A Nation's Journey To A Long and Winding Road To Peace: Revisiting The Comprehensive Agreement On The Respect For Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:
Rodriguez, Manuel A. II (2012) A Nations Journey to the Long and Winding Road to Peace: Revisiting the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). The Far Eastern Law Review, Vol. XLIII, 2012
A NATIONS JOURNEY TO THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD TO PEACE: REVISITING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (CARHRIHL) Manuel A. Rodriguez II1 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. -Jesus Christ (4BC 33AD) The Nature of CARHRIHL The Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) is not a law; it is an agreement and more of a nature of rules on warfare between two competing parties.
It is the first item on the four substantive agenda of the formal peace talks between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), as contained in The Hague Joint Declaration signed on September 1, 1992 in The Netherlands.
The three other agendas are: 1) socio-economic reforms; 2) political and constitutional reforms; and 3) end of hostilities and disposition of forces. It was approved by Mr. Mariano Orosa, Chairman of the National Council of the NDF on April 10, 1998, and by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on August 7, 1998 (NDFP- Monitoring Committee, [?], p. 56)
According to Sulong CARHRIHL, a nationwide network of individuals, organizations and programs who uphold human rights and international humanitarian law, CARHRIHL is important because it provides protection to individuals and communities directly affected by the conflict, and sets concrete measures to promote human rights and international humanitarian law (2012).
Manuel A. Rodriguez II is a Staff Writer of the Far Eastern Law Review and the Litigation Chairperson of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Far Eastern University. He is a third year student of the Institute of Law.

Howard Dee (1998), former Chairperson of the GPH Peace Panel CARHRIHL once mentioned that CARHRIHL is a weapon to wage peace, to expel hatred and violence and bring in trust and confidence, so that the Filipino people may sow the seeds of a new regime of justice and peace.
The CARHRIHL does not affect the political and legal status of the parties. The Governments approval of the agreement has not in any way elevated the status of the NDFP to one of belligerency. It does not give the NDFP authority of any kind. It does not limit in any way the Governments right to end the armed conflict by all the means including arms provided by its own laws. It does not in any way affect the Governments right to prosecute, try and sentence its adversaries for their offenses according to its laws (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 3). A people free to choose will always choose peace US President Ronald Reagan (1911 2004)
The Dawning of a Systematic Approach for Governments Peace Efforts (Cory Government) The triumph of EDSA People Power I gave birth to the peace process in the Philippines. Right after the peaceful revolution, President Corazon Cojuanco Aquino ordered the opening of the peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front (NDF), Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army (CPLA) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as part of the governments policy of reconciliation (Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process [OPAPP], The GRPNDF Peace Negotiations, 2006).
In May 1986, preliminaries of the peace talks began between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) and the NDF, focusing on the possible termination of conflict and the provision of safety guarantees for the representatives of the NDF (2006a).
On June 26, 1986, the GPH Peace Panel was selected and composed of the following: Human Rights Commission Chairman Jose W. Diokno (later replaced by Ma. Lourdes Sereno, upon his illness), Agriculture Minister Ramon Mitra, Jr. and Audit Charman Teofisto Guingona. On the

other hand, the NDF showed willingness to engage in negotiations, appointing Antonio Zumel and Saturnino Ocampo as NDF negotiators and Rafael Salas and Carolina Malay as Panel members. Negotiations were held in secret before the Ceasefire Agreement of 27 November 1986, and openly during the 60-day ceasefire that followed (2006b).
The first formal peace negotiations between the GPH and the NDF dealing with substantive issues happened in January 1987, it was brief however. The differences between the frameworks presented by both sides to address socio-economic and political issues proved to be an uphill battle for true and lasting peace. The government projected socio-economic programs as starting points, but the rebels wanted to begin with human rights issues (2006c).
The peace talks with the chief groups of the Communist insurgency namely the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), New Peoples Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), ended acrimoniously before any dialogue of substance could be assumed. The ceasefire agreement between the parties resumed until its February 1987 expiration, after which armed conflict resumed (OPAPP, Milestones: Policy Journey to Peace, 2006).
Even as President Corazon Aquino pursued an intensified campaign in counterinsurgency, she heeded to the advice of her negotiators and of the religious sector, and endeavoured to keep the flame of peace process alive. She appointed a Peace Commissioner in July 1987 and upon his recommendation, signed Administrative Order 30 (AO 30), Defining the Systematic Approach and Administrative Framework for the Governments Peace Efforts, on 11 August 1987 (2006a).
To carry out his government peace efforts, AO 30 gave definition of administrative structure on four levels: (1) the Presidency, to provide active leadership, [...] to carry out peace programs; (2) the Office of the Peace Commissioner, to assist the President in the day-to-day management of the peace efforts; (3) Peace Negotiating Panels, to conduct negotiations [...] to groups that are threats to peace; and (4) a staff for Non-Government Organization Liason, to enlist the cooperation and collaborative efforts of various sectors for the peace effort (Administrative Order No. 30, Section 2). The Office of the Peace Commissioner closed at the end of the Aquino

Administration, with a small team retained to ensure a smooth transition into the next administration (2006b). Peace is more important than all justice; and peace was not made for the sake of justice, but for the sake of peace. - Reverend Martin Luther (1483 1546) Just, Comprehensive and Lasting Resolution of the Armed Conflict (FVR Government) Exploratory talks between the government and the communist rebels began shortly after Fidel Ramos first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in 1992. During preliminary talks that transpired in August of 1992, the emissaries of both parties agreed to adopt four substantive agenda items embodied in the Hague Joint Declaration that was forged on 1 September 1992, namely: (1) Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (HR/IHL); (2) Social and Economic Reforms (SER); (3) Political and Constitutional Reforms (PCR); and (4) End of Hostilities and Disposition of Forces (EOH/DOF) (OPAPP, The GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations, 2006).
The Hague meeting was followed by three more exploratory talks in the next two and a half years and resulted in the attainment of four other procedural agreements, namely:
Breukelen Joint Statement Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Joint Agreement on the Ground Rules of the Formal Meetings Joint Agreement on Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs)
The said agreements laid the foundation for the conduct of the first round of formal peace negotiation which was held on June 25, 1998 in Brussels, Belgium. The negotiation was suspended the next morning by the GPH when the NDF failed to appear in the first substantive session of the two Panels and imposed as precondition, the physical presence of captured NPA

leader Mr. Sotero Llamas in Brussels before any substantive discussions could proceed. Llamas was a top ranking NPA operating in the Bicol Region captured by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in an encounter (2006a).
After almost a year of peace talk suspension, the Brussels meeting was followed by fifteen (15) rounds of both formal and informal meetings which gave birth to five (5) more agreements from June 1996 to March 1998. These are:
(1) Additional Implementing Rules Pertaining to the Documents of Identification; (2) Supplemental Agreement to the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs); (3) Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL); (4) Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultation in Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations; and (5) Joint Agreement in Support of Socioeconomic Projects of Private Development Organizations and Institutes.
After the signing of the CARHRIHL on March 16, 1998, the NDF demanded the approval of the CARHRIHL by President Ramos for its immediate implementation. Since the process did not require the immediate approval, both the GPH Panel and the Cabinet Advisory Committee (CAC) advised the President to defer the approval of the CARHRIHL until the other two agreements on Social Economic Reforms (SER) and Political and Constitutional Reforms are attained, as these three agreements have interlocking provisions (2006b).
In an attempt to accommodate the wishes of the rebel group, President Fidel Ramos agreed to implement the CARHRIHL if the NDF would agree for a mutual ceasefire for the duration of the talks. However, the rebel group rejected the condition and announced that it would not proceed the talks to social economic reforms unless the President gave his unconditional approval of the agreement.

If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then thered be peace. - John Lennon (1940 1980) The Approval of CARHRIHL (Erap Estrada Government) On August 7, 1998, President Joseph Ejercito Erap Estrada, upon recommendation of the Panel and endorsement by Executive Secretary Zamora, signed Memorandum Order No.9 approving the CARHRIHL and requiring its implementation in accordance with the constitutional and legal processes of the Republic of the Philippines (OPAPP, The GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations, 2006).
In compliance with these presidential directives, Senator Franklin Drilon, Co-Chair of the GPH Panel, headed a backroom team in October 1998 and reasserted the GPHs exclusive right to prosecute, try and apply sanctions against violators of human rights in the implementation of the CARHRIHL. The communists rejected the idea and insisted that their own judicial system and legal processes be allowed to co-exist with that of the State. The Government considered the NDFs proposal as unacceptable. The non-resolution of this fundamental issue led to the impasse in the talks (2006a).
The abduction by the NPA of AFP and PNP Officials (General Obillo, Captain Montealto and Police Chief Inspector Bernal) in February and March 1999, compelled President Estrada upon the joint recommendation of the Cabinet Advisory Committee and the Peace Panel, to announce on February 24, 1999 the indefinite suspension of the talks between the parties and of the JASIG. The President took the principled position that the talks would continue and immunities of rebel negotiators restored only if the abducted public officials were released unconditionally. The Government could not negotiate for their release on the basis of the NDFs terms and conditions which were clearly reflective of its pursuit of a separate political agenda (2006b).

A humanitarian mission headed by Davao Archbishop Fernando Capalla made a response to the invitation by the rebels for a meeting on March 1, 1999 in the Netherlands. The mission returned home with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the release of the hostages which the group signed with the NDF, together with Senator Loren Legarda. Section 2 of the said MOA cited the political premises for the release that the order of release shall be done and issued in the power, exercise and jurisdiction of the Peoples Democratic Government. Without a doubt, this was the NDFs political claim for sovereign status which the humanitarian mission did not accept through a disclaimer in the MOA which stated that issue relative to the political basis of said release is a matter that is beyond its competence to handle. President Estrada likewise made an announcement denouncing the political premises (2006c).
After the release of hostages in April 1999, the Government communicated to the NDF the lifting of the suspension of the talks and the restoration of the JASIG. The GPH Panel then asked the NDF for suggestions on how the two Panels could resolve their differences so that both sides could move beyond the impasse and resume talks (2006d).
On May 20, 1999, the NDF terminated the talks accusing the GPH of violating the principle of national sovereignty cited in the Hague Joint Declaration in view of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). With the NDFs termination of the peace talks, the Government consequently issued the notice of termination of the JASIG which was received by the NDF on June 1, 1999. President Estrada directed the localization of peace efforts to address the communist insurgency through Executive Order 115 dated June 1999 (2006e). They who seek to remain in the safety of the sidelines when human rights are under assault shall be condemned by history into irrelevance. - Chief Justice Reynato Puno Reconstitution of the Government Peace Panel (Gloria Arroyo Government)

In line with the healing and reconstruction of the peace process after the historic People Power II, newly-sworn President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo reconstituted the GPH Panel for talks with the communist rebels one month after she has sworn as the 14th President of the Republic (2006f).
Shortly after rebirth, the GPH Peace panel made goodwill talks with the NDF on March 6-9, 2001 in the Netherlands to pave the way for the resumption of the formal peace negotiations which had been terminated for almost two (2) years. After almost a week of informal talks, both Panels initiated a Joint Statement on the principles and premises for the resumption of the formal talks.
Said Joint Statement also encouraged the Filipino people behind the endeavour of peace process between the rebel groups and the Government, to wit:
We have begun to think about the post-conflict, post-settlement reconstruction, healing and reconciliation. At this time, we call upon our brothers and sisters and the Filipino people to close ranks and overcome whatever obstacles we may meet along the way of our peace talks. In the past, before and during our discussions and debated on the CARHRIHL, we faced and surmounted difficulties. There is no reason why we cannot do it again (Bello, Opening Statement for the Resumption of Formal Peace Talks between the GRP and the NDF, 2001). Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war. - Maria Montessori (1870 1952) Salient Points of CARHRIHL CARHRIHL is applicable in all cases involving violations of the Human Rights (HR) and the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) committed against persons, families and groups affiliated with either Party (GPH and NDF) and all civilians and persons not directly

taking part in the hostilities, including persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict (Primer on the CARHRIHL and the JMC, OPAPP, [?]).
It covers all persons affected by the armed conflict without distinction of any kind based on sex, race, language, religion or conviction, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, age, economic position, property, marital status, birth or any other similar condition or status (CARHRIHL, Part II, Art. 5). However, the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC), an implementing organ created by the CARHRIHL (CARHRIHL, Part V) shall not act on the allegations of violations committed before August 7, 1998 unless the allegations constitute a continuing violation committed by the same alleged perpetrators. The said date is when President Estrada issued Memorandum Order No.9 approving the implementation of the Agreement in accordance with the Constitution and legal processes.
The agreement seeks to confront, remedy and prevent the most serious violations of civil and political rights and uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights and fundamental freedoms (CARHRIHL, Part II, Art. 2).
The right to self-determination or the right of the people to fully and freely determine their political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and dispose of their natural wealth and resources for their own welfare and benefit towards genuine national independence, democracy, social justice and development is protected under the agreement (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 1). And so is the right of the people against bad government, oppression and tyranny (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 2).
When we speak of right to life under the CARHRIHL, it covers rights against summary executions (salvaging), involuntary disappearances, massacres and indiscriminate
bombardments of communities and the right not to be subjected to campaigns of incitement to violence against ones person (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 4).
Under the CARHRIHL, one also has the right to free choice of domicile, movement and travel within the country and abroad to seek asylum, migration and exile, and against travel

restrictions for political reasons or objectives (CARHRIHL ,Part III, Art. 2, 14). In addition, the agreement supplemented the prohibition to be subjected to forced evacuations and other forms of economic blockades and indiscriminate bombings, shellings, strafing, gunfire and use of landmines (CARHRIHL ,Part III, Art. 2, 14).
The equal right of women in all fields of endeavour and in all spheres of political, economic, cultural and domestic life and to their emancipation is respected in the agreement. So also are the right of children and the disabled to protection, care and a home, especially against physical and mental abuse, prostitution, drugs, forced labor, homelessness and other similar forms of oppression and exploitation hostilities (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 23 and 24). The parties as well vowed, through the agreement, respect to the rights of indigenous peoples (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 25).
Adequate compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation, and effective sanctions and guarantees against repetition and impunity is sworn to be done to restore justice to the victims of violations of human rights (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 10). Persons liable shall be subject to investigation by the appropriate government agency office or institution, and, if evidence warrants, to prosecution and trial by the courts. Victims or the survivors shall be indemnified accordingly (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 4).
The Government shall take concrete steps to protect the lives, livelihood and properties of the people against incursions from mining, real estate, logging, tourism or other similar projects or programs (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 9). Also, it shall promote the basic collective and individual rights of workers, peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, migrant workers, ethnic minorities, women, youth, children and the rest of the people, and shall take concrete steps to stop and prevent the violations of human rights, ensure that those found guilty of such violations are punished, and provide for the indemnification, rehabilitation and restitution of the victims (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 10).
Paramilitary groups such as armed religious fanatical groups, vigilante groups, and private armed groups of businessmen, landowners and politicians are not allowed under the agreement

(CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 3, 8). The establishments, facilities, transport and equipment of those persons, entities and organizations and objects bearing the emblem of the Red Cross shall be protected. Those humanitarian and/or medical organizations shall likewise be granted facilitation and assistance to enable them to care for the sick and the wounded and to undertake their humanitarian missions and activities (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 3). The agreement also vests rights to civilian individuals in a situation of armed conflict. They have the right to be treated as such, to be distinguished from combatants together with their property, and not to be the object of attack (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4,4); and also the right to be protected against indiscriminate aerial bombardment strafing, artillery fire, mortar fire, arson, bulldozing and other similar forms of destroying lives and property from the use of explosives as well as stockpiling near or in their midst, and the use of chemical and biological weapons (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 4). Moreover, they also have the right to demand appropriate disciplinary actions against abuses arising from the failure of the parties to the armed conflict to observe the principles and standards of international humanitarian law (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 5).
Persons who are deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict have refuge in the agreement. In the CARHRIHL, they have the right to be treated humanely, provided with adequate food and drinking water, and to be afforded safeguards as regards to health and hygiene, and be confined in a safe place (Part IV, Art. 4, 6).
An individual or group who were found liable for violations of the agreement or of the principles of international humanitarian law shall be subject to investigation by the appropriate government agency, office or institution and, if evidence warrants, to prosecution and trial by the courts. The victims or their survivors shall be indemnified (Part IV, Art. 6)
The Government shall review and undertake to change policies, laws, progresses, projects, campaigns and practices that could or allow the forcible evacuation and reconcentration of civilians, the emergence and increase of internally displaced families and communities (Part IV, Art. 7). Peace comes from within.

Do not seek it without. -Siddharta Gautama Buddha (563 483) The Current State of CARHRIHL Implementation (Noynoy Aquino Government) The current administration efforts on the peace process while being monitored by the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) composed of the Governments Monitoring Committee and the NDFP Monitoring Committee, the author of this paper deliberately chose not to base this section of the article on the reports of the JMC 2in order to arrive on a balanced viewpoint. This section that reviews the Benigno Aquino Administration efforts and mentions particular incidents is based on the 2011-2012 report of Sulong CARHRIHL, a non-stock, non-profit and independent organization. Sulong CARHRIHL monitored thirteen (13) cases of extra-judicial killings from August to November of 2011 to February of 2012. The incidents happened mostly in the Mindanao and in particular in the region of Davao. The sample cases circumstances surrounding the death of the victims are as follows: 1. The Bulacan Case: victims were strafe by military soldiers on a routine patrol operation. The incident happened at night while victims were asleep. They were accused of being NPA. As it was found out in the investigation by human rights organization including the Commission on Human Rights, the father who died of gunshot wounds could have survived had the soldiers took him to the nearest hospital. His son who survived a similar gunshot wound was strong enough to keep on living the day. 2. A Pastor in Maco, Compostela Valley. The Pastor was killed by an unidentified armed person. However, the gunman was believed to be a member of the rebel group operating in the area. The incident is related to their extortion activity as the victim refuses to pay their demand.
Monitored incidents surrounding cases of harassment are most often tied to the presence of a military detachment inside a community. Military detachments in communities are usually manned by civilian armed forces geographical (CAFGU) under the supervision of a military officer with a rank of sergeant. According to accounts of victims, the military / CAFGUs

undertake community meetings and house to house census. During those visits to houses, the visitor coerce the owner of a house, in particular the father, by accusing of being a rebel or a rebel sympathiser. To clear their name from the watch list of the military, they must prove their innocence by joining the para military group. A recently documented event complained by a group of workers tells of the activities of the military manning the detachment as again doing home visits asking questions regarding the activities of the union of the complaining workers. The circumstances surrounding the incident of internal displacement are armed encounters between the NPA and Government forces. The skirmishes are, most often, happening near communities or residential areas. Even if some have happen a kilometre away from residences, the impact and the fear it causes among community dwellers is so great forcing them to flee abruptly from the fire fight. Displacements are not the only cause of armed encounters. Economic dislocation is another. In some cases as in recent event that happened in Makilala, North Cotabato, a villager and his brother were taken by the military to guide them in pursuit of rebels after an armed engagement, was killed after their group hit on a land mine. His brother returned to their community shocked perhaps reeling from the horror of experiencing the incident.
Recently, Sulong CARHRIHL has monitored incidences of use of landmines by the NPA. There is the case of the two brothers in Makilala Town who acted as guides to the military. The military hit the landmine killing them and one civilian guide. There were also reported uses of land mines in Paquibato, Davao. Recently, a New Peoples Army camp deep in the jungles of Samar was overrun by the military. The camp was used as a land mine manufacturing facility.
While international humanitarian law distinguishes command detonated explosives from anti personell land mines where NPA justifies subscribes to the former, in the CARHRIHL agreement, the military asserts that the agreement does not specify between the two. Both are prohibited under CARHRIHL. The Sulong CARHRIHL is still verifying information to shed light on what type of landmines the rebels really employ.

The abovementioned excerpts do not intend to belabour the seriousness of human rights situation and the apparent failure faced by the present government to address it. However, the government plays a crucial role to truly make a difference if it seriously, sincere and truthfully addressed the issues and concerns of human rights. It is long established and known for a fact that persistent neglect to address human rights violations, inequality and social injustice fuels the hunger for people to seek other means even revolutionary means to right these wrongs.
While generally the axe falls on the government, the other contending party should not forget that they are similarly being watched under the CARHRIHL agreement of their human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law provisions. However, there is still difficulty to document and verify the abuses they commit. But with people gaining understanding of the agreement, gradually some are opening up to disclose the violations committed by the rebel group. It would not be long where the other party will be made accountable for their excesses. Thus to further accomplish this, continuous community orientation and education on CARHRIHL must be pursued. Ensuring the promotion and observance of CARHRIHL is to uphold the interest of the people at all times, and to give due respect to the rights and welfare of all individuals, regardless of belief or status, and even or especially in times of armed conflict. - Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer Convenor, UP Program on Peace and Democratization
ENDNOTES There are standards and interests that we are aware are deep-seated regardless of the circumstances that limit us. There are principal tenets that we know are true no matter the differences in our political ideologies. We exert pains to rise above our confines and conquer our differences for the sake of those things that make up our common bond of humanity The

CARHRIHL is a manuscript that avow the inviolate character of our mutual existence in spite of the worlds that split us.
The signing of CARHRIHL means so much for a peace loving society. In so doing, we as Filipino people uphold human rights to rise above all the conditions that restrict us, and to which we entrust, because of, or notwithstanding of, the hurdles we bump into in accomplishment of a negotiated peace settlement.
It is a pledge that the Government and the rebels has made in behalf of the people they wish to serve, and it is a pledge that can really be successful with their active contribution and support. It not only seeks to promote human rights and compliance with the international humanitarian law while the armed conflict rages between the parties, but also to be an avenue for other agreements on constitutional, social and economic reforms. These agreements will hopefully lead to the just and lasting peace we all aspire for.
It is therefore of utmost importance to circulate information about CARHRIHL, and increase the level of public interest in its implementation.
Peace is everyones right and obligation. Together, let us join the Republic and the rebels in the search for peace, our long lost inheritance. The road to peace is a long, rocky and uphill, while admittedly the journey is difficult we still have to do the difficult for the benefit of the children of tomorrow. Together let us dream of a Philippines where there is no conflict. Where our children can be free in pursuing their dreams in a society where peace, rule of law and love prevails.
The journey to peace continues.
REFERENCES:

Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process [OPAPP] (2006a). Part 1: Overview of the GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations. The GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations. Pasig: OPAPP and The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ---(2006a). Milestones: Policy Journey to Peace. Pasig: OPAPP and UNDP Administrative Order 30. Defining the Systematic Approach and the Administrative Framework for the Governments Peace Efforts. August 11, 1987. National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Human Rights Monitoring Committee (?). Praymer Hinggil sa CARHRIHL, JMC at JS (Filipino at Ingles). Quezon City : NDFP Human Rights Monitoring COmmittee, pp. 56. Sulong CARHRIHL (2012). Why is the CARHRIHL an Important Instrument?, http://www.sulongnetwork.ph/new/. last accessed June 21, 2012. Sulong - CARHRIHL (2012), Report for 2011-2012. Dee, Howard (1998). GRP Peace Panel Statement on the Signing of the CARHRIHL. March 16, 1998.
Bello, Silvestre III (2001). Opening Statement for the Resumption of Formal Peace Talks Between the GRP and the NDF. April 27, 2001
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). March 16, 1998. August 7, 1998.
Primer on the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC). [?], [?]


A Nation's Journey To A Long and Winding Road To Peace: Revisiting The Comprehensive Agreement On The Respect For Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Nation's Journey To A Long and Winding Road To Peace: Revisiting The Comprehensive Agreement On The Respect For Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

The journey to peace continues.

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen