Office’s current strengths and weaknesses and the extent to which it has the necessary elements to meet
its mandates in a very challenging human rights environment. It proposes strategic priorities and actions for
strengthening capacity and filling capacity gaps.
The CA process is not an external evaluation of the Ombudsman’s Office. Nor is it a research project on either
of the Ombudsman, the deputy Ombudsman, the staff and regional representatives of Uzbekistan’s national
senior managers and all staff at all levels. The CA report reflects the full range of perspectives within the NHRI
and draws on the expertise of all the NHRI’s leaders and staff. It also engages with government agencies, civil
society organisations and academics.
The process accepts, analyses and reports on the self-assessments given by the leaders and staff, including
say in individual interviews, in discussion groups and report in questionnaires. This is the basis on which a
F i n a l R e p o r t : O f f i c e o f t h e O m b u d s m a n o f U z b e k i s t a n C a p a c i t y A s s e s s m e n t
1 4
9.
The facilitators for the capacity assessment were:
•
Rosslyn Noonan (team leader), senior envoy of the APF
•
Ash Bowe, Samoa National Institution for Human Rights
1
•
Ainura Bekkoenova, UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub
•
Natalya Seitmuratova, OHCHR Regional Office for Central Asia.
10.
Hussein Bitar, formerly of the Jordan National Center for Human Rights, assisted the CA team with the
analysis of statistical data in responses to the CA questionnaires.
11.
The CA team was greatly assisted by the UNDP Uzbekistan Office in the scheduling and arrangements for the
CA and provided daily support throughout the process.
12.
The CA process included:
•
analysis of relevant documents and reports to understand the context of the Office of Ombudsman
and the CA;
2
•
discussions with the Ombudsman, Deputy and Head of Security, Head of the Secretariat, Chief
Finance Officer, Human Rights Senior Specialists, regional representatives - 25 persons in all
3
;
•
interviews or discussions with representatives of external stakeholders, including Parliament’s
Senate and Legislative Chamber, General Prosecution Office, ministries of justice, interior, health,
local government authorities (mahalla), the Chamber of Lawyers (Bar Association), trade union,
NGO representatives
4
;
•
the identification of 18 core capacities issues on the basis of the group discussions
5
;
•
a self-assessment questionnaire for the 18 key capacity issues, through which 25 managers, staff
and regional representatives of the Office of Ombudsman provided quantitative capacity ratings
and qualitative comments in full or in part
6
.
13.
The CA focused on development issues in five core capacity areas identified in the UNDP CD framework:
•
leadership;
•
policies, procedures and processes, including organizational structure;
•
human resources and knowledge;
•
financial and other resources;
•
accountability.
14.
It analysed these five core areas in relation to six functional and technical capacities:
•
capacity to plan strategically and implement plans;
•
capacity to investigate, manage and handle complaints and conduct human rights research and
analysis;
•
capacity to advocate and raise awareness;
•
capacity to engage with stakeholders and create and manage partnerships;
•
capacity to monitor and evaluate.
15.
The CA questionnaire contained specific capacity indicators of the 18 key capacity issues identified in the
discussion groups. The quantitative self-assessment used a six-point capacity rating system, from 0 to 5,
defined as follows:
Category
Capacity rating
Definition
No capacity
0
Relevant capacity does not exist
Very low
1
Very low level of relevant capacity exists
Low
2
Only basic or low level of capacity exists
1
Samoa NHRI undertook a capacity assessment in 2014 and a capacity assessment review in 2018
2
See Appendix 2
3
See Appendix 3
4 Ibid
5
See Appendix 4
6
See Appendix 5
