A case study of Peruvian organizations who built a network of diverse human rights NGOs.

Peru faced a serious human rights crisis during the 1980s and early 1990s.  More than 30,000 individuals, many civilians, were known dead.  Thousands disappeared, half a million people were displaced internally, and hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted through corruption.  Massive human rights violations by both state and non-state actors made it very difficult for local human rights organizations, which were caught in the middle and faced danger and accusations from both sides.  In response to the difficulty of this situation, several groups decided to make a sustained effort to change the situation by creating a coalition of national human rights groups.  The key elements of this effort are described below.

Unity and Tolerance

In order to act in such an adverse environment, Peruvian human rights groups decided to gather together under a single umbrella.  In 1985, they formed the National Coalition for Human Rights (Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos), a formal network of 50 organizations.  The Coalition included a diverse range of human rights NGOs--large and small, religious and secular, and groups advocating for victims of state violence as well as non-state violence. All Coalition members had equal representation regardless of size, sector of society represented, or scope of work.  Decisions were made by group consensus.

Soon the Coalition became known as one of the main human rights voices in Peru.  It published an annual human rights report, contributed to public opinion by utilizing the mass media, advocated for important political and legislative changes, presented widely recognized national human rights awards, and represented the Peruvian human rights community at international peacekeeping and human rights conferences. 

Facing up to State Military and Non-State Armed Groups

Although it was very difficult to publicly denounce the violations committed by non-state groups during this time, the Coalition devoted equal efforts to exposing both state and non-state violence.  Specific actions included: investigation, monitoring, issuing press releases, international denunciation, letters of solidarity to the families of victims, as well as protection for potential victims and psychological assistance for affected populations.

The coalition’s policy of addressing both sides of the conflict equally helped the public to understand that its work, and the work of the member NGOs, was motivated by humanitarian considerations and that violators would be denounced regardless of their affiliation.  Although this strong public stance won them community support, members of the coalition continued to suffer death threats, violence, and disappearances.  However, many believed that the danger decreased for individual groups after they joined the coalition.  Members agreed that even when violence occurred, the coalition could react and achieve publicity and recourse in ways that smaller groups could not.

Credibility

The Coalition earned credibility in the eyes of the local and international community in part by publicly stating its membership criteria, which are also its guiding principles. 

1. acceptance of a democratic system as the best for assertion of individual rights

2. absolute rejection of violence regardless of its source or motivation

3. independence from both the state and political parties

4. rejection of the death penalty

The Coalition declared the priorities to (1) build peace rather than humanize any conflict and to (2) to give assistance to innocent victims rather than to conflict protagonists.