I. Description of the Project

Over the past decades, numerous initiatives have emerged to address impunity and seek justice for serious human rights violations and international crimes. Despite some progress, challenges persist, among them fragmented approaches from accountability-seeking entities, insufficient involvement of victims and survivors in justice processes, the proliferation of disinformation undermining the voices of those fighting against impunity, and the erosion of justice systems. These challenges underscore the need for a more cohesive and inclusive approach to justice and accountability. As a response to these concerns and in light of the spread of serious human rights violations and abuses, the decision was taken by the European Union to support civil society efforts in the fight against impunity. This led to the launch, in December 2023, of the “Global Initiative Against Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Human Rights Violations: Making Justice Work”.

The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI) is a civil society-led programme co-funded by the European Union. Its goal is to promote inclusive, integrated, comprehensive justice and accountability for serious human rights violations worldwide. The programme is implemented worldwide with 28 countries identified as priority. This action is implemented until November 2027 by a Consortium of eight organisations, the Secretariat of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) and two associate partners.

The project’s implementation strategy is centered around the following areas of intervention: strategic policy development and dialogue, capacity building and training, comprehensive support to victims and survivors, support network of CSO and victims’ organisation, expanding access to documentation and research on serious human rights violations, establishment of knowledge management platform, and advocacy.

The GIAI programme management structure is composed of:

• Secretariat, consisting of Programme Coordinator, who is responsible for the overall management and oversight of the programme, partners coordination and staff management in the project; MEAL Officer, who is responsible for monitoring and review of the programme, as well as programme-based learning; Finance Officer responsible for financial management and reporting;
• Implementing partners including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) as the lead organisation, Civil Rights Defenders (CRD), Coalition for the ICC (CICC), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Impunity Watch (IW), Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), REDRESS, TRIAL International, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ). The associate partners are the Auschwitz Institute for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities (AIPG) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ);
• Steering committee responsible for strategic oversight and operational coordination of the project;
• Advisory committee provides strategic guidance, reviews the work plan and activities of the GIAI, and exchanges information/views. It is composed of relevant European Commission services, the European External Action Service, the EUROJUST Genocide Network, representatives from the ICC and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Scientific committee composed of experts or representatives from international NGOs, think-tanks/academia, or victims’ associations, who provide advice and support to the consortium.

II. Purpose and use of the midterm review

The purpose of the mid-term review is to assess the progress, achievements, and challenges of the project since its start in December 2023 in order to enhance and to adapt if need be implementation in the remaining project duration and promote wider organizational learning and accountability. The review will take place closer to the end of the Y2 of implementation (September – December 2025). The findings will be used to elaborate recommendations for amendments to the project’s implementation strategy to support more effective implementation and strengthen the value-added of the Consortium, as well as suggestions for a strengthened monitoring and evaluation framework.

The target audience of the review includes the GIAI Secretariat, nine implementing partners and two associate partners, country teams; the donor, the Advisory Committee and Scientific Committee members, FSTP grantees, local partners, beneficiaries and target groups, and other stakeholders engaged in promotion of accountability issues and fighting impunity worldwide.

III. Objectives (review criteria and key questions)

The overall objectives of this midterm review are to:

• Assess the relevance of the project at global level including alignment with international agreements and conventions on accountability and the emerging tendencies/threats;
• Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Consortium in achieving expected results, including the effectiveness of programming strategies in implementing global commitments within national priorities (target countries) for in working toward to achieve expected results, with a special focus on innovative, gaps filling and complementary interventions. The review should also investigate the contextual factors that are enabling or restricting the achievement of results, including financial management and human resources investment. Additionally, the review should assess the comparative advantage of the Consortium in the programmatic area;
• Assess the initial impact of the intervention on the lives of beneficiaries, communities, and CSOs, institutions and international/regional accountability mechanisms engaged in the project;
• Assess the potential sustainability of the interventions in achieving justice, accountability and fighting impunity, in target countries;
• Assess the functioning and effectiveness of the M&E and Knowledge Management system, identifying and validating lessons learned, good practices and examples of innovation;
• Analyse how gender-transformative, victims-centered and trauma-responsive approaches are integrated in the interventions;
• Provide actionable recommendations with respect to improving the project and similar programmes in the futureю

The scope of the midterm review is global, with a focus on 28 target countries and will include all dimensions of the project.

Key review Questions (tentative list)

The following draft review questions serve as first reference point for the review. The specific review questions, performance criteria and relevant review instruments will be determined by the consultant during the inception stage and in close consultation with the review manager and review Reference Group (ERG).

Table 1. Review matrix

Gender transformative, victim-centered and trauma-responsive approaches

IV. Review design and Suggested Methodology

The review will be carried following the review policies and regulations of the European Commission, and the standards set internationally in relation to development co-operation. They include:

• The Evaluation standards of the OECD Development Assistance Committee;
• The Evaluation methodological guidance for external assistance;
• The EU institutional framework for effective management of review activities.

The review will be based on the theory of change already formulated by the partners at the beginning of the programme and reconsidered in Y2. It will test its validity against the evidence collected so far regarding key programme results. It is also important to mention that both qualitative and quantitative methods are expected to be utilised.

Methodology

The review methodology will be developed by the consultant and presented for approval to the ERG. The methodology should use a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods that are appropriate to address the main review questions and account for complexity of thematic areas of activities and to ensure participatory and inclusive processes that are culturally appropriate. These methods should be responsive to human rights and gender equality principles and facilitate the engagement of key stakeholders. Measures will be taken to ensure the quality, reliability and validity of data and data collection tools. Limitations with respect to the sample (representativeness) should be stated clearly.

The mid-term review exercise will include a desk review of relevant documentation, including proposals, reports, knowledge products produced during two years of the programme implementation, M&E plan, documents related to the outcome harvesting processes and the outcomes collected and validated, activity reports etc.

Primary data collection could be undertaken through observations, site visits, individual key informant interviews and focal group discussions with representatives of relevant government institutions, international/regional accountability mechanisms (duty bearers), beneficiaries (right holders), FSTP grantees and key community players (local CSOs, victims’ associations etc.) seeking to address accountability and impunity issues. Data collection methods such as appreciative inquiry, most significant change, case study, survey could also be implemented. The evaluator will develop a sampling frame (area and target audience represented, rationale for selection, mechanics of selection, and limitations of the sample) and specify how it will address the diversity of stakeholders in the intervention.

The evaluator should take measures to ensure data quality, reliability and validity of data collection tools and methods and their responsiveness to gender equality and human rights; for example, the limitations of the sample (representativeness) should be stated clearly and the data should be triangulated (cross-checked against other sources) to help ensure robust results. All the data collected should be gender-responsive (including disaggregated by sex and age).

V. Management of review

The ERG will be set up to manage the review. The ERG will consist of the representative of the Consortium partners, few members of the Scientific Committee and the representative of the donor organisation. The role of the ERG is to:

• provide feedback on inception and final review reports;
• facilitate access to key informants and documentation;
• participate in the review-related meetings;
• contribute to dissemination of review results and knowledge sharing.

VI. Expected deliverables and time frame

All deliverables should be provided in English.

VII. Desired Qualifications

• Advanced University degree in Human Rights, International Relations, Law, Political Science, Social Sciences or related field;
• At least 7 years of work or academic experience in a professional capacity in Human Rights, International Relations, Law, Political Science, Social Sciences or related field;
• Extensive experience (at least 10 years) in conducting reviews of human rights projects preferably involving multiple partners and the European Union as a donor, including designing and employing both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, which are participatory and sensitive to the needs of the target group;
• Deep understanding of non-governmental organisations, human rights organisations, accountability and fight against impunity issues;
• Advanced critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis skills required to draw conclusions from several sources of information and data;
• Fluency in written and spoken English. Ability to express clearly and concisely ideas in written materials and presentations; working knowledge of French/Spanish/Arabic is an asset.
• Proven skills in interpersonal communication and networking.

VIII. Submission of Offers and Selection Criteria

Applicants are requested to send their submissions to makingjusticework@fidh.org, with the subject « Midterm Review Consultant » by 11 July 2025.

Applications must include:

• A CV of the consultant(s) and a cover letter (2 pages maximum);
• A technical proposal (4 pages maximum) including i) the understanding of the task, ii) the proposed methodology (i.e., extended review matrix (Table 1) with the review criteria, detailed questions, proposed data collection methods to each question/group of questions with justification, proposed sampling, data analysis method; iii) any challenges you envisage during commissioning this review and mitigation ways, iv) any highlights and comments you think might be useful to consider;
• A detailed financial proposal in Euros, including consultancy fees and other eligible costs (transport and accommodation for field visits, printing, etc);
• Two samples of abstracts of previous relevant review and/or research or links to these documents, if available.

The review of the submissions will take into account the following criteria:

• Understanding of the ToRs (10%)
• Suggested methodology (30%)
• Experience of the suggested team (30%)
• Quality of submitted samples (10%)
• Financial offer (20%)

IX. Confidentiality

All information presented, obtained and produced concerning the GIAI Programme, the implementation partners, associates and beneficiaries during the review process/consultancy is to be treated as confidential. The selected consultant will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement and ethical code of conduct (example is provided below) upon signature of the contract. The selected consultant should also observe the security in the communication and online digital security protocols established for the project, particularly in their interactions with beneficiaries of the project and in the management of sensitive information.

X. Ethical code of conduct

To ensure the credibility and integrity of the evaluation process and following United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Ethical Guidelines, the Consultants will be required to commit to the Code of Conduct for Evaluation (see http://www.unevaluation.org/papersandpubs/), specifically to the following obligations:

• Independence: Evaluators shall ensure that independence of judgment is maintained, and that evaluation findings and recommendations are independently presented.

• Cultural Sensitivity/Valuing diversity: Demonstrating an appreciation of the multicultural nature of the organization and the diversity of its staff. Demonstrating an international outlook, appreciating differences in values and learning from cultural diversity.

• Impartiality: Evaluators shall operate in an impartial and unbiased manner and give a balanced presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the policy, program, project or organizational unit being evaluated.

• Conflict of Interest: Evaluators are required to disclose in writing any past experience, which may give rise to a potential conflict of interest, and to deal honestly in resolving any conflict of interest which may arise.

• Honesty and Integrity: Evaluators shall show honesty and integrity in their own behaviour, negotiating honestly the evaluation costs, tasks, limitations, scope of results likely to be obtained, while accurately presenting their procedures, data and findings and highlighting any limitations or uncertainties of interpretation within the evaluation.

• Competence: Evaluators shall accurately represent their level of skills and knowledge and work only within the limits of their professional training and abilities in evaluation, declining assignments for which they do not have the skills and experience to complete successfully.

• Obligations to Participants: Evaluators shall respect and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects and communities, in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights conventions. Evaluators shall respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, personal interaction, gender roles, disability, age and ethnicity, while using evaluation instruments appropriate to the cultural setting. Evaluators shall ensure prospective participants are treated as autonomous agents, free to choose whether to participate in the evaluation, while ensuring that the relatively powerless are represented.

• Avoidance of Harm: Evaluators shall act to minimize risks and harms to, and burdens on, those participating in the evaluation, without compromising the integrity of the evaluation findings.

• Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability: Evaluators have an obligation to ensure that evaluation reports and presentations are accurate, complete and reliable. Evaluators shall explicitly justify judgments, findings and conclusions and show their underlying rationale, so that stakeholders are in a position to assess them.

• Transparency: Evaluators shall clearly communicate to stakeholders the purpose of the evaluation, the criteria applied and the intended use of findings. Evaluators shall ensure that stakeholders have a say in shaping the evaluation and shall ensure that all documentation is readily available to and understood by stakeholders.

• Omissions and wrongdoing: Where evaluators find evidence of wrong-doing or unethical conduct, they are obliged to report it to the proper oversight authority.

• The evaluator will have the final judgment on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation report, and the evaluator must be protected from pressures to change information in the report.