Staff Profiles

Teaching interest:

Human rights; refugees and forced migration; research methods in human rights.

Modules taught

DEVP7001 Human Rights and Governance

DEVP7007 The Refugee Experience

DEVP7001 Independent Study

DEVP7017 Practice-based Study/Dissertation

Supervision

Dr Zoë Jordan, "Everyday humanitarians: the act of refugee hosting in protracted urban displacement in Amman, Jordan," PhD thesis completed 2020.

Research interest and consultancy expertise:

National human rights institutions; prevention of torture; human rights of refugees; legal aid; freedom of expression.

Research group membership

Migration and refugees

Research projects

• The legal assistance work of national human rights institutions, GIZ, 2020-21
• Impact and effectiveness of the Georgian National Preventive Mechanism, Open Society, 2019
• Legal aid accessibility in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Ukraine, UNDP, 2019
• History of the International Ombudsman Institute 2016-18
• Effectiveness of torture prevention methods, APT 2011-16
• Devising a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of Ombudsman institutions in Central and Eastern Europe, UNDP 2013.
• Devising a media monitoring methodology for the broadcasting regulator, Moldova, Council of Europe, 2010
• Rationalization of the Croatian human rights protection system, UNDP, 2009-10
• Litigation strategy on counter-terrorism, human rights and the rule of law, Open Society Justice Initiative, 2009
• Strategic and communications planning, training curriculum, UNDP, 2008
• Eminent Jurists' Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, 2007-9
• Talking about Terrorism: Risks and Choices for Human Rights Organizations, International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2007-8
• Evaluation tools for Ombudsman institutions in the former Soviet Union, UNDP, 2007>
• Prevention of Torture, training curriculum, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights/Association for the Prevention of Torture/Fahamu, 2006
• Media and Elections, Administration and Cost of Elections Project (www.aceproject.org) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2006

Research impact

Dr Carver's research, with Dr Lisa Handley (visiting research academic at Oxford Brookes), has had a dramatic impact on priorities in the prevention of torture. The research was published in 2016 in the book Does Torture Prevention Work?

Richard has been formal adviser to two international anti-torture organizations who have revised their strategic plans in light of these findings: DIGNITY, the Danish Institute Against Torture, and the Association for the Prevention of Torture (Geneva). He was in close consultation with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in his development of a proposed international protocol to regulate police interviewing of suspects, as well as with the two UN committees working against torture, and the corresponding Council of Europe body. The chairpersons of both the UN Committee Against Torture and the UN Subcommittee for Prevention of Torture have cited the research in their reports to the UN General Assembly. The research has also been publicly cited by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The former deputy chairperson of the UN Sub-committee for Prevention of Torture describes the research as evidence for a new international legal norm on the protection of the rights of detainees upon arrest.

The research has been seen by practitioners as innovative in its focus, asking a question that had never really been addressed, its methodology, applying sophisticated statistical techniques rarely seen in human rights research, and its findings, which emphasise the overriding importance of practical safeguards for persons first taken into police custody. The influence on decision-makers has been fostered through constant contact, dialogue and practical advice.

Reviews of Does Torture Prevention Work?

“…this book will represent a key source of knowledge in the field of torture prevention and be a valued handbook on torture prevention for many years to come.” (Torture journal)

“This book is important because it is the first evidence-based feedback on the many efforts of national and international actors in the field of torture prevention. The findings of the research can provide concrete and actionable material for those who work in the field of torture prevention, enabling them to focus on and invest in what works rather than only going along with a formatted response…” (International Review of the Red Cross)

“Carver and Handley's work stands as a massive contribution to the field of human rights…” (Canadian Journal of Human Rights)

Books

• Carver R, A Mission for Justice: The International Ombudsman Institute, 1978-2018, Verlag Österreich (2018)
  ISBN: 978370467966
  
• Carver R, Handley L, Does torture prevention work?, Liverpool University Press (2016)
  ISBN: 9781781383308
  Abstract In the past three decades, international and regional human rights bodies have developed an ever-lengthening list of measures that states are required to adopt in order to prevent torture. But do any of these mechanisms actually work? This study is the first systematic analysis of the effectiveness of torture prevention. Primary research was conducted in 16 countries, looking at their experience of torture and prevention mechanisms over a 30-year period. Data was analysed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Prevention measures do work, although some are much more effective than others. Most important of all are the safeguards that should be applied in the first hours and days after a person is taken into custody. Notification of family and access to an independent lawyer and doctor have a significant impact in reducing torture. The investigation and prosecution of torturers and the creation of independent monitoring bodies are also important in reducing torture. An important caveat to the conclusion that prevention works is that is actual practice in police stations and detention centres that matters – not treaties ratified or laws on the statute book.Website 
• Carver R, Freedom of Expression, Media Law and Defamation, Media Legal Defence Initiative and International Press Institute (2015)
  

Journal articles

• Carver R, Handley L, 'Evaluating national preventive mechanisms: a conceptual model'
  Journal of Human Rights Practice 12 (2) (2020) pp.387-408
  ISSN: 1757-9619 eISSN: 1757-9627
  Abstract

  This article outlines a rigorous and systematic approach to evaluating both the performance and impact of national preventive mechanisms (NPMs) formed under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Many human rights practitioners remain sceptical about both the desirability and feasibility of evaluating human rights work. One obstacle has been that ‘indicators’ of human rights progress are formulated without evidence that they actually have a causal relationship to the intended outcome. By contrast, the tools used in this assessment model are derived from scientific research into what forms of torture prevention actually work, meaning that greater weight can be assigned to more effective activities (and vice versa).
  

  The model is piloted in an assessment of the performance and impact of the Georgian NPM, which in ten years of work is shown to have had a significant impact in reducing the incidence of torture and other ill-treatment, particularly in police detention and prisons.

  Website 
• Carver R, 'Human Rights Practice in the Age of Pandemic'
  Journal of Human Rights Practice 12 (2) (2020) pp.247-249
  ISSN: 1757-9619 eISSN: 1757-9627
  Website 
• Carver R, 'Refugees and national human rights institutions: a growing engagement'
  Journal of Human Rights Practice 9 (2) (2017) pp.216-222
  ISSN: 1757-9619
  Abstract In recent years national human rights institutions have begun to bridge the long-standing gap between practice in the refugee and human rights fields. Often using their mandate as national preventive mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, NHRIs visit refugees in detention as well as in other types of camp. This has been particularly marked among Balkan ombudsman institutions in their response to the recent mass influx of refugees.Website 
• Carver R, 'One NHRI or many? How many institutions does it take to protect human rights? ' Lessons from the European experience'
  Journal of Human Rights Practice 3 (1) (2011) pp.1-24
  ISSN: 1757-9619
  Abstract The question of whether to establish a single national human rights institution (NHRI) with a broad mandate or multiple specialized institutions is a pressing one in several European countries, yet has been largely neglected in the academic literature. Many states have gradually acquired specialized institutions, addressing particular grounds of discrimination or the rights of different vulnerable groups. Often for reasons of cost, the wisdom of having many institutions is being questioned, and several countries - the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Croatia, for example - have merged multiple institutions or are considering such a step. International and European human rights standards provide little guidance on the choice between single and multiple institutions, meaning that the decision is essentially a pragmatic one. On several grounds a single NHRI is likely to prove more able to protect and promote the rights of vulnerable groups. It will provide a unified legal framework, be cost-effective, be readily accessible to those who need to use it, and present a clear profile to the public and to the authorities. Advocates of multiple institutions correctly point to the need for human rights bodies that are sensitive to the particular needs of different vulnerable groups and politically and culturally accessible. Yet the reality is that not all vulnerable groups can benefit from such separate institutions and the economies provided by a single institution with a broad mandate will provide the best service, provided that they come with inbuilt guarantees of attention to the interests of all groups.Website 
• Carver R, 'Is there a human right to shelter after disaster?'
  Environmental Hazards 10 (3-4) (2011) pp.232-247
  ISSN: 1747-7891
  Abstract There is understandable scepticism about the introduction of human rights language into disaster response. In contrast to the use of rights-based approaches to development programming, there has been relatively little attempt to use human rights as a normative or policy framework for the provision of shelter after disaster. Human rights standards contain a highly developed definition of the right to adequate housing, yet in its fullest iteration this is not of particular relevance for immediate post-disaster action. However, the seven elements in the human rights definition of adequate housing become highly pertinent in the transition from disaster response to longer-term reconstruction and development. The most important contribution of human rights to shelter after disaster, however, may lie elsewhere. Broader human rights norms stress the importance of equality and non-discrimination in the provision of shelter and highlight the danger of making trade-offs between shelter rights and other rights, such as freedom of movement or access to livelihoods. `Human rights-based approaches to programming' have a tendency to overstate the contribution of human rights in these contexts, often failing to grasp that the prism of rights is not the only approach to all human problems, or always the most useful. Yet, a rights-based approach that is firmly anchored in internationally agreed standards can be an invaluable way of returning the issue of state obligations in relation to adequate housing to the centre of the debate.Website 
• Carver R, 'A new answer to an old question: national human rights institutions and the domestication of international law'
  Human Rights Law Review 10 (1) (2010) pp.1-32
  ISSN: 1461-7781
  Abstract

  National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are routinely described as a bridge between the international and domestic systems of human rights protection. But little attention has been paid to how NHRIs actually apply treaty standards at the national level. This article argues that recent innovations in human rights treaties-”whereby national-level institutions are assigned an explicit role in treaty implementation-”crystallise developments in the practice of NHRIs and treaty bodies over the past 15 years or so. NHRIs invoke international standards in their monitoring and case-handling, they audit legislation for compliance with international law and, after an initial period of unclarity, they have become increasingly involved in independent reporting to treaty monitoring bodies. An analysis of 69 founding statutes of NHRIs shows a growing trend to assign these institutions mandates derived from international standards. Despite some marginal differences in the practice of NHRIs in"monist" and"dualist" jurisdictions, traditional doctrinal distinctions in the incorporation of international law appear to have little impact on the role that these institutions play.

  Website 

Book chapters

• Carver R, Handley L, 'Effective torture prevention' in Malcolm D. Evans, Jens Modvig (ed.), Research Handbook on Torture: Legal and Medical Perspectives on Prohibition and Prevention, Edward Elgar (2020)
  ISBN: 9781788113953 eISBN: 9781788113960
  Abstract

  A four-year multi-country study aimed to determine whether the torture prevention methods had a positive impact in reducing the incidence of torture. The research also aimed to determine if some torture prevention methods contained in international human rights instruments or routinely advocated by human rights bodies were more effective than others. Based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, it was concluded that torture prevention was broadly effective, provided that the prescribed measures were implemented in practice, not merely enacted in law. One preventive approach was found to have significantly more impact than others: safeguards applied in the first hours and days after arrest, including notification of a third party, access to a lawyer, and the right to a medical examination. The investigation and prosecution of torturers and the existence of independent monitoring mechanisms were also found to be useful, but ombudsman-style complaints mechanisms had no discernible preventive impact.
  

  Website 
• Carver, R, 'National human rights institutions, displacement and human security' in Noortmann M, Ryngaert C (ed.), Human Security and International Law: The Challenge of Non-State Actors, Intersentia (2013)
  ISBN: 9781780682006
  
• Carver R, 'Central and Eastern Europe: the Ombudsman as agent of international law' in Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives on National Human Rights Institutions, State Compliance and Social Change, Cambridge University Press (2011)
  
• Carver R, 'National human rights institutions in central and eastern Europe: the ombudsman as agent of international law ' in Human rights, state compliance, and social change: Assessing national human rights institutions, Cambridge University Press (2011)
  ISBN: 9780521150170
  

Other publications

• Carver R, Ilikchiieva K, Shulha O, 'Legal Aid in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts: Assessment of the accessibility of the free legal aid provision system in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts'
  

  Multi-method assessment of the accessibility of legal aid in the conflict-affected areas of Eastern Ukraine
  

  (2020) Abstract

  The report contains the findings of a study aimed at assessing the accessibility of Ukraine’s free legal aid system in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.

  The study focuses on examining the provision of legal aid to all citizens who require it, as well as the quality of the legal aid provided, by both staff of the correspondent institutions and contracted private lawyers.

  In addition, the study examined the adaptability of the system to new challenges, and provided a set of recommendations for the further development of the legal aid system in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.

  Website 
• Carver R, Handley L, 'Does the Georgian NPM work? An assessment of 10 years of torture prevention'
  

  Evaluation report on the performance of Georgia's national preventive mechanism, created under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
  

  (2019) Abstract

  In the past 15 years, the creation of national monitoring mechanisms has been the most widespread advance in protecting people deprived of their liberty from torture and ill-treatment. Bodies that make monitoring visits to prisons are not new, but they have been extensively promoted through the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – the OPCAT. This treaty came into force in 2006 and Georgia was one of the first states to create the required national preventive mechanism (NPM), in 2009. 

  This year, 2019, marks the tenth anniversary of the creation of Georgia’s NPM, which is a suitable moment to reflect on the achievements of this institution. We were asked to conduct this assessment on the strength of our multi-country study, Does Torture Prevention Work?, published in 2016.[1]  In that research, which included Georgia among the 16 country case studies,[2]  we concluded that the most important preventive measures against torture were effective safeguards in practice when persons are first taken into detention.
  Criminalization, investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment was also very important. The work of independent monitoring bodies also had a discernible positive impact – and this is particularly true in Georgia. So, while we concluded that monitoring bodies such as NPMs were not the most impactful mechanism for preventing torture, they are nevertheless an important part of the overall architecture of torture prevention. Indeed, it may be that they can play a significant role in encouraging states to provide more effective protection when people are first deprived of liberty – through access to a lawyer, medical examinations, and family notification among other steps – as well as advocating the more thorough and efficacious investigation and prosecution of torturers. This study of the Georgian NPM is an opportunity to look further into these questions.[3]

  In order to conduct this research, we used two assessment tools developed out of previous research projects. One, derived from our multi-country study, measures the state of a country’s preventive mechanisms across detention safeguards, prosecution, monitoring, and non-judicial complaints bodies. It considers both the legal framework and actual practice in each of these four sets of preventive mechanisms. The other, derived from
  work for the United Nations Development Programme, is a tool for determining an NPM’s compliance with the Paris Principles.[4]  We devised a conceptual model that links together the capacity of the NPM to do its work and its actual work product with the short-term and long-term impact of the institution on torture reduction in Georgia. Our evaluation model relies in part on these assessment tools to explain the effectiveness of the NPM. 

  For reasons of time, we focused only on three types of institutions that fall within the remit of the NPM: police stations and temporary detention isolators; and psychiatric hospitals.[5]

  [1] Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press),
  2016. The research for this original project was funded by the Association for the Prevention of Torture.

  [2] The researchers who wrote that chapter were Bakar Jikia and Moris Shalikashvili. We are very grateful to
  them for work that provided the foundation for this further study.

  [3] We are grateful to the Open Society Georgia Foundation for their financial support for this research; to the
  staff of the NPM for their patient responses to our inquiries; and to all those who agreed to be interviewed.

  [4] Principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of
  human rights (endorsed by UN Commission for Human Rights Res 1992/54 and UNGA Res A/RES/48/134 20
  December 1993).

  [5] The data that we needed to arrive at scores for these assessment tools was gathered in three ways. First, it rested in part on the research conducted in our earlier project. Secondly, it was based on documentary research, including NPM reports, legal texts, and reports of other organizations – national, regional, and international. Thirdly, we conducted a two-week mission to Georgia in August 2019, visiting Tbilisi, Kutaisi, and Batumi, where we conducted more than 20 interviews with people from the NPM and PDO, governmental authorities, and civil society.

  Website 
• Carver R, 'Training manual on international and comparative media and freedom of expression law'
  (2016) ISBN: 978-0-9935214-0-9
  Website 
• Carver R, Handley L, 'Evidence-based Indicators for Torture Protection'
  (2016)
• Carver R, 'Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu (Ombudsman Institution): A Capacity Assessment'
  (2015)
• Carver R, 'Ombudsman of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Capacity assessment'
  (2015)
• Carver R, 'Measuring the impact and development effectiveness of national human rights institutions: a proposed framework for evaluation'
  (2014)
• Carver R, 'National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh: Review of the compliance of the NHRC Act with the Paris Principles'
  (2013)
• Carver R, 'Report of mission to Ukraine, April 2012'
  (2012)
• Carver R, 'Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro: capacity assessment'
  (2012)
• Carver R, 'The EHRC and the implementation of international human rights law'
  (2011)
• Carver R, 'Torture, international law and the enigma of prevention'
  (2011)
• Carver R, 'Central Asian NHRIs and the Paris Principles: compliance in law and practice'
  (2011)
• Carver R, 'Protection of minors in Moldovan broadcasting: A report with proposals to the Consiliul Coordonator al Audiovizualului'
  (2011)
• Carver R, 'Evaluation Report: Preventing Torture through the Promotion of the UN Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol in Six Target Countries of Five World Regions'
  (2011) Website 
• Carver R, 'Protecting and promoting ESC rights: How many NHRIs are necessary?'
  (2010)
• Carver R, Dvornik S, Redžepagić D, 'Rationalization of the Croatian human rights protection system'
  (2010)
• Carver R, 'THE AUTHORIZED PERSON OF THE OLIY MAJLIS OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (OMBUDSMAN) AND UNDP SUPPORT'
  (2010)
• Mracka M, Carver R, 'Monitoring Moldovan broadcasters: Methods and Techniques'
  (2010)
• Carver R, 'Support to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives: Evaluator's report'
  (2009)
• Carver R, 'Recommendations for a Programme of Strategic Litigation on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights'
  (2009)
• Gercheva D, Hooper J, Pulatov R, Nylin L, Carver R, 'Capacity assessment: Croatian People's Ombudsman'
  (2008)
• Gossman P, Zard M, Archer R, Carver R, 'Talking about terrorism: risks and choices for human rights organizations'
  (2008) ISBN: 2-940259-79-8
  

Membership of professional bodies

Co-editor, Journal of Human Rights Practice (https://academic.oup.com/jhrp)

Adviser, Rights in Exile Programme (www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/)

Member, Global Advisory Board, Justice Travel (https://www.justice.travel/)

Conferences

Recent conference papers

“Political representation of small minorities and the international normative framework: lessons from India and other districted electoral systems,” (with Lisa Handley and Sam Ponniah), Addis Ababa Univeristy, March 2021

“National human rights institutions and detention safeguards,” Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, University of Vienna, February 2019

“Preventing torture through fair treatment in police custody” Hochschule Polizei Brandenburg, October 2018

“Does torture prevention work?” University College London/School of Oriental and African Studies, November 2017

“Does torture prevention work?” KU Leuven, February 2017

“Does torture prevention work?” University of Vienna, February 2017

“Does torture prevention work,” University of Oxford, interdisciplinary conference on torture, July 2016

“Is there a ‘right to truth’?” University of Ankara, Human Rights Summer School, September 2015.

“Following up the recommendations of National Preventive Mechanisms,” Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, University of Vienna, April 2015.

“Prevention of torture: a proposed research methodology,” Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, December 2012.

"Torture, international law and the enigma of prevention," Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanos (INDDHH) y la Implementación de las Recomendaciones del EPU Relacionadas a la Prevención de la Tortura, Universidad de Palermo, Buenos Aires, December 2011.

"NHRIs and humanitarian crises: before, during and after," Non-state actors and human security: revolt, relief and reconstruction, Oxford Brookes University, September 2011.

"The EHRC and the implementation of international human rights law," The Equality and Human Rights Commission of Great Britain: Challenges and Opportunities, School of Advanced Studies, University of London, June 2011.

"Protecting and promoting ESC rights: How many NHRIs are necessary?," EU-China Human Rights Seminar, Universidad Nacional de Educación Distancia, Madrid, June 2010.

Other experience

Formerly Head of Africa Programme, ARTICLE 19; Research Director, Human Rights Watch/Africa; Researcher, Amnesty International, International Secretariat.

Taught at University of Essex Summer School on human rights research methods, 2018- .