Following the publication on the front page of our 7/8 April 2012 edition of an article entitled "Outcry against community reparation: The CNDH will be audited shortly", we received a right of reply from the National Human Rights Council which aims to provide clarifications to the attention of public opinion.

We wish to affirm, however, that the journalist who authored the said article only reported on a meeting at which he was indeed present in Agdz, at the Hotel Timzouline, to be more precise.

Regarding the confusion concerning the name or function of Mohamed Essabar, we have ourselves proceeded to the publication of an erratum to apologise for this unfortunate and very regrettable error, both with regard to the CNDH and our readers.

Here is, moreover, the text sent by the CNDH communication department:

Following the publication in the 7/8 April 2012 edition of the newspaper Libération, on the front page, of the article entitled "Outcry against community reparation", the National Human Rights Council (CNDH) brings the following information to the attention of public opinion.

-* 1- An important recommendation of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER), the community reparation programme was financed by the European Union (EU), the government of the Kingdom of Morocco, and several public partners for a total cost of 102 million dirhams, including a contribution from the EU and UNIFEM of nearly 37 million dirhams. The funds thus allocated were managed directly by the Caisse de Dépôt et de Gestion (CDG) Foundation, which set up and ensured the management of a Programme Management Unit (UGP).

-* 2- In order to ensure the transparency of the entire programme and to guarantee the direct participation of the greatest number of partners, several political and technical validation bodies were set up for the development, implementation, and evaluation of this programme.

-* 3- The National Monitoring Commission for the community reparation programme is thus responsible for ensuring compliance of the supported actions with the recommendations of the IER and their philosophy. This Commission was composed of several significant actors from civil society, chosen because of their involvement in the process of developing the said recommendations during the mandate of the IER: Messrs. A. Rachdi, L. Kamal, O. Bettas, J. Chichaoui, A. Manouzi, M. Soual, D. El Yazami, O. Benameur, and I. Moussaoui.

-* 4- The Steering Committee, endowed with a political steering role, is composed of the CNDH, the Ministries of Finance and Interior, UN Women, the EU, the National Coordination of the INDH, the CDG Foundation, two representatives of the national monitoring commission for the community reparation programme, and two representatives of the Council of Local Coordinations.

-* 5- Thirteen local coordinations responsible for promoting local participation and ensuring the visibility and technical management of the programme at the regional level, composed of the CNDH, local authorities, decentralised state services, local relays of the UGP, and partner associations of the programme under the authority of the Governor.

-* 6- The Council of Local Coordinations responsible for ensuring the circulation of information between the coordinations and their representation within the steering committee.

-* 7- The selection of projects was subject to the most transparent procedures. Thus, calls for projects were systematically made public via the CNDH, CDG, and European Union websites and in the national press. This publication was systematically followed by the organisation of information sessions for local associative actors, with the objective of providing an in-depth explanation of the various procedures for developing and submitting projects. Projects received at the UGP were studied according to European Union criteria by an evaluation commission before being submitted for final examination and validation to the steering committee composed, as indicated above, of about ten members from different backgrounds. The choice of beneficiary associations was decided according to several criteria, including, in particular, the relevance of the proposals, the experience of the leaders in the field, and the opinion of the local coordination of the community reparation programme. This process allowed for the financing of 130 actions. Finally, the monitoring of financed associative projects is ensured by project contracts that determine the commitments of the partner association, and the role of the Programme Management Unit attached to the CDG Foundation in terms of supervision and monitoring of technical and financial achievements and the organisation of audits. Any association that believes it has been excluded from the programme can seize the steering committee to contest the decision concerning it.

-* 8- Concerning the province of Zagora, two calls for proposals intended for local associations were published, respectively on 23 July 2008 and 23 April 2009 in the daily "Le Matin" and on the websites of the CNDH, the CDG, and the European Union Delegation.

The publication of the calls was followed, as in the other provinces, by information and training sessions for local associative actors, to explain the different procedures for developing and submitting projects. At the end of these two calls, about thirty project proposals were received by the UGP/FCDG and studied according to the criteria indicated above by the evaluation commission before being submitted for final examination and validation to the steering committee, by virtue of the criteria applied nationally and the opinion of the local coordination of the community reparation programme of Zagora, which validated the lists of selected associations during its meetings on 20/12/2008 and 8/10/2009. The total number of associations selected in the province of Zagora is 8, which is close to the general average recorded nationally (8.6 projects per province).

-* 9- In addition to the audit carried out by the General Inspectorate of Finance from 11 May to 30 June 2011 for the 2007-2008-2009-2010 financial years, the programme was subject to a mid-term audit carried out by the Maroc Baker Tilly firm, according to the 7 conventional criteria of the European Union: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, coherence/complementarity, community added value, visibility. This audit led to the following conclusions (excerpt from the audit report):

- Relevance: The Programme is, overall, of undeniable relevance;

- Effectiveness: The objectives of the intervention were formally achieved both in terms of the execution of the Financing Agreement and in the results of the action;

- Efficiency: The expected effects were obtained with the fewest possible resources (funds, expertise, time, administrative costs, etc.);

- Impact: The global and specific objectives set in the Financing Agreement were achieved;

- Sustainability: The programme produced a multiplier effect, characteristic of sustainability;

- Coherence/complementarity: The State responded to the very objectives of community reparation by making a financial envelope available;

- Community added value: The EU's intervention in the community reparation process produced the expected driving effect;

- Visibility: The visibility of the programme is manifest in the regions visited.

-* 10- The article alludes to the funds allocated for the construction of the cemetery wall and the paving of the streets of the locality of Agdz. The community reparation programme did not finance any project of this kind.

-* 11- The audit mentioned by Mr. Mohamed Essabar during the meeting is a national organisational audit, currently being conducted, which aims to accompany the adaptation of the CNDH to the new provisions of the Dahir creating the CNDH, in terms of prerogatives and structuring (a National Council, thirteen regional commissions, and thirteen observatories). This audit does not in any way concern the community reparation programme, which was audited elsewhere as indicated above.

-* 12- A national symposium, bringing together all the actors involved, was organised in February 2012. It notably allowed for the public presentation of all the supported actions and a public discussion on monitoring methods, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of certain actions.

-* 13- The allegations relating to the embezzlement of funds to which the article alludes (personal enrichment) constitute defamatory remarks. The CNDH reserves the right to take the necessary steps that are appropriate for such remarks.