Welcome to your Marrakech Declaration Scorecard Marrakech Declaration Scorecard – Overview and User Guide Purpose The Marrakech Declaration Scorecard is a practical tool that helps National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and stakeholders assess how effectively African states are meeting their human rights obligations, particularly in protecting Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), including Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs). Rooted in the Marrakech Declaration and its Regional Action Plan, the Scorecard supports evidence-based monitoring and advocacy. Who Can Use It? While primarily intended for NHRIs, the Scorecard is also useful for civil society organizations (CSOs), state agencies, UN and African human rights mechanisms, NGOs, academics, journalists, lawyers, and private sector actors. It encourages a multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach to accountability. Development Methodology The Scorecard was created through a combination of desk research and interviews with stakeholders such as NHRIs in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, along with civil society representatives. It draws from international, regional, and national human rights instruments and relevant reports. How to Use the Scorecard: Five-Step Process 1. Preliminary Review Designate focal persons within the NHRI to lead the review and assessment. A small, diverse team helps ensure accuracy and objectivity. 2. Data Collection Collect relevant materials, including NHRI reports, legal texts, policy documents, and media sources. Supplement with interviews, workshops, or focus groups if needed. 3. Scoring Process Sections: Promotion, Protection, and Cooperation & Partnerships Scoring Scales: Promotion & Cooperation: Scoring scale 3 2 1 Good Average Poor Protection (Objectives 1 & 2): 0 (Good), -1 (Average), -2 (Poor) Instructions: Justify each score with supporting evidence and provide actionable recommendations. 3. Validation & Dissemination Present findings in a validation meeting with State and/or non-State actors. Disseminate results to promote transparency and support broader engagement. 4. Advocacy Use the recommendations to develop targeted advocacy strategies aimed at closing gaps and strengthening State compliance with the Marrakech Declaration and related human rights frameworks. Outcome The Scorecard offers a clear, structured approach to evaluating State performance on HRD protection. It strengthens evidence-based advocacy and supports national and regional efforts to uphold human rights. Name Email Organization Country Ratify and implement all international human rights instruments. Performance Indicators: Ratify and implement all international human rights instruments. Signature and ratification of core human rights instruments at the UN and African levels. * Consistent reporting on the status of implementation before the relevant treaty monitoring bodies including the Human Rights Council at the UN and the African Commission or the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Good (3) – State ratification of all or at least 80% of core human rights treaties and protocols at the UN and AU levels. The State consistently engages with State reporting procedures under the UN, African Commission and ACERWC evidenced by up-to-date submission of periodic national reports. The State reports and other supplementary documents reveal positive progress in implementing the recommendations of monitoring and enforcement bodies. Average (2) - State ratification of at least 60% of core human rights treaties and protocols at the UN and AU levels. There is evidence of moderate State engagement with State reporting procedures under the UN, African Commission and ACERWC, such as recently overdue periodic State reports. The State reports and other supplementary documents reveal moderate progress in implementing the recommendations of monitoring and enforcement bodies. Poor (1) - State ratification of less than 60% of core human rights treaties and protocols at the UN and AU levels. There is limited evidence of State engagement with State reporting procedures under the UN, African Commission and ACERWC evidenced by long overdue periodic State reports. The State reports and other supplementary documents reveal poor compliance with the recommendations of monitoring and enforcement bodies when reporting happens. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Supporting national legislation, policies and programmes in compliance with State’s international human rights obligations. Performance Indicators: Enactment of a national law for HRDs in compliance with international human rights laws and standards as well as the Model Law on the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights Defenders. Adoption of a supporting national legal and policy framework on HRDs generally and WHRDs specifically. Development of programmes with designated implementation officers advancing the rights of HRDs including WHRDs Good (3) – Evidence of a strong supporting framework of laws, policies and programmes including a law for HRDs. Presence of well-resourced implementing agencies. Average (2) – A reasonably effective framework of laws, policies and programmes. Evidence of efforts to enact a HRD specific law such a draft bill. Reasonably effective and resourced implementing officers. Poor (1) – Urgent need to enact or amend the legal framework to support HRDs including WHRDs. Lack of or inadequate supportive policies and programs. Absence of a HRD law or a draft bill. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations The establishment and strengthening of national protection systems for human rights defenders. Performance Indicators: Presence of a strong administrative network of national protection mechanisms including NHRIs, judiciary, tribunals, Ombudsman, legislative bodies, local government, and law enforcement actors. Protection mechanisms are established and operated through inclusive processes with the participation of HRDs, civil society, media, academia and other non-state actors and individuals. Supporting environment for the establishment and operation of the broader national protection system including CSOs, media, trade unions, humanitarian workers, academics, development partners, and community leaders. Measures in place to strengthen and support protection mechanisms including enabling legislation, independence guarantees, and effective human and financial resourcing. Good (3) – Evidence of a strong administrative and broader network of national protection systems operating in an enabling environment. Average (2) - Evidence of an administrative and broader network of national protection systems operating in a moderately enabling environment. Some gaps identified within the network and need to strengthen support structures. Poor (1) – Absence of or inadequate national protection systems. Restrictive operating environment. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Positive human rights narratives on HRDs. Performance Indicators: Healthy information ecosystem allowing objectively positive narratives about HRDs and their work with disaggregated information including WHRDs, youth, Persons with Disabilities and at-risk HRDs. Access to accurate, relevant and credible information both offline and online on the work of HRDs. Good (3) – Diverse and vibrant information landscape that accurately and positively reports the work of HRDs including WHRDs. Established proactive disclosure of information practices for offline and online audiences. Average (2) – Relatively good information environment. Several reported incidents of unjustifiable smear campaigns, disinformation and defamation of HRDs including WHRDs. Average information disclosure practices. Poor (1) – Regular smear campaigns, disinformation and defamation incidents targeted at HRDs including WHRDs by the state or other non-state actors. Closing or closed information landscape. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Awareness about the UN and African Declarations on Human Rights Defenders. Performance Indicators: Evidence of State reporting of compliance with the Declarations. State references of the Declarations in policy and decision-making. Dissemination of the Declarations. Facilitated training of administrative actors including the judiciary, state officials and law enforcement officials on the Declarations. Notes:Examples of sources of information include State reports before the HRC and African Commission respectively as well as policy documents, government websites, training workshop reports, and media reports. Proactive disclosure by government on their efforts to raise awareness of the Declarations will influence the score. Good (3) – Strong evidence of dissemination, awareness, training on and application of the Declarations based on indicators. Average (2) – Moderate evidence of dissemination, awareness, training on and application of the Declarations based on indicators. Poor (1) - Inadequate dissemination, awareness, training on and application of the Declarations based on indicators. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Gender equality measures and strategies. Performance Indicators: Adoption and implementation of gender responsive laws on elimination of all forms of discrimination against WHRDs. Establishment and facilitation of gender commissions or offices. Gender responsive budgeting. Gender-sensitive training of law enforcement and other actors in the legal and justice sector on handling WHRDs concerns. Representation of WHRDs in relevant decision-making bodies. Good (3) – Strong evidence of adoption of gender equality measures and strategies in the legal, policy and institutional framework, and evidence of effective and inclusive implementation. Average (2) – Moderate indication of adoption of gender equality measures and strategies in the legal, policy and institutional framework, and average evidence of implementation. Poor (1) - Unsatisfactory or inadequate indication of adoption of gender equality measures and strategies in the legal, policy and institutional framework, and lack of or inadequate evidence of implementation. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Private sector awareness raising Performance Indicators: Evidence of meaningful engagement between HRDs and the private sector on human rights concerns and abuses. No indications of State reprisals against private sector actors for supporting HRDs, for example police harassment and licensing challenges. Disclosure of information on private sector projects with human rights implications. Accountability for private sector actors implicated in human rights abuses generally and against HRDs and WHRDs specifically. Notes:Private bodies have a duty to disclose information if it is necessary for the exercise or protection of a right or fundamental freedom. Good (3) – Strong evidence of meaningful engagement with the private sector, lack of State retaliation for such engagement or support, relevant information disclosure, and accountability measures for human rights abuses. Average (2) - Moderate indication of meaningful engagement with the private sector, relevant information disclosure, and accountability measures for human right abuses. A few reported incidents of State retaliation for private sector support of HRDs. Poor (1) – Lack of or poor engagement with private sector actors, lack of or inadequate disclosure of relevant information, and poor accountability measures for human rights abuses. Harsh State reprisals on private sector actors for supporting HRDs. None Rationale and Sources Recommendations Time's up
