On Syria Death Toll Study OHCHR Explains Sole Source Selection of HRDAG: No Contract, Anonymous Funder UNknown?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- For the Syria death toll study released today, how did the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights select the San Francisco-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group, which receives its grants through a fiscal conduit, does not list a phone number on its website and is funded by an "anonymous US-based private foundation"?

  Inner City Press asked OHCHR, including in light of itsanswers in January about the first study by Benetech which listed the US National Endowment for Democracy among its funders. Quickly quickly, OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville has responded, comparing HRDAG to Benetech:

From: Rupert Colville [at] ohchr.org
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hi, Press Q on HRDAG, how selected, etc,
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

They are now a separate non-profit organization, and they very kindly agreed to do it pro bono this time round. Why we chose them is very simple and very obvious: they are one of the leading groups of experts in a very small, highly specialized, field. Some of their key people have more than 20 years' experience in doing this type of analysis of casualties in conflicts, and other human rights related data. They are also well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. They have also done work for truth and reconciliation commissions, and international and domestic criminal tribunals, among others.

When it comes to Syria, they now have very specialized capabilities indeed, given the large amount of input from a Syrian language expert into the technical efforts and computer programming designed to ensure there is no double counting, mistaking of names etc.

So the criteria for choosing HRDAG were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working with HRDAG have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work. Re funding: we do not have concerns about the fact that HRDAG has other sources of funding -- as you must be aware by now, that is totally normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

  But what about the anonymous US-based private foundation? And how does OHCHR memorialize any of this selection process if there is "no contract"? Is there at least a letter of some kind and can it be disclosed?

  Since without a contract or documented selection process etc the HRDAG report was put on the OHCHR's web site and is being described as a UN report, would you put up a study submitted by another (non-US-based) NGO? What would the process be? Does OHCHR know who the anonymous US-based donor paying for this work is? If so, will OHCHR disclose the identity? If not, why not? OHCHR has been asked. Watch this site.

UN's New Syria Fatality Report Is By SF-Based HRDAG, Spun Out of Benetech, Still with Anonymous US-based Funder

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Amid the slaughter in Syria, how does the UN count the dead? 

  Today's announcement of at least 93,000 dead, ascribed tothe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva but compiled by an California-based outside contractor (re) named the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, is worth looking at in terms of authorship.

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  A Patrick Ball of Benetech told Inner City Press there had been a Request for Proposals: that is, competition. But soon it emerged that there was no RFP"as such." Two other organizations were approached, but OHCHR would not name them. A strange procurement, to say the least.

  Now, the day before the vote at the Human Rights Council on a Syria resolution sponsored by the US, UK, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey, OHCHR released a new report -- this time, not "formally" by Benetech.

  But even a cursory check based off the first page of the new report finds that the same Patrick Ball who replied to Inner City Press in January for Benetech is the executive director of the "new" contractor Human Rights Data Analysis Group or HRDAG. He is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh.

  At the bottom of the report is the new disclosure: "Formally, HRDAG is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Partners."

  It's a generic name, Community Partners -- but a quick visits finds it to be a sort of conduit which lends its non-profit status to start up. HRDAG is not so much a start up as a spin off -- it is being spun off from Benetech. 

  The report says "In February 2013, HRDAG became an independent organization." Is that because of the exposure of Benetech's funding by the US National Endowment for Democracy? But what has changed?

  HRDAG has as one of three advisers an official from Human Rights Watch. Under Funding it portrays Western government's funding to Benetech as a thing of the past. But even in its present re-incarnation, HRDAG lists as a funder an "anonymous U.S.-based private foundation."

   On Community Partners' board of directors are people from Ameriprise Financial, Mattel and NBC, among others. So did the renamed HRDAG, spun out of US-funded Benetech, get another essentially sole source contract? Why is the UN so sloppy? Why can it not issue its own reports, given its budget? Watch this site.

At UN, Measuring Violence in Turkey, Syria, Bahrain & Sri Lanka Is Claimed To Be Value Judgment Free

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 12 -- Can studies of violence be produced that do not make value judgments about which side is to blame? At the UN on Wednesday, just that claim was made regarding the Global Peace Index of the Institute for Economics and Peace.

  Inner City Press asked the panelists, including one from The Economist Intelligence Unit, which casualty figures they used for Syria, and to explain their report's statement that "Bahrain continues to be affected by increasingly violent protests, largely from the country's Shia majority."

  Are the protests violent? Or do the authorities react violently to them? Inner City Press asked the same question about recent events in Turkey, in Taksim Square.

  Panelist Daniel Hyslop, Research Director of Institute for Economics and Peace, responded that the study is not pointing fingers or making value judgment. But isn't it? If one refers to violent protests, it justifies government crackdowns.

On Syria, Hyslop cited IISS and said the figure of 72,900 killed in 2012 was used. What about Benetech, the San Francisco-based, US National Endowment for Democracy funded, contractor given a sole source contract by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights?

  Inner City Press asked asked about Sri Lanka -- 40,000 killed or how many? -- but that question wasn't answered. Inner City Press asked about the relatively peaceful score assigned to Haiti, while the UN maintains the MINUSTAH mission there. (How deaths CAUSED by a "peacekeeping" mission, in Haiti by introduction of cholera are treated in this Index is another question.)

  Another panelist said Haiti had improved on such categories as terrorism -- really? -- and nuclear weapons. Well that's a plus. The study is thought provoking, but the implicit value judgments it makes, for example about Bahrain and prospectively about Turkey, need to be re-thought. Watch this site.

Footnote: this Global Peace Index press conference was competing with a Security Council meeting about Tribunals, and a session on Culture addressed by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

 Inner City Press thanked the panelists on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access -- the old UNCA was nowhere to be seen. Likewise when Ban Ki-moon passed the Security Council stakeout and graciously stopped for a word, the word was "table," as is, the need for a media worktable at the Security Council stakeout as existed before and during the Capital Master Plan relocation -- before Ban Ki-moon's tenure in fact.

The world, the Institute for Economics and Peace said Wednesday, is less peaceful now. And for now, the media have less access and less workspace at the Security Council. Watch this site.

On Syria, Al Nusra Not Mentioned in Al Qaeda Santions Speeck to UNSC, As Pillay Hires Benetech Again?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 10 -- With France showboating its desire to put the Al Nusra Front in Syria on the UN's Al Qaeda sanctions list, supposedly next week, there was a false note on Friday.

  In a Security Council session, when the chair of the Council's Al Qaeda sanctions committee Gary Quinlan of Australia spoke, at some length, he did not mention Al Nusra or even Syria at all.

  Why not, since Al Nusra's Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani pledged loyalty to Al-Qaeda? Did that come after the "closing date" for Quinlan's May 10 Security Council speech?

  Meanwhile, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has said a new report on the number of deaths in Syria should issue in the next two weeks. 

  The last report, as exposed by Inner City Press, was through a sole source / set-aside contract for $25,000 with Benetech, funded in part by the US government. This does not build credibility.

  Have the months since then been used to hold a legitimate competitive procurement? We'll see. Watch this site.

UN Protection of Civilians Goes Past 10 PM, From Drones to IDPs, Double Standards Everywhere

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12, updated – The Security Council's “Protection of Civilians” debate Tuesday started late, after a session on North Korea, and went past 10 pm, with nearly all Permanent Representatives gone. Inner City Press stayed, through Sri Lanka and the Congo, Turkey and Qatar, all the way through to Bolivia.

Early in the proceeding, France's Gerard Araud praised the UN's use of drones and called for accountability. Some wondered, what about in Cote d'Ivoire, the killings in Duekoue and of Internally Displaced People?

Russia's Vitaly Churkin also praised the UN, or at least its mission in Afghanistan, for systemically counting the number of civilians killed. This might be contrasted, as Inner City Press has, to the UN hiring non-profit Benetech in San Francisco, partially funded by the US State Department, to purport to count the dead in Syria.

Tanzania's Permanent Representative said the international community and the UN failed in Rwanda. Later on, the DR Congo spoke mostly about the M23 rebels, blaming Rwanda. Inner City Press interviewed Rwanda's foreign minister, story here.

The Netherlands' Permanent Representative spoke about accountability, too, leading some to hearken back to the role and inaction of Dutch soldiers or peacekeepings in Srebrenica.

New Zealand stressed that even when the Council is blocked, action should be taken, citing only only Syria but also Sri Lanka.

When Sri Lanka's Palitha Kohona spoke, he railed against media fabrications. Afterward Inner City Press spoke with him, with a story forthcoming (now here).

Brazil's foreign minister Patriota also did a stakeout. Inner City Press asked him about Mali -- he called for action to get under Resolution 2085 as soon as possible, with Africans in the lead -- and Guinea Bissau. On that, Patroita said harmonization and cooperation had been less than ideal, but it should be better under new envoy and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ramos Horta.

Nicaragua's speech put it plainly: Resolution 1973 was used in Libya for the assassination of a head of state.

There were outgoing Ambassadors. India's Hardeep Singh Puri, set to retire from foreign service, criticized double standards in the protection of civilians. Belgium's Permanent Representative, too, is set to retire.

But the debate ended with two rounds of replies between Azerbaijan and Armenia about Nagorno Karabakh. Syria replied to Qatar, which had railed at Assad. Turkey did that but Israel killings in Palestine, too. As he spoke, Inner City Press at the stakeout was asked about it scoop of Palestine seeking a vice chair of the Arms Trade Treaty talks. Who is trying to block it? Watch this site.

On Syria, Latin Absence from ICC Call, Pillay's Benetech, Late Letters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- After the Syria briefing and stakeout by Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, now it is announced that five Security Council member will come to issue a joint statement: France, United Kingdom, Australia, Luxembourg and the Republic of Korea.

  These five signed on to the letter urging the Council -- that is, themselves -- to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court. The US, which hasn't joined the ICC, didn't dare sign on to the letter (though the US did vote to refer Libya to the ICC in Security Council Resolution 1970.)

  Among members of the Security Council not signing on to the ICC call coordinated by Switzerland, and not listed in the UN Media Alert for the post-Pillay joint statement are Guatemala and Argentina -- the country of former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.

  (Later, Inner City Press was told by an Argentine diplomat that Argentina supports the ICC referral call, "we're just not on the letter." Why not? We wait more explanations from the Argentine mission to the UN, now that they're on the Security Council.)

  Meanwhile, the January 18 UN Journal, on a seven and a half month delay, made public letters from Syria dated May 31, 2011. Earlier this week Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari complained about the UN delaying publication of its submissions to the Security Council, which have included lists of foreign fighters killed in Syria.

 Today, Inner City Press is exclusively putting online a copy of Syria's response to the US State Department funded Benetech's report on deaths in Syria, commissioned for $25,000 by Pillay's office -- click here for that, here for the most recentof Inner City Press' five stories on the topic. And watch this site.

On UN Syria Study, No Request for Proposals As Benetech Told ICP

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- Among the questions that have arisen about Benetech's study of deaths in Syria for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been one raised by Inner City Press (and some Security Council diplomats) since the day of the launch.

  How did OHCHR selected Benetech, which lists funding from the US State Department and National Endowment for Democracy? And was there a Request for Proposals or RFP, as Benetech has claimed?

 The answer to the latter, if there was an RFP, turns out to be "no."

While understandably busy fielding questions from broadcasters, OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville did answer Inner City Press' question on how much Benetech was paid: $25,000.

But Patrick Ball of Benetech had told Inner City Press that"yes there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details." 

  So Inner City Press did ask OHCHR, respectfully but repeatedly.

   And today Colville has responded to Inner City Press' questions about the selection / Request for Proposals process with this:

From: Rupert Colville [OHCHR spokesperson]
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Q re Syria study, Benetech & its funders, how chosen, update on Minova / HRDDP
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Dear Matthew,

Because of the need for confidentiality and the highly specialized nature of this contract -- there are only a very few organizations qualified (and properly equipped) to do this type of work -- we did not issue an RFP as such. Instead, as permitted by the rules in exceptional cases such as this, we approached three organizations working in this field. Of the three, only one -- the Benetech Human Rights Program -- was both available in the required time-frame and able to demonstrate the necessary experience and expertise.

The criteria were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working in the Benetech Program have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work, and are well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. As I stated in an earlier email, we agreed a sum of 25,000 US dollars (which is a modest sum given the quantity of work that Benetech undertook during the five months it took to complete a study of considerable complexity, and which continued to evolve as it went along -- e.g. because of additional lists becoming available late on in the process). We have no concerns about their independence. Nor do we have concerns about the fact that Benetech has other sources of funding: that is quite normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

I hope this puts to rest your concerns.

Best regards,

Rupert [Colville, Spokesperson / Head of Media, OHCHR]

  We appreciate the answer, but must note that Patrick Ball's response that there was an RFP is no longer consistent. 

  Nor do we understand why, given that public money was used, the name of the other two organizations OHCHR decided to approach is not being made public.

  How can the public assess the use of money, and the price arrived at, without this information? 

  How can the comparative credibility / independence of the three firms be assessed by the public? Particularly when Benetech cites an "anonmyous" funder? Click here for that.

   While polite and more elaborated, the answer may still smack too much of "just trust us" for a public institution. It is appreciated, but watch this site.

For Syria Study, OHCHR Paid Benetech $25,000 But Selection Process Not Yet Disclosed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- After the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced on January 2 that 60,000 people have been killed in Syria, Inner City Press asked OHCHR and its contractor Benetech how Benetech had been selected, and how much it got paid.

  The how-much we can now report, answered by OHCHR: $25,000. But how was Benetech picked?

  One basis for the question was Benetech's human rights project's listed funders, including the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy.

  With all due respect, Inner City Press has asked OHCHR if "perceived independence (including from funding by the foreign ministries of P5 countries with a strong position on Syria) played a role in the assessment and selection" of Benetech, and how exactly Benetech was selected, from among how many bidders?

  Benetech itself had told Inner City Press, "Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details."

   Understanding that OHCHR's hardworking spokesperson was busy with larger if not more critical media, Inner City Press waited some hours and then published a story, which was picked up in the UK Guardian. When the next day January 3 OHCHR did respond, this Inner City Press questioning, quoted in the Guardian, was characterized as "casting aspersions."

  Inner City Press replied that it's not " casting aspersions to ask questions about how the contractor was selected, and to note who the contractor's other funders are... To listen to the doubts of some Security Council members and try to get to the bottom of how the selection of contractor was made is, I think, journalism, maybe more so than just slavishly reporting what a UN agency is saying."

   OHCHR has for now said "We agreed to pay 25,000 dollars for the work, and yes due procedure was followed." 

  But what procedure is that?  Many readers have written in; hence this interim story. 

  Inner City Press has asked, "Is the Request for Proposals public? How many companies responded? What criteria were used?" We anticipate answers, despite being told in advance it is a waste of time, on Monday, January 7. Watch this site.

UN's Syria Study Contractor Benetech Has "Anonymous" Funder, State Dept Funds Affiliate

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- How many people have been killed in Syria? The day after New Years the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the figure has reached 60,000. 

  A major UK newspaper -- The Independent -- said these were "UN figures."

  Then at the US State Department's briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, "we've seen this report by UN Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay."

  Not so fast. The number is from an outside contractor chosen and presumably paid by the OHCHR, Benetech. 

  As Inner City Press reported earlier in the day, onBenetech's website, following the only link for "Human Rights," there are eight funders listed, including the National Endowment for Democracy and, yes, the US Department of State.

  Inner City Press immediately asked Pillay's spokesperson Rupert Colville to "please describe when and how it was decided to commission this study, how much was paid, and how the selection / procurement process settled on Benetech. 

 "And please comment on the idea that choosing a firm which lists the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy among its eight funders might call into question its impartiality or objectivity."

  One would think the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would answer this question, would want to address this question. But eight hours later, no response had been received.

  Inner City Press asked Benetech, "how was Benetech selected to do this work? When? Was there a Request for Proposals? What other work has Benetech done for the UN system in the past? Are the eight funders listed Benetech's only eight funder? Eight largest funders? 

 "Were these all grants, or payment for work done? Separately, and if you can say, is Benetech currently at work on any comparable study, whether for example about the DR Congo, Sri Lanka, Libya, Colombia, etc?"

The question was referred around within Benetech and finally this answer arrived, from Patrick Ball of Benetech:

Subject: Inner City Press questions
From: Patrick Ball [at] benetech.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Megan Price [at] benetech.org, Ann Harrison [at] benetech.org

Hello Matthew, to your questions:

-- The Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) is the part of Benetech that did this report. HRDAG's donors are the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oak Foundation, an anonymous private foundation, and the Open Society Foundations.

-- There are a number of smaller HRDAG projects that get project-specific funding, for example our work with the Historical Archive of the National Police in Guatemala is supported by the National Endowment for Democracy.

-- None of HRDAG's (or Benetech's) donors knew of this project (except OHCHR) knew of this project until today. It has been strictly embargoed.

-- Other parts of Benetech receive funding from many other places, including the Skoll Foundation and the Omidyar Network; the Department of Education supports the Bookshare project; the MacArthur Foundation, the Department of State, and Radio Free Asia support the Martus project.

-- Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details.

-- We have worked for the UN system as individual consultants (via UNDP) in several capacities. I spent most of 2010 designing new information systems for the MONUSCO mission in the DRC, for example.

-- Perhaps more relevantly, we've provided software and statistical support -- at no cost, I want to point out -- to a number of UN-sponsored truth commissions, most importantly, the Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala, and to UN criminal tribunals, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

-- Over the last 13 years, we've done analysis like this for projects in Guatemala, Peru, Kosovo, Colombia, and Timor-Leste... There are a few ongoing projects, but they're confidential until we release them.

  The detailed answer is appreciated. Ball states that "Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details." 

  But in the eight hours since OHCHR was asked, on the morning they released "their" report, no answer has been provided.

   Is the "Data Analysis Group" really so separate that the US State Department / Radio Free Asia funding is not relevant? Given the issues at stake here, what of OHCHR's contractor being funded by an " anonymous private foundation"?

   And, rather than Benetech, isn't it the OHCHR and the UN which should be answering these questions? Watch this site.

As Pillay Says 60,000 Dead in Syria, Qs of Benetech & US State Department

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- That too many people have been killed in Syria is without a doubt. But how many? The day after New Years the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the figure has reached 60,000. A sample major UK newspaper said these were "UN figures."

  Not so fast. The number is from an outside contractor chosen and presumably paid by the OHCHR, Benetech, which says that it used figures collected from seven different sources, some of dubious objectivity, and none of them "UN" sources.

  Various Inner City Press readers had questions about the figures, then about Benetech. A Security Council member asked Inner City Press, of the figures, "how do they know, with no presence in the field?"

    Inner City Press went to Benetech's website, there finding that of eight listed funders, one is the National Endowment for Democracy and another the US State Department.

  So Inner City Press wrote to Navi Pillay's spokesman Rupert Colville, who in the past has often been quick and helpful with some answers, initally about the Democratic Republic of Congo. Inner City Press asked:

"Quick questions on deadline: first, please confirm that the new Syria study was commissioned by OHCHR from Benetech, and that it is this Benetech:http://benetech.org/human_rights/strategic_partners.shtml

"Then, the real question(s): please describe when and how it was decided to commission this study, how much was paid, and how the selection / procurement process settled on Benetech. And please comment on the idea that choosing a firm which lists the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy among its eight funders might call into question its impartiality or objectivity."

   The questions were sent before 11 am New York time, but four hours later, no response from the OHCHR. It would seem that the questions should be answered.

 In this case, Benetech used data from ": 1) the Violations Documentation Centre, the documentation arm of the Local Coordination Committees; 2) the Syrian Network for Human Rights, 3) the Syrian Revolution General Council  which was combined with the SNHR;  4) the Syria Shuhada Website, 5) the March 15 Group; 6) the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and 7) the Syrian government." 

  No, these are not now "UN figures."

   Back in September, UNICEF announced 1600 dead in one week in Syria. But when Inner City Press inquired, OCHA disavowed the figures, which were only from media accounts. They are laundered to become "UN figures."

Footnotes: from before Christmas, Inner City Press is still waiting for an answer to this: "will OHCHR play any role in, or does it have any comment on or guidance for, the (now third) review of UN action and inaction in Sri Lanka in 2009, now chaired by DSG Eliasson and to be completed in the 2d quarter of 2013?"

  The UN system would never stand behind -- in fact it covered up -- casualty figures in Sri Lanka. It would have been good to do enumeration then, when the UN had people on the ground. If that's a lesson learnt, good. But it should be done transparently. How was Benetech selected and how much were they paid?

 Inner City Press also let Colville and the OHCHR know, "still NO information from DPKO on which FARDC units were in Minova during the 126 rapes in late November, nor even which FARDC units MONUSCO works with or supports. Growing doubts about this 'Human Rights Due Diligence Policy'" -- a UN system policy in which the OHCHR ostensibly plays a major role. 

  The stonewalling of DPKO chief Herve Ladsous should not be allowed to be the whole UN's position - or will it be?Watch this site.