been unable to get confirmation of whether any such document was written. Presidential designate Maria Antonieta Guillén de Bogran was quoted as saying that she was "fulfilling the responsibilities of the administration of the Executive power" in coordination with Víctor Hugo Barnica.

But her reassurances were not enough for the media and, reportedly, the general public. So, on June 16 El Heraldo reported the release of the text of an official statement saying Barnica was the official designate, a statement that La Tribuna printed.

The original article in El Heraldo includes a sentence that seems like a non sequitur, stating that Raúl Pineda also said

that the minister of Governance, Áfrico Madrid, shouldn't be left in command either because that is why the three presidential designates were elected.

But this goes to the heart of why the press, if not the general public, have been concerned: Madrid appears to have taken advantage of the vacuum in authority, building on his constitutional role as chair of the cabinet to push through new policy that Honduran sources questionable.

As described by Radio America, last Tuesday the council of ministers led by Madrid passed a decree "that approves the construction of various dams in Honduras, responding to a priority and to take advantage of the water resource in the country". Madrid is quoted as saying

"The exploitation of water is part, together with production, the export of bananas, coffee, shrimp and wood, it is one more of the fundamental pillars and the State is going to be obliged to simplify the administrative procedures so that the people or the State itself can invest in the construction of dams of different sizes in all the [national] territory".

So what's up here? Simplifying paperwork must be good for everyone, right? after all, as Radio America reminded readers, there have been repeated shortages of water in the capital city.

But dams are not primarily about providing municipal water. They are means to control the distribution of water for agriculture; and mechanisms for production of electrical power, today an international commodity, through hydroelectric plants. And so, they are in essence profit opportunities for private enterprise, if the burden of regulation is not too onerous. Opportunities to exploit national resources for private gain. Minister Madrid's announcement of the new decree, as reported by La Tribuna, emphasized that the new decree would authorize dams for the "capture of potable water, irrigation, energy generation and the control of flooding".

In another Heraldo article article, Madrid is quoted as saying

"In Honduras there are millions of cubic meters of water that are thrown out in the sea every year and that we don't use the water represents money, represents life and social development."

What is at issue in the building of public works like dams that can benefit private enterprise was amply illustrated by the concurrent debate in Congress about a contract for 250 megawatts of "renewable energy" that, El Tiempo notes, sparked a wave of accusations and counter-accusations:

The ex-representative of the Consejo Hondureño de la Empresa Privada (COHEP)in the governing committtee of the Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica (ENEE), Jesús Simón, said that the renewable energy businessmen enjoy an excess of incentives and that the contracts will be granted almost in perpetuity, since they will have the concession of the rivers for 50 years.

At the same time, he questioned that the prices will be above the economic variables that the energy market would set....

Those opposed to these contracts also questioned why in the process of contracting the energy the marginal price that the Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (SERNA) sets in January every year was not taken into account.

Water use is one of the emerging global issues where economic disadvantages are being created or deepened. For a new "priority" on water projects to be set by the Honduran government in the absence of the supposed head of state, in order to streamline some undefined "procedures", raises concerns about creating fewer opportunities for advocates for a public good to ask questions like those debated in Congress this week. And more: it raises the ever present question, who will profit from the proposed dams?

Accept No Substitutes: On Acting Presidents and Potential Coups

In the same interview given before he left for South Africa and the World Cup match, where Porfirio Lobo Sosa complained that the Public Prosecutor wasn't doing his job because he has not initiated an investigation of those plotting another coup, there was another exchange that on the face of it seemed somewhat puzzling:

The leader took as a joke the question of who would remain at the head of the country and he responded "the Honduran people" and when he was asked to whom would be delegated the duties [of President] he said no one; "the People will stay as president".

In the face of insistence he stated that no one wanted to stay because they were afraid that if they signed anything it would disqualify them politically.

What on earth does this mean? and more important, what does it tell us about the current state of affairs in Honduras' national governance?

Honduras doesn't have a Vice President, so when the President of Honduras leaves the country, he must appoint one of the three Presidential designados as acting head of government in order to leave.

There are three designados in the Lobo Sosa administration: María Antonieta Guillén de Bográn, Samuel Reyes, and Víctor Hugo Barnica. All three are National party members and were part of the team elected with Lobo Sosa in November 2009.

Each serves as a Presidential Minister, assigned tasks in Lobo Sosa's cabinet. They are supposed to be available to be "designated" as acting chief executive officer. When Lobo Sosa traveled to Colombia and Peru recently, he appointed María Antonieta Guillén de Bográn to head the government in his absence.

Lobo Sosa initially hoped to spend nine days out of the country on this trip to South Africa for the World Cup. However, he told the Foro Nacional de Jóvenes Líderes Rurales none of the designados is willing to be named in his absence, even though that's what they were elected for.

Samuel Reyes is reportedly accompanying him on the present trip, and thus unavailable to serve. A story in El Heraldo quoted Guillén de Bogran as saying she and Víctor Hugo Barnica will share the responsibility. The same article suggested that the concern of the designados was not to sign anything in the capacity of president, to avoid having formally been president and thus ineligible to run in a future election.

Reporting of Lobo Sosa's remarks in La Prensa omitted his comment about the designados not wanting to sign anything, stressing the "no one wants to remain" part of the quote, making it seem as if the issue was that all the designates wanted to go to the World Cup. This account seems disingenuous, ignoring all exchanges about rumors of a coup plot.

The equally pro-coup paper, La Tribuna, reported the same interview as a transcript of questions and answers. These show quite clearly that the reference to who would remain in charge led directly to a discussion of the threats of a coup, which would be a very difficult situation for a designado to find him- or her-self in.

Let's end with that series of exchanges and let them tell their own story:

Journalist: Who's going to remain at the head of the country?
President: At the head? ah... the Honduran people.

Journalist: But to whom will you delegate your duties?
President: No, the people will remain as President.

Journalist: And in the Executive [power]?
President: We'll see, we have three designados.

Journalist: So have you convinced them?
President: Well, remember and you have to understand that there exists a certain fear that is natural, since as they say, if they sign anything, then, they will be disqualified, but we are not going to leave anyone there.

Journalist: Or might they have political aspirations?
President: It could be in the present or it could be in the future and I have nothing against that.

Journalist: Ambassador Rupérez said, that you had assured him that the threats that had been received were not real...
President: No, what I explained to them is that in the mind of many, things are easier than what they might think. So what I said to them is that they should not think that these intentions, thoughts or ideas, would have any result like they would expect, as those that expect in some manner, would start to wander, I assume that they had a lot of alcoholic drinks or something there.

Journalist: Is your denunciation serious, President?
President: Of course, everything that I do, apart from the joking around that we could have and the friendship that we could have, has the reality that what I say and what I have said is totally certain, I know who they are, but what I say is that the intentions that they have are not going to have any result.

Journalist: Have you given the names to the Prosecutor, President, has the prosecutor come to speak with you about this matter or has he still not come?
President: With the prosecutor, as always we have dialogues that are natural because remember that we share an agenda that is very important that is the theme of security. This is a theme that you have to see how it develops, but we are entirely on top of it.

Journalist: So you have not changed your story?
President: No, why should I?

Journalist: Because of what the Ambassador said?
President: The ambassador was referring to... I didn't say to them that there were no intentions, that there is a group that has met and that has intentions, but that this group is going to have the result that they expected, forget it, as they say you can have someone who wants to do something, but from wanting to being able to make it so, that is like from here to Pluto.

Journalist: When will you release the names of them? they have to be unmasked, President.
President: They only are going to flee.

Journalist: It doesn't scare you?
President: Me? how should it frighten me?

Journalist: Are there military in these threats?
President: No sir.

Journalist: Have they called you from the Prosecutor's office to take your declaration?
President: No, today I spoke with the Prosecutor, with two prosecutors more about the theme of Channel 8 that they want to take away from the State.

Journalist: Or that is, they still have not taken a declaration about your denunciation?
President: I assume that the Prosecutor began, I assume actions since it has been written about in the media, some writers have denounced this.

Journalist: In the Prosecutor's officer they say that you should make a denunciation.
President: They have to do it.

Journalist: No, they want you to come and make a complaint.
President: That is a duty of the Prosecutor, when anything is mentioned that touches on what might be a violation of the Constitution of the Republic, to call that person immediately and say, come here, what are you saying...

Journalist: You're not going to give us the names?
President: At an opportune moment.

Journalist: You say that it is a tutti-frutti that we have here, from what sector do they pertain?
President: There are Nationalists, Liberals, there's everything.

Journalist: Are there businessmen as well?
President: There are businessmen, Nationalists, Liberals...

Journalist: From the UD?
President: From the UD, no.

********

Periodista: ¿Quién va a quedar al frente del país?
Presidente: ¿Al frente?, ah…el pueblo hondureño.

Periodista: ¿Pero a quién delega sus funciones?
Presidente: No, es que queda el pueblo de Presidente.

Periodista: ¿En el Ejecutivo?
Presidente: Vamos a ver, tenemos tres designados.

Periodista: ¿Ya los convenció?
Presidente: Bueno, es que recuerde y hay que entender que existe un cierto temor que es natural, pues como dicen, si firman algo, entonces, se inhabilitan, pero no vamos a dejar a alguien ahí.

Periodista: ¿O sea que tienen aspiraciones políticas?
Presidente: Puede ser de presente o puede ser de futuro y yo no tengo nada en contra de eso.

Periodista: Dijo el embajador Rupérez, que usted les había asegurado que no eran reales las amenazas que había recibido….
Presidente: No, es que yo les explicaba a ellos que en la mente de muchos las cosas son más fáciles de lo que se puede pensar. Entonces lo que les decía es que no deberían pensar que estas intenciones, pensamientos o ideas, tuviesen ningún resultado como el que ellos esperaban, como los que esperaban de algún manera, se ponen a divagar, asumo yo que hay mucha bebida alcohólica o algo por ahí.

Periodista: ¿Su denuncia es seria, Presidente?
Presidente: Claro, todo lo que yo hago, aparte de lo jocoso que podamos ser y la amistad que podamos tener, tiene la realidad de lo que yo digo y lo que yo he dicho es totalmente cierto, sé quiénes son, pero lo que digo es que no van a tener ningún resultado las intenciones que tienen.

Periodista: ¿Ya le dio los nombres a la Fiscalía, Presidente, ya llegó el fiscal a platicar con usted sobre este asunto o todavía no ha venido?
Presidente: Con el fiscal, como siempre tenemos diálogos que son naturales porque recuerde que compartimos una agenda que es muy importante que es el tema de la seguridad. Este es un tema que hay que ver cómo se van desarrollando, pero estamos todos encima de esto.

Periodista: ¿De manera que usted no ha cambiado su versión?
Presidente: No ¿y por qué?

Periodista: ¿Por lo que dijo el embajador?
Presidente: Es que el embajador se refirió… yo no les dije que no habían intenciones, que había un grupo que se ha reunido y que hay intenciones, pero que ese grupo va a tener un resultado como ellos esperan, olvídese, como dice aquel puede haber alguien que quiere hacer tal cosa, pero de que quiera a que pueda lograr concretarlo, eso está como de aquí a Plutón.

Periodista: ¿Cuándo vamos a conocer los nombres de ellos?, hay que irlos desenmascarando, Presidente.
Presidente: Ellos solos van a ir saliendo.

Periodista: ¿No lo atemoriza?
Presidente: ¿A mí, en que me va a atemorizar?

Periodista: ¿Hay militares en esas amenazas?
Presidente: No señor

Periodista: ¿Ya lo llamaron de la Fiscalía para tomarle la declaración?
Presidente: No, hoy hable con la Fiscalía, con dos fiscales más sobre el tema del canal que le quieren quitar al Estado.

Periodista: ¿O sea que todavía no le toman declaración sobre su denuncia?
Presidente: Yo asumo que la Fiscalía inició, asumió acciones desde que se ha estado escribiendo en los medios, algunos escritores han denunciado eso.

Periodista: En la Fiscalía dicen que usted debería poner la denuncia.
Presidente: Deberían hacerlo.

Periodista: No, ellos quieren que usted vaya a poner la denuncia.
Presidente: Es un deber de la Fiscalía, cuando se menciona algo que linda con lo que es violentar la Constitución de la República, llamar inmediatamente a esa persona y decirle, venga para acá, lo que usted está diciendo…

Periodista: ¿No les va a dar usted los nombres?
Presidente: En su momento oportuno.

Periodista: ¿Usted dice que un tuti-fruti el que hay acá, a qué sector pertenecen estos?
Presidente: Si hay nacionalistas, liberales, hay de todo.

Periodista: ¿Hay empresarios, también?
Presidente: Hay empresarios, hay nacionalistas, liberales…

Periodista: ¿De la UD?
Presidente: De la UD, no.

Devil in the Details: Honduras' Budget Proposal

Among the multitude of things that a new executive administration does, the one that best shows its priorities is its budget proposal. This week, we got to see the proposal by the administration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.

The bottom line: the budget proposes an increase of about 6.5% over 2009.

But this is not to say that every part of the budget is treated equally. In fact, a number of government agencies will face declining budgets under the proposal.

Big losers in the proposed budget:

• the Fondo Hondureño de Inversión Social (FHIS), which would lose about 25% of its budget, affecting its mission of providing funding for social development projects;

• the Consejo Hondureño de Ciencia y Tecnología appears to face a budget more than 95% reduced from 2009, perhaps indicating that in Honduras as in the US, right wing governments think science and technology are best left to the private sector; meanwhile, the Direccion de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria would lose more than 50% of its 2009 funding, presumably indicating that the application of science and technology to farming and animal husbandry is something recognized as usefully done by government;

• the Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal will experience about a 13% decline, presumably not good for its mission of encouraging forest ecosystem preservation and development;

• the Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones will see its budget decline by 30%, presumably because telecommunications has ceased to be a corrupt part of Honduran commerce;

• the Registro Nacional de las Personas, responsible for the voter rolls that were so contested in November 2009, would be reduced by 17%; the Tribunal Supremo Electoral would have its budget cut in half, perhaps in tribute to its role in the "success" of the November 2009 election;

• smaller but still significant decreases were proposed for the Judicial branch; Instituto de la Propiedad; Empresa Nacional de Artes Gráficas (responsible for printing La Gaceta-- twice in the case of the Nacaome dam scandal); the Fondo Víal; and the Comisión Nacional de Energía.

Within the executive branch, the proposed budget makes several dramatic adjustments, which cumulatively give a sense of what cabinet offices are likely to have the resources they need to carry out existing programs or implement new ones. Juxtaposing these changes reveals troubling policy directions.

Remaining close to the same level: the Secretaría de Gobernación y Justicia.

Meanwhile, the Secretaría de Despacho Presidencial, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Secretaría de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, all are slated for budget decreases. The Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería will see a 15% decline in its budget.

While the Secretaría Técnica y de Cooperación Internacional would see its budget decline by more than 95%, a newly established Secretaría Técnica y de Planificación y Cooperación Externa, with a budget of 371,150,742 lempiras, would increase funding in this area five-fold. A Secretaría de Desarrollo Social y Red Solidaria which had no budget in 2008 would see an increase from 54,658,900 lempiras in 2009 to 532,289,371 lempiras in 2010.

Going up modestly are the budgets for the Secretaría de Educación; Secretaría de Salud; Secretaría de Seguridad; and Secretaría de Finanzas.

Most striking are a few ministries with greatly increased proposed resources. First among these is the Secretaría de Defensa Nacional, which oversees the Armed Forces, and will do so with 23% more budgetary resources if Lobo Sosa's budget is approved. The Secretaría de Industria y Comercio will see a 15% increase in budget to allow it to promote the interests of the business community.

One dramatic juxtaposition will give an example of the implications of such increases and decreases.

On the one hand, the Secretaría de Cultura, Artes y Deportes (Ministry of Culture) would see its budget decline 9% (to 244,354,800 lempiras), while the Secretaría de Turismo would see an increase of almost 50% in its budget (to 333,987,604 lempiras). Readers of our coverage of the Ministry in Culture's mismanagement under the de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti will recall that the woefully inadequate appointee to that ministry, Myrna Castro, was confused about the respective roles of these ministries, criticizing the head of the Institute of Anthropology and History for declining tourism as if tourist development were the role of the Ministry of Culture. At least the Lobo Sosa administration appears to understand where to put its money if it wants to increase tourism, without ensuring professional research and education about national culture.

As part of its process of deliberation, Congress also received a delegation of cabinet-level officials charged with economic affairs who were charged to explain the need for a "paquetazo" of special economic measures. As reported in El Heraldo, the president of the Banco Central de Honduras, María Elena Mondragón, Minister of the Presidency María Antonieta de Bográn, and Secretary of Finance William Chong Wong, explained that

Honduras is bankrupt and that the coffers of the State have a 17,000 million lempira deficit, as well as a floating debt around 33 million lempiras.

Such a deficit is precisely what we projected based on the rate at which the de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti burned through Honduran funds to avoid coming to terms with international disapproval of the coup d'etat. Now there's a price tag on the coup, if anyone cares to notice.

How Not To Do A Truth Commission

President Porfirio Lobo Sosa appointed former Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein to organize the truth commission called for in the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord on Thursday. The commission will be aided in its work by officials from the OAS, who will provide technical support but not be members of the commission. As we have noted previously, this truth commission is not the result of a desire by the Honduran parties to the political crisis to discover truth, but rather is a condition imposed on the Honduran government through international pressure, especially from the United States, as part of the Teguicalpa-San Jose Accord.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a 46 page guide to outline the basic principles and approaches to truth commissions. This guide identifies three critical elements that should be present if a country is about to implement a truth commission. First, there must be the political will to allow and encourage a serious inquiry into past abuses. The violent and repressive processes must have stopped. Finally, there must be an interest on the part of the victims and witnesses to past abuses to have an investigation take place and to cooperate with it.

Clearly Honduras already has a problem. There is no "will" in the current government to carry out a "serious inquiry into past abuses". Left to his own devices it is likely that Porfirio Lobo would not be forming a truth commission, as he and the rest of the political elite have emphasized their desire to "move on" through elections and the replacement of the de facto regime, and have moved legislatively to insulate those responsible for the coup from prosecution. It is only the pressure of the United States in making it a requirement for full normalization of relations and the resumption of critically needed international aid that is bringing about Honduran participation in a truth commission.

The illegitimate government of Roberto Micheletti and its Human Rights commissioner, Ramon Custodio, couldn't even bring themselves to recognize that there were human rights abuses being committed even as the international community was telling them all about it. Porfirio Lobo has not said one word about human rights either before or since his election. Will it be part of the truth commission's mandate? I doubt it.

Maria Antonieta de Bogran, one of the three presidential designates for the current Honduran administration, has emphasized that the purpose of the truth commission will be to look at the events before the 28th of June that led up to what happened on that day. Thus, a pro-coup agenda expressed throughout the months by Roberto Micheletti and his faction, the claim that if people just listened to them events before June 28 would be found to have justified the coup, is what the truth commission is being prepared to pursue.

The second critical element defined by the UN has not been met in Honduras either. The violent repressive processes have not stopped. As recently as last Tuesday, two cameramen for Globo TV were kidnapped and tortured by people they identified as plain clothes police who asked them where the money and arms were from the "cuarta urna" campaign. On January 27, 2010, Reporters Without Borders published a report on press freedoms in Honduras since June 28, 2009 which called for the new government to stop the existing practices limiting freedom of the press and threats on journalists. It called on the national Congress to adopt new laws that would promote the diversity, independence,and pluralism in the existing press.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says a truth commission should be established through a process of consultation and a careful consideration of its mandate. The consultation process increases public understanding of what the truth commission is, and strengthening its mandate through public input gives it the public perception of legitimacy. Consultation should include both victimized communities and civil society organizations.

Maria Antonieta de Bogran said that "President Porfirio Lobo has clearly said that this is a situation that he will honor, that we Hondurans are the ones who have to plan, meet, and organize the reach and the method by which we will form and operate this commission."

Notice, however, that to date there has been no mention of public consultation within Honduras about the truth commission or what its mandate will be. Instead, an ad hoc organizing committee, with the support of OAS technicians, is defining the mandate, and recommending the commissioners.

This procedure increases the perception, publicly voiced by the Frente de Resistencia today, that the truth commission is intended to simply whitewash the coup. Porfirio Lobo has chosen to exclude some sectors of civil society, such as the Frente de Resistencia, from all of his "consultation", and thus, cannot, through the processes he has set in motion, reduce social polarization, or assure the perception of the legitimacy of this truth commission.

By not following the guidelines and "best practices" suggested by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, the Lobo administration has set up conditions so that the truth commission, which was intended, according to the wording of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, to promote a national consensus, has already failed.