Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction. ................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Background of the study ...............................................................................................................3
1.2 Problem statement of the study ...................................................................................................6
1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3.1 General Objective ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Significant of the Study .................................................................................................................6
1.5 Scope of the Study........................................................................................................................7
1.5.1. Content scope: .........................................................................................................................7
1.5.2. Geographical scope ..................................................................................................................7
1.5.3. Time scope ...............................................................................................................................7
1.5.4 Theoretical scope ......................................................................................................................7
1.6 Organization of Study ...................................................................................................................7
1,7 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................. 9

LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................. 9

2.0. Introduction .................................................................................................. 9

2.1. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 9

2.1.1. Definition of Democarcy ............................................................................... 9

2.1.5 Definition of human rights............................................................................ 14

2.1.6 Classification of human rights ....................................................................... 16

2.2. Empirical Framework .................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................ 28

RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 28
3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Variables definition......................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Research Type ................................................................................................................. 28

Page: 1
3.3 Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Sample design ................................................................................................................. 29
3.4.1 Population..................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2 Sample Size ................................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Sources of Data ............................................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Primary Data Sources ................................................................................................... 29
3.5.2 Secondary Data Sources ............................................................................................... 29
3.6 Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................................... 30
3.6 .1 Questionnaires............................................................................................................. 30
3.6.2. Interview guide ............................................................................................................ 30
3.6.3. Observation ................................................................................................................. 30
3.7 Data Presentation Tools ................................................................................................. 30
3.8 Data Analysis and Interpretation ............................................................................ 30
3.9 Ethical Consideration .............................................................................................. 31
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 31

Page: 2
THE ROLE OF DEMOCRACY ON HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION CASE OF HUMAN
RIGHT COMMISSION HARGEISA SOMALILAND

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction.
This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of problem, objectives, specific
objective of the study, scope, and significance of the study about the role of democracy on
human rights protection case human right commission Hargeisa somaliland

1.1 Background of the study

The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in
the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity. Led by Cleisthenes, Athenians established
what is generally held as the first democracy in 508–507 BC. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the
father of Athenian democracy (gotiana, 2011).
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people" which was
found from people and power or rule, in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then
existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to rule of an elite. While
theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred
historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic
citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political
participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history,
democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all
adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and
20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and
Middle Latin equivalents (ARTESTO, 2014)
The end of the First World War was a temporary victory for democracy in Europe, as it was
preserved in France and temporarily extended to Germany.
World War II was ultimately a victory for democracy in Western Europe, where representative
governments were established that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, many

Page: 3
countries of Central and Eastern Europe became undemocratic Soviet satellite states. In
Southern Europe, a number of right-wing authoritarian dictatorships (most notably in Spain and
Portugal) continued to exist. Since 1988, the people of Africa have risen to replace one-party
and military dictatorships with multiparty democracy. From its violent outbreak in October
1985, in the streets of Algiers, this new social movement for democracy has manifested itself
all over the continent, changing the rules of the political game and bringing about meaningful
reforms in the institutions of the post-colonial state. South Africa is a new democracy with a
progressive Constitution and a Bill of Rights that contains all human rights that are universally
accepted and recognized. The purpose of this article is to analyse the results of a research study
aimed at determining the level of public awareness and the perceptions regarding the protection
and enjoyment of such rights. To that end, the survey sought information on public knowledge
or awareness of the Bill of Rights, violation or protection of various types of rights, and
awareness and perceptions regarding human rights institutions. It was found that many South
Africans are unaware of the existence of the Bill of Rights and that the majority of South
Africans blame the government for most human rights violations. The results of the survey also
show that people are not happy with the level of protection of their rights, particularly socio-
economic rights. It is also clear that public knowledge of the existence of human rights
institutions and the work they do is severely limited. It is concluded that there is a serious need
to educate the public, not only on the Bill of Rights and the processes and the mechanisms of
its enforcement, but also on the existence and functions of the various human rights institutions.
Only then will the Bill of Rights serve the true purpose for which it was intended.
The idea of 'human rights' is not universal - it is essentially the product of 17th and 18th century
European thought. Even the idea of 'rights' does not necessarily exist in every society or
advanced civilization. Human rights are rights possessed by people simply as, and because they
are, human beings. The term has only come into common currency during the 20th century.
Rights are not But until the 17th century such attempts to establish a framework for such rules,
laws and codes, whether in social, legal, secular or theological debate, emphasized duties and
privileges that arose from peoples' status or relationships, rather than abstract rights that,
philosophically, preceded or underlay those relations or laws.
The three 20th century waves of democracy based on the number of nations 1800– 2003 scoring
8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy. In the 21st century,

Page: 4
democracy movements have been seen across the world. In the Arab world, an unprecedented
series of major protests occurred with citizens of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria
and other countries across the MENA region demanding democratic rights. This revolutionary
wave was given the term Tunisia Effect, as well as the Arab Spring. The Palestinian Authority
also took action to address democratic rights. The post-war era saw human rights movements
for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. Africa
and the Challenges of Democracy and Good Governance in the 21st Century. On 14 April
2003, the people of Somaliland enjoyed an experience all too rare in the Horn of Africa: an
election without a predetermined outcome. The re-election of the incumbent President, Dahir
Rayale Kahin, came as a surprise for a number of reasons: First, because of the razor thin margin
of his victory – just 80 votes out of nearly 500,000 ballots cast. Secondly, because he is not a
member of Somaliland’s majority clan. Two decades of military rule and three years of civil
war fought by means that expressly violated international humanitarian and human rights law
were responsible for the deaths of some 300,000 Somalis and displacement of 3 million.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights (hereinafter the African Charter or
Charter), at the very core of the African human rights system, has reached full ratification status.
With the deposit of Eritrea’s instrument of ratification on 14 January 1999, all member states
of the African Union (AU) have signified their willingness to be bound by the obligations
created by the Charter.
The Juvenile Justice Law Somaliland’s juvenile justice law was drafted with the help of external
donors and came into force in April 2008. Its primary aim was to bring system in line with both
international norms and local values. Among other key provisions, the law guarantees a wide
range of due process rights to including the presumption of innocence; the right to legal counsel
in all proceedings; and the right of their views in all proceedings. It also states that no child can
be deprived of his or her liberty unless accused of committing an offense set forth b y law.

Page: 5
1.2 Problem statement of the study
Protecting human rights in international issue according UN declarations, in Somaliland the
people suffered violation of human rights and low protection of human rights indicated arrest
and detention of a number of political opponents
and the limitations it has placed on the independence of the judiciary if this situation continues
there will be increasing human rights violation, and this problem is caused lack good democracy
in the country, and other factors such as ineffective rule of law and justice system, which
consequently dangers the life of the individuals and groups in the society, and to solve this
problem human commission and other private partners most advocate promoting human rights
protection

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

This paper seeks to find out the role of democracy on human rights protection case of human
right commission Hargeisa somaliland

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study wass as follows:
1.To identify the degree of democracy in Somaliland.
2.To determine the human rights violation in Somaliland.
3.To determine if there is a significant relationship between the Democracy and Human
Rights violation in Somaliland.

1.4 Significant of the Study

The following significances will benefit from the findings of the study.
1.The findings will be useful When the maintained human rights,

Page: 6
 2.The findings will help human right full Also awareness violation human right such like
human right abuse children, women‟s against rape
3..The findings will be important for the researcher‟s academic qualification for the award
of Degree public administration in civil service institute.

1.5 Scope of the Study

1.5.1. Content scope: The study intends to examine the levels of the democracy and the human
rights protection

1.5.2. Geographical scope

This study is conducted in Hargiesa city, five districts also it is the capital city of Somaliland and
so it is where all headquarters of the government located.

1.5.3. Time scope

This study is conducted from April to May,2020

1.5.4 Theoretical scope

Many have argued that human rights exist in order to protect the basic dignity of human life.
Indeed, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights embodies this goal by declaring that
human rights flow from "the inherent dignity of the human person".

1.6 Organization of Study

This research was conducted at The Somaliland National Human Rights Commission
(SLNHRC) was the head office and the other branches. The Somaliland National Human Rights
Commission (SLNHRC) is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament No. 39/2010
entitled “The Somaliland National Human Rights Commission Act”. The Act, which entered
into force on December 2010 saw the full establishment of the Commission, clarification of the
mandate, functions and institutional structure of the Commission. The Commission had been
put in place in 2005 by the former administration in Somaliland but had never been fully
established, nor was its mandate, functions and institutional structure put in place by law as
otherwise required by the Paris Principles. The election of a new Government in June 2010 and
the subsequent appointment of a new cabinet saw the appointment of a new interim chair of the

Page: 7
 Commission and 7 members of the Commission. The Act in Article 2 and 33 (2) provides for
the functional, operational and independence of the institution.

The SLNHRC draws its legal mandate, framework and functions from the Somaliland National
Human Rights Commission Act. The Act provides for the functions of the Commission under
Article 26 which include: investigating human rights violations,
visiting places of detention to inspect and assess the conditions of the inmates, to create
awareness and research and educate the communities on human rights, give advice and make
recommendations to cabinet ministers and members of parliament (MPs) on the protection of
human rights and basic freedoms and monitoring the human rights situation in the country. The
Act further gives powers to the Commission to perform its functions to mediate, investigate and
make decisions on human rights and related matters. The Commission may also summon or
require the attendance of any person before it as well as the production of any document or
record relevant to its investigation. SLNHRC works closely with the Government Ministries
especially the ministries of Justice, Interior, Labour and Social Affairs, Health and Education.
In order to promote and consolidate a culture of respect for human rights and the rule of law in
Somaliland, the Commission additionally works with the immigration services, regional
governments, local authorities, traditional and religious leaders, women's groups, minority
groups and organizations supporting the disabled & children and other civil society
organizations in Somaliland

1,7 Limitations of the Study

The researchers encountered the following challenges in their study:
1. The researchers encountered Language barrier when they were collecting data, because the
population of the study were Somali and the research questions have been prepared in English
which have been translated into Somali language and it took a time.
2. The researchers also came across fear of confidentiality about data collection, because financial
information is always sensitive.
3. Time of data collection was in the middle of wholly month of Ramadan and the respondents
did not provide sufficient information because they were exhausted for that time.

Page: 8
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0. Introduction
This chapter contains a review of the existing theoretical and conceptual literature on the
research variables that is about the relationship of the role of democracy on human rights
protection case of human right commission Hargeisa somaliland

2.1. Theoretical Framework

2.1.1. Definition of Democarcy
Democracy is arguably the oldest concept of the two under consideration here and it was first
formulated in the work of Aristotle, whose notion of „polity‟ most closely matches the modern
conception of democracy used today. While polity refers to the „good‟ form of rule by the many,
modern conceptions of democracy are based on the fundamental ideas of popular sovereignty
and collective decision-making in which rulers are in some way held to account by those over
whom they rule. But beyond this basic consensus on what is otherwise a highly contested
concept, there are many variations of democracy, or „democracy with adjectives, that have been
in use by scholars, practitioners and policymakers. These definitions can be grouped broadly into:
Procedural democracy, Liberal democracy and Social democracy, (Deyhle, 2002).The
delineation of which largely rests on the variable incorporation of different rights protection
alongside the general commitment to popular sovereignty and collective decision-making
(Deyhle, 2002).

2.1.2.Procedural democracy
Procedural definitions of democracy draw on the seminal work of Robert Dahl (1971) in
oligarchy and include two dimensions of contestation.
And Participation Contestation captures the uncertain peaceful competition necessary for
democratic rule; a principle which presumes the legitimacy of a significant and organized
opposition, the right to challenge incumbents, protection of the twin freedoms of expression
and association, the existence of free and fair elections and a

Page: 9
 consolidated political party system. In reference to some of the discussions, this idea alone has
motivated much foreign and aid policy in ways that have led to the „electoral fallacy‟, or the
over-enthusiasm among certain policymakers for the existence of successive elections as a key
indicator for the existence of stable democracy. Participation, on the other hand, captures the
idea of popular sovereignty, which presumes the protection of the right to vote as well as the
existence of universal suffrage, or that principle that enshrines the right of participation in the
democratic process to all within a country‟s jurisdiction regardless of social categories, such as
race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (Brant, 20011).
The history of suffrage suggests that this is a right that has been the result of long and
widespread social struggle as mentioned above, at least among Western democracies, while
new democracies have enshrined, at least formally, universal suffrage in their new (or
resurrected) constitutions during their own moments of transition.(Fleming, 20012).
democracy can be considered a baseline set of conditions and lower threshold that can be used
to assess and enumerate democracy in the world. Indeed, the figure depicting the growth of
democracy in the (table1) is based on this more narrow conception of democracy for
determining the scores used to count the number and percentage of democracies in the
world.(Fleming, 20012).
2.1.3Liberal Democracy
Liberal definitions of democracy preserve the notions of contestation and participation found
in procedural definitions, but add more explicit references to the protection of certain human
rights. As outlined above, these rights were traditionally understood as citizenship rights, but
with the advent of the contemporary international law and practice they have become largely
understood as human rights (see below).
Definitions of liberal democracy thus contain an institutional dimension and a rights dimension.
The institutional dimension captures the idea of popular sovereignty and includes notions of
accountability, constraint of leaders, representation of citizens and universal participation in
ways that are consistent with Dahl’s „oligarchy‟ model outlined above. The rights dimension
is upheld by the rule of law and includes civil, political, property and minority rights. The
protection of these rights provides a particular set of guarantees that guard against the threat of

Page: 10
 a „tyranny of the majority‟ and have their provenance in the 1776 American Declaration of
Independence and the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
Table summarizes this definition of democracy. Such a definition is arguably richer (or thicker)
as it includes legal constraints on the exercise of power to complement the popular elements in
the derivation of and accountability for power. For liberal definitions, popular sovereignty and
collective decision-making are simply not enough as outcomes under such a system can
undermine the rights of individuals and groups. And we shall see later on in this chapter that
many new democracies have been relatively successful in establishing procedural democracy,
but have struggled to guarantee the kinds of rights that constitute the liberal definition. Scholars
such as Larry Diamond (1999) and FareedZakaria (2007) have written extensively about this
„gap‟ between the institutional and rights dimensions that characterize the new democracies
that have emerged since the late 1970s. Indeed, Zakaria calls such a state of affairs „illiberal
democracy‟, but what is interesting is that if one looks closely at the collection of so-called
„advanced democracies‟, especially since the advent of the 2001 „war on terror‟, there are also
evident gaps between the institutional and rights dimension in these democracies as well.
Across a wide selection of these democracies, we have seen the passage of anti-terror legislation
that undermines many historic rights commitments relating to arbitrary detention, privacy and
freedom of movement while the prosecutors of the war on terror have sought ways to reinterpret
legal protections relating to such human rights as the Right not be tortured, or other forms of
cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment (see, e.g. Sands 2006).,

Institutional (popular rule of law) Rights dimension

dimension

(sovereignty)

Accountability rights Civil rights

Restraint Property rights

2.1.4. Social democracy

Social definitions of democracy maintain the institutional and rights dimensions found in liberal
models of democracy but expand the types of rights that ought to be protected, including social,
economic and cultural rights (although some of these are included in minority rights protection
seen in liberal definitions). Such an expanded form of democracy, as summarized in Table,
Page: 11
includes the provision of social and economic welfare and the progressive realization of
economic and social rights. It also includes the protection of cultural rights, which are concerned
with such issues as mother tongue language, ceremonial land rights and intellectual property
rights relating to cultural practices (e.g. indigenous healing practices and remedies that may be of
interest to multinational companies). Conceptually, those advocating a pure liberal model of
democracy argue that including such social dimensions mixes intrinsic and extrinsic features of
democratic performance, since it is possible for non-democratic regimes to provide social and
economic welfare as well as the realization of their associated rights. This has long been the
argument of socialist regimes, particularly those of the former Soviet Union, the Communist
countries of Eastern Europe and Cuba, as well as in the case of Venezuela under the Bolivarian
Revolution of President Hugo Chavez. Proponents of human rights, on the other hand, argue that
the sharp distinction between categories of rights is false, since the exercise of one category of
rights is related to the other category of rights, and both sets are required for full experience of
democratic rule. For example, access to health, education and welfare will have an impact on an
individual‟s ability to participate in the democratic process through voting, acquiring and
understanding political information and having the personal capacity and capabilities for critical
engagement in the political system. Thus for a full experience of democracy, both sets of rights
are required. Beyond these conceptual and theoretical debates, which see social democracy as a
„type‟ that ought to include this fuller selection of rights protection and provision of social
programmes and policy

Accountability Restraint Civil

rights Property rights

Representation Participation Political

rights Minority rights

Page: 12
 Economic rights Social rights

Donnelly (1999) argues that in the relationship between development, democracy and human
rights, European welfare states have come closest to the normative ideal of „rights-protective‟
regimes, since the welfare system acts to alleviate the worst effects of market capitalism by
providing a social safety net. Such an understanding of course has been significantly challenged
in Europe since the 2007 financial crisis, as governments across the region have had to cut back
on public expenditure in ways that have caused great pain for those most in need of the services
expected from the welfare state. Cuts in such countries as Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and
the United Kingdom have affected public service workers, those in receipt of housing benefit,
educational grants, child benefit and other services typically provided by the state. The different
models of democracy are summarized in Figure as a series of concentric circles that capture the
notion of ever-thickening definitions of democracy. A version of this figure has been used by the
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), a 29-member state inter-
governmental organization based in Sweden that helps build democracy around the world.
The figure should not be misunderstood as representing a causal ordering or chronology of
democratic development. Rather, it should be seen as a way to represent the core features of
democracy (popular sovereignty and collective decision-making) and the increasing overlap with
various rights protections. The North American tradition of democracy tends to concentrate on
the liberal model, while European and African countries tend to concentrate on the social model.
Indeed, in Africa, and in particular, the African Union political discourse, there is great attention
to the basket of economic, social and cultural rights as essential for democracy 7in the region.
As we shall see below, the main human rights instrument in Africa is entitled the African Charter
on Human and People‟s Rights, which signals this normative commitment to collective rights
found within the social democratic model. Overall, it is important in any discussion of democracy
to take account of these various definitions, which should serve as a general guide to the different
ways in which democracy has been understood and how it will be understood in new
democracies.

Page: 13
2.1.5 Definition of human rights
Human rights are commonly understood as being those rights which are inherent in the mere fact
of being human. The concept of human rights is based on the belief that every human being is
entitled to enjoy her/his rights without discrimination. Human rights differ from other rights in
two respects. Firstly, they are characterised by being:
Inherent in all human beings by virtue of their humanity alone (they do not have,e.g., to be
purchased or to be granted);Inalienable (within qualified legal boundaries); and
Equally applicable to all.
Secondly, the main duties deriving from human rights fall on states and their authorities or agents,
not on individuals
.Historical antecedents of human rights
The origins of human rights may be found both in Greek philosophy and the various world
religions. In the Age of Enlightenment (18th century) the concept of human rights emerged as an
explicit category. Man/woman came to be seen as an autonomous individual, endowed by nature
with certain inalienable fundamental rights that could be invoked against a government and
should be safeguarded by it. Human rights were henceforth seen as elementary preconditions for
an existence worthy of human dignity.
Before this period, several charters codifying rights and freedoms had been drawn up constituting
important steps towards the idea of human rights. During the 6th Century, the Achaemenid
Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented principles of human rights. Cyrus the
Great (576 or 590 BC - 530 BC) issued the Cyrus cylinder which declared that citizens of the
empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely and also abolished slavery. The
next generation of human rights documents were the Magna Charta Libertatum of 1215, the
Golden Bull of Hungary (1222), the Danish Erik Klipping’sHåndfaestning of 1282, the Joyeuse
Entrée of 1356 in Brabant (Brussels), theUnion of Utrecht of 1579 (The Netherlands) and the
English Bill of Rights of 1689. These documents specified rights which could be claimed in the
light of particular circumstances (e.g., threats to the freedom of religion), but they did not yet

Page: 14
contain an all-embracing philosophical concept of individual liberty. Freedoms were often seen
as rights conferred upon individuals or groups by virtue of their rank or status.
In the centuries after the Middle Ages, the concept of liberty became gradually separated from
status and came to be seen not as a privilege but as a right of all human beings. Spanish theologists
and jurists played a prominent role in this context. Among the former, the work of Francisco de
Vitoria (1486-1546) and Bartolomé de las Casas (1474-1566) should be highlighted. These two
men laid the (doctrinal) foundation for the recognition of freedom and dignity of all humans by
defending the personal rights of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the territories colonised by the
Spanish Crown.

The Enlightenment was decisive in the development of human rights concepts. The ideas of Hugo
Grotius (1583-1645), one of the fathers of modern international law, of Samuel von Pufendorf
(1632-1694), and of John Locke (1632-1704) attracted much interest in Europe in the 18th
century. Locke, for instance, developed a comprehensive concept of natural rights; his list of
rights consisting of life, liberty and property. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) elaborated the
concept under which the sovereign derived his powers and the citizens their rights from a social
contract. The term human rights appeared for the first time in the French Déclaration des Droits
de l’Homme et du Citoyen(1789).
The people of the British colonies in North America took the human rights theories to heart. The
American Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 was based on the assumption that all
human beings are equal. It also referred to certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These ideas were also reflected in the Bill of Rights which
was promulgated by the state of Virginia in the same year. The provisions of the Declaration of
Independence were adopted by other American states, but they also found their way into the Bill
of Rights of the American Constitution. The French Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du
Citoyen of 1789, as well as the French Constitution of 1793, reflected the emerging international
theory of universal rights. Both the American and French Declarations were intended as
systematic enumerations of these rights.
The classic rights of the 18th and 19th centuries related to the freedom of the individual. Even at
that time, however, some people believed that citizens had a right to demand that the government
endeavour to improve their living conditions. Taking into account the principle of equality as

Page: 15
contained in the French Declaration of 1789, several constitutions drafted in Europe around 1800
contained classic rights, but also included articles which assigned responsibilities to the
government in the fields of employment, welfare, public health, and education. Social rights of
this kind were also expressly included in the Mexican Constitution of 1917, the Constitution of
the Soviet Union of 1918 and the German Constitution of 1919.

In the 19th century, there were frequent inter-state disputes relating to the protection of the rights
of minorities in Europe. These conflicts led to several humanitarian interventions and calls for
international protection arrangements. One of the first such arrangements was the Treaty of
Berlin of 1878, which accorded special legal status to some religious groups. It also served as a
model for the Minorities System that was subsequently established within the League of Nations.
The need for international standards on human rights was first felt at the end of the 19th century,
when the industrial countries began to introduce labour legislation. This legislation - which raised
the cost of labour - had the effect of worsening their competitive position in relation to countries
that had no labour laws. Economic necessity forced the states to consult each other. It was as a
result of this that the first conventions were formulated in which states committed themselves
vis-à-vis other states in regard to their own citizens. The Bern Convention of 1906 prohibiting
night-shift work by women can be seen as the first multilateral convention meant to safeguard
social rights. Many more labour conventions were later to be drawn up by the International
LabourOrganisation (ILO), founded in 1919 (see II§1.D). Remarkable as it may seem, therefore,
while the classic human rights had been acknowledged long before social rights, the latter were
first embodied in international regulations.

2.1.6 Classification of human rights

CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Civil rights
The term ‘civil rights’ is often used with reference to the rights set out in the first eighteen articles
of the UDHR, almost all of which are also set out as binding treaty norms in the ICCPR. From
this group, a further set of ‘physical integrity rights’ has been identified, which concern the right
to life, liberty and security of the person, and which offer protection from physical violence
against the person, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary arrest, detention, exile, slavery and
servitude, interference with one’s privacy and right of ownership, restriction of one’s freedom of

Page: 16
movement, and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The difference between ‘basic
rights’ (see below) and ‘physical integrity rights’ lies in the fact that the former include economic
and social rights, but do not include rights such as protection of privacy and ownership.
Although not strictly an integrity right, the right to equal treatment and protection in law certainly
qualifies as a civil right. Moreover, this right plays an essential role in the realisation of economic,
social and cultural rights.
Another group of civil rights is referred to under the collective term ‘due process rights’. These
pertain, among other things, to the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, the ‘presumption of innocence’, the ne bis in idem principle (freedom from double
jeopardy) and legal assistance (see, e.g., Articles 9, 10, 14 and 15 ICCPR).
Political rights
In general, political rights are those set out in Articles 19 to 21 UDHR and also codified in the
ICCPR. They include freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, the right to
take part in the government of one’s country and the right to vote and stand for election at genuine
periodic elections held by secret ballot (see Articles 18, 19, 21, 22 and 25 ICCPR).
Economic and social rights
The economic and social rights are listed in Articles 22 to 26 UDHR, and further developed and
set out as binding treaty norms in the ICESCR. These rights provide the conditions necessary for
prosperity and wellbeing. Economic rights refer, for example, to the right to property, the right
to work, which one freely chooses or accepts, the right to a fair wage, a reasonable limitation of
working hours, and trade union rights. Social rights are those rights necessary for an adequate
standard of living, including rights to health, shelter, food, social care, and the right to education
(see Articles 6 to 14 ICESCR).
Cultural rights
The UDHR lists cultural rights in Articles 27 and 28: the right to participate freely in the cultural
life of the community, the right to share in scientific advancement and the right to the protection
of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of
which one is the author (see also Article 15 ICESCR and Article 27 ICCPR).
Other classification of human rights
Preconditions for a dignified human existence have often been described in terms of freedoms
(e.g., freedom of movement, freedom from torture and freedom from arbitrary arrest). United

Page: 17
States President Franklin D. Roosevelt summarised these preconditions in his famous ‘Four
Freedoms Speech’ to the United States Congress on 26 January 1941:
Freedom of speech and expression;
Freedom of belief (the right of every person to worship God in his own way);
Freedom from want (economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace-
time life for its inhabitants); and
Freedom from fear (world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough
fashion that no nation would be able to commit an act of physical aggression against any
neighbour).or rights of liberty, rights of education . rights of healthy and rights of arrested person
to information Roosevelt implied that a dignified human existence requires not only protection
from oppression and arbitrariness, but also access to the primary necessities of life.
2.1.7 Protecting of human rights
The idea of protecting the rights of human beings in law against the abuse of governmental
authority had begun to receive ever wider acceptance in the 20th century, especially with the
coming into being of the League of Nations and International Labour Oganisation and their work
on the rights of minorities, on labour and other matters. The importance of codifying these rights
in written form had already been recognized by states and, in this way, the documents described
above became the early precursors to many of today's human rights treaties. However, it was the
events of World War II that really propelled human rights onto the international stage. The
terrible atrocities committed in this war – including the holocaust and massive war crimes -
sparked the emergence of a further body of international law and, above all, the creation of human
rights as we know them today.
The Charter of the United Nations, signed on 26 June 1945, reflected this belief. The Charter
states that the fundamental objective of the United Nations is "to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war" and "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women".
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was drawn up by the UN Commission on
Human Rights, one of the organs of the United Nations, and was adopted by the General
Assembly on the 10 December 1948. The UDHR is undoubtedly ground breaking and continues
to serve as the most important global human rights instrument. Although not setting out to be
legally binding, the UDHR has served as the inspiration behind numerous commitments to

Page: 18
human rights, whether at the national, regional or international level. Since then, a series of key
instruments to safeguard its principles have also been drawn up and agreed by the international
community.

2.2. Empirical Framework

human rights as established in international law is dependent on the creation and adoption of
legal standards by states, which allow the human rights community to hold states accountable for
those actions that violate the dignity of individuals residing within their jurisdictions. The
International Bill of Rights – the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1966 International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – and the 1984 Convention against
Torture (CAT) highlight the legal protections that individuals can claim from the state. The two
Covenants also reflect the most commonly accepted categorization of human rights: (a) civil and
political rights, (b) economic, social and cultural rights and (c) solidarity rights. As we saw above,
the first two categories form part of the different definitions democracy.

But what do these different categories of rights mean? Civil and political rights protect the
„personhood‟ of individuals and their ability to participate in the public activities of their
countries. Economic, social and cultural rights provide individuals with access to economic
resources, social opportunities for growth and the enjoyment of their distinct ways of life, as well
as protection from the arbitrary loss of these rights. Solidarity rights seek to guarantee for
individuals access to public goods like development and the environment, and some have begun
to argue, the benefits of global economic development (Freeman 2002; Landman 2006a). This
categorization loosely follows a temporal frame; since we saw earlier that human rights can be
seen as the consequence of struggles of peoples against oppression and injustice, successive
generations of people have fought for distinct „generations of rights‟ with civil and political
rights comprising the first generation, economic, social and cultural rights making up the second
generation, and solidarity rights, the third. While such a history in the struggle for rights has been
well documented, the division of rights in this way is no longer part of the international discourse
on human rights. Rather, the int Relational community speaks of human rights as equal,
indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, where the enjoyment and implementation of one set

Page: 19
of rights are inextricably linked to the fulfillment of the other rights (Boyle 1995; Alfredsson and
Eide 1999; Donnelly 1999; Freeman 2002). Beyond the International Bill of Rights and the
Convention against Torture, a second set of
treaties protects the rights of individuals who by virtue of being members of a particular group
or possessing certain characteristics may be particularly vulnerable to rights violations. The
1966 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD) addresses all forms of racial discrimination, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC) specifies 21the legal protections to be given to the rights of children and the
obligations accrued to the state to uphold these rights and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) highlights the rights of women and ensures them
protection from discrimination on arbitrary or unjustified grounds. Other rights protections have
been provided to individuals with disabilities, who belong to an indigenous or ethnic population,
and migrant workers. Taken together, there are now a large number of human rights that have
been formally codified (see Table 3.4)
which can be enumerated from the different treaties. As definitions and assumptions vary, the
total number of rights that ought to be protected also varies, but the list in the table comprises
The content of human rights as established in international law is dependent on the creation and
adoption of legal standards by states, which allow the human rights community to hold states
accountable for those actions that violate the dignity of individuals residing within their
jurisdictions. The International Bill of Rights – the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – and the 1984
Convention against Torture (CAT) highlight the legal protections that individuals can claim from
the state. The two Covenants also reflect the most commonly accepted categorization of human
rights: (a) civil and political rights, (b) economic, social and cultural rights and (c) solidarity
rights. As we saw above, the first two categories form part of the different definitions democracy.
But what do these different categories of rights mean? Civil and political rights protect the
„personhood‟ of individuals and their ability to participate in the public activities of their
countries. Economic, social and cultural rights provide individuals with access to economic
resources, social opportunities for growth and the enjoyment of their distinct ways of life, as well
as protection from the arbitrary loss of these rights. Solidarity rights seek to guarantee for

Page: 20
individuals access to public goods like development and the environment, and some have begun
to argue, the benefits of global economic development (Freeman 2002; Landman 2006). This
categorization loosely follows a temporal frame;
since we saw earlier that human rights can be seen as the consequence of struggles of peoples
against oppression and injustice, successive generations of people have fought for distinct
„generations of rights‟ with civil and political rights comprising the first generation, economic,
social and cultural rights making up the second generation, and solidarity rights, the third. While
such a history in the struggle for rights has been well documented, the division of rights in this
way is no longer part of the international discourse on human rights. Rather, the international
community speaks of human rights as equal, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, where
the enjoyment and implementation of one set of rights are inextricably linked to the fulfillment
of the other rights (Boyle 1995; Alfredsson and Eide
Human Rights Protect Every Human Being
Human rights protect the essential elements and areas of a human existence, which are necessary
for survival and for life as a human being. Human rights are those rights that belong to everyone
as a member of the human race, regardless of skin color, nationality, political convictions or
religious persuasion, social standing, gender or age. Every individual possesses human rights.
They are subjective rights because the right-holders of human rights are individuals, not
collectivities. Human rights are rights with a certain complexity because they are at the same
time moral, legal, and political rights. In their legal dimension, human rights are part of a legal
system and individuals living in this legal system are entitled to these rights. They are ‘legal
entitlements of individuals against the state or state-like entities, guaranteed by international law
for the purpose of protecting fundamental needs of the human person and his/her dignity in times
of peace and war’ (Kaelin 2004: 17). The legal dimension of human rights is a positive
achievement of human history as the international community found a consensus in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and created and ratified a human rights system in
subsequent years. One can see a progress in the tradition of human rights from philosophical
ideas of human rights (e.g., in the period of Enlightenment) to the implementation of the
philosophical ideas of human rights on a national level (e.g., Declaration of Independence of
1776, Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789) with its obvious limits (only
white men of a certain socio-economic class excluding other human beings, excluding all other

Page: 21
men and women, and still not overcoming the theory and practice of slavery), initiating the
implementation of human rights on a universal level (Universal Declaration of Human Rights of
1948, the UN human rights treaty body system, regional human rights mechanisms) (Bobbio
1998). One can see a progress which the tradition of human rights experienced in the legal
dimension in their process of realization. Human rights are now legally defined, know a legal
framework and are enforceable. Institutions like the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the
UN Treaty Body System, … are elements of the realization of the idea of human rights and can
enhance the fulfillment of human rights. They show that human rights are a concrete reality, not
an illusion. Human rights are legal reality in all parts of the world. Human rights legal
mechanisms, instruments and human rights institutions give the idea of the protection of human
dignity embodied in human rights.Human rights gain weight and power when they become part
of a particular legal system (see Lohmann 2002), for example, of a national legal system through
a democratic process, as they are then enforceable by law more directly and democratically
legitimated.Obviously the implementation of human rights at the same time faces challenges
everywhere. One of the main challenges belongs to the process of the incorporation of human
rights in national legal systems: the risk of a particularization of human rights. Human rights are
integrated in a national legal system by becoming part of the fundamental rights of the
constitution through a democratic process. Within the national legal system the legal subjects
acknowledge each other as holders of these rights within the framework of internal logic of a
legal system. At the same time this way undermines the universality of human rights, because
then human rights would exist only within a particular legal system of a particular legal society.
Human beings who are not citizens of this particular legal society remain without human rights.
Human rights run the risk of reduction of their universality through the particularization as parts
of a national legal system. Justification models within the moral dimension can as already
mentioned include the essential aspect of human rights that every human being – even living in
a place on the planet where she or he does not benefit from a legal system respecting human
rights – has human rights.On a practical level, the process of strengthening international law and
of a global institutionalization of the implementation and protection of human rights – in parallel
to the integration of human rights within national legal systems – is necessary.
The legal dimension of human rights introduced above is the result of one part of the political
dimension of human rights (see Kirchschlaeger 2013b: 255–260) including the political

Page: 22
deliberation, political struggle, political opinion- and consensus-building processes, and political
decisions leading to the legal entitlement of human beings to human rights. The political
dimension of human rights embraces human rights as content and political arguments in public
political discussion as well. Even if they do not lead to legal consequences, they can have political
significance.Furthermore political opinion-building and decision-making processes can strive for
human rights, as their aim is to guarantee every human being the enjoyment of human rights.
These processes can be dominated by the political duty to take the adequate political measures
and decisions to further the implementation of human rights.

Human rights practice needs this theoretical fundament:

Human rights are a theory-based social construct. Human rights practice is commonly understood
as actions through which we advocate for the protection of human rights […] Social action and
behaviour which actually do respect human rights, through which we promote their protection,
protest against their violation, and organise action or establish institutions that realise and protect
human rights, remain guided by theoretical considerations. Indeed, the theory must not become
an end in itself; there is something like a prohibition of self-gratification for human rights theory.
However, a practice that renounces theoretical considerations will, like similar practices, become
blind and runs the risk of getting lost or doing something wrong (Lohmann 2004: 307; translation
mine – P.K.).Finally, the following five situations illustrate the necessity of understanding human
rights in their moral dimension and not only in their legal, political and historical dimension. In
these exemplary situations human rights could not be claimed at all, or at least not integrally, if
their moral dimension were not considered:– In a state in which human rights cannot be claimed
legally, every human being is still a holder of human rights independently of the official position
of the state. The understanding of human rights as pre-state-rights (which means before becoming
legal positive rights respectively therefore in their moral dimension) needs to be upheld. ‘Pre’
refers here to the validity of human rights, not the genesis, therefore they are not depending upon
the state (Sandkuehler 2010: 1539). If human rights were not understood with a moral dimension
including its pre-state origin, human rights could not be claimed at all or at least not integrally.–
Where theoretical and practical obstacles block or obstruct the implementation of human rights,
or where the political will favors human rights violations, every human being is still a holder of

Page: 23
human rights based on the moral dimension of human rights. If majority-decisions try to reduce
the rights of a minority, every human being is still a holder of human rights which means the
protection of the minority and its members in their essential elements and areas of human
existence. When certain currents in traditions, cultures, religions and world-views interpret
human rights in a way denying or restricting a right or some rights to some human beings (e.g.,
the equality of woman and man, the relation between individual and collective rights, etc.), every
human being is a holder of human rights and (on the fundament of the above-mentioned principle
of indivisibility) of the entire catalogue of human rights to the same extent without any
difference.– If human rights would only be understood in a horizontal way with negative
consequences from a human rights perspective regarding the human rights violations by non-
state actors and the responsibilities corresponding with human rights of non-state actors, the
recognition of every human being as a holder of human rights in their moral dimension ensures
that human rights can be applied in horizontal (between individuals) and vertical (between
individual and state) relations with a critical potential.

The Universality of Human Rights

The universality of human rights (see Kirchschlaeger 2011) shows the significance of the moral
dimension of human rights as background of the just mentioned exemplary five situations.
Universality is mentioned above as one of the essential characteristics of human rights. By
definition, human rights are rights that apply to all human beings and are therefore universal. All
human beings are holders of human rights, independently of what they do, where they come
from, where they live and from their national citizenship, their community…
The universality of human rights is constantly challenged by particular interests, for example, by
states which claim the priority of their sovereignty or alleged democratic decisions over the
universality of human rights or by the private sector which claims self-regulating approaches and
uses this to define its sphere of influence within certain limits. These challenges are part of the
political and legal dimension of human rights and as a consequence of the moral dimension of
human rights as well. One can recognize a positive tendency to acceptance of human rights by
states, a growth of an international institutionalization for the protection of human rights and a

Page: 24
progress of the mechanisms for monitoring human rights performances by states to respect the
universality of human rights and some small steps by the corporate world. At the same time, it
has to be stated that the implementation of human rights is not yet there where it should be, and
that the vast majority of human beings are still victims of violations of their human rights. The
universality is still a claim, not a reality.Furthermore, cultural diversity can be seen as an obstacle
for the universality of human rights in the moral dimension of human rights. In spite of the
different philosophical, religious, cultural and traditional sources and texts transmitting elements
of the concept of human rights, although the broad inclusion of the international community in
the drafting process of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the reconfirmation of the
validity of the universality of human rights by the UN Conference in Vienna (1993), the
universality faces criticisms from different sides because of its alleged Western origin, for
example, in the so-called ‘Asian values debate’ (see Senghaas 1995; Geiger and Kieserling 2001;
Burke 1987).The fact that the universality of human rights is challenged by cultural diversity is
even more astonishing as firstly human rights protect the individual's freedom of religion and
belief and the right to a cultural life (article 18 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights of 1948) and therefore are enhancing cultural diversity. Secondly human rights as
individual rights protect especially the members of minorities from violations and injustices by
majorities, for example, with the right to equality, right to non-discrimination, etc. Simone
Zurbuchen points out: ‘While I do not deny that human rights establish moral boundaries, it needs
also to be seen that these rights enable members of religious communities and of other variants
of cultural groups to maintain their distinct identity’ (Zurbuchen 2009: 285). Often religious,
cultural, traditional or world-view communities run the risk to be discriminated because of their
religion, culture, tradition or world-view, and human rights protect them from this risk; thus
religions, cultures, traditions, world views and beliefs benefit indirectly from the universality of
human rights as they can find themselves somewhere in the world in the situation of a minority.
Minorities benefit as well indirectly from the human right to freedom of religion and belief. This
right enables and enhances the authentic practice of an individual and through that also the
peaceful coexistence of religions, cultures, traditions and world-views, as well as the dialogue
between them. It is an achievement of humanity that it seeks to protect this variety. As the
fundament of protection of ideas, traditions and beliefs, human rights can therefore in exchange
expect to be respected by religions, cultures, traditions, world views and beliefs (see Hoeffe

Page: 25
1999). Actually the realization of human rights needs the support and contribution by societal
actors like religious, cultural, traditional or world-view communities (Kirchschlaeger 2013a,
2013b).At this point, I need to emphasize that religions, cultures, traditions, world-views and
beliefs should be understood as open for change, not as eternal absolute entities. Human rights
do not find an end before religions, cultures, traditions, world-views and beliefs, but influence
them on a theoretical level. On a practical level, cultural mediation and an adaption of the
implementation of human rights to the specific religious, cultural and traditional context is
necessary to respect cultural diversity which is protected by human rights.Concerning the
dialogue about differences between religions, cultures, traditions and world views, the
recognition of the differences leads to a better understanding and supports human rights on a
practical level. This inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue would benefit from a frame of
reference, how this dialogue should be led in order to exclude the possibilities of discrimination
and of arbitrariness. Human rights could serve as this frame of reference.Of course, human rights
are individual rights and embrace the perspective of the individual, not of the community: human
rights do not protect traditions, cultures, religions as such, but the freedom of the individual to
share the beliefs, thoughts and world-views of a community, to be part of a community and to
practice their way of life. This difference is criticized as an individualistic bias of human rights,
overlooking article 29. The latter positions the individual within its community and underlines
the important role of the community for the development of the individual and the responsibilities
of the individual within the community.
Participation – A Human Right
the relation between democracy and human rights it is of significance to emphasize firstly that
democracy is based on the human right to participate in the political decision process (Article 21
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948), also called the ‘democracy principle’:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and
shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.We have a human right to
democracy. Human rights and democracy go hand in hand as democracy is the political system

Page: 26
which embodies the autonomy of the individual inherent within the idea and concept of human
rights.Chances and Challenges of a Democratic Justification of Human RightsOne possibility to
legitimate human rights is on the legal or political dimension through a democratic process.
.
Human Rights – Fundament of and Frame of Reference for a Democracy
As the democratic principle is part of human rights, a democracy is built on the fundament of
human rights. Democracy can also be seen as the institutional expression of the respect of the
individual's autonomy, giving an individual the possibility to participate in the opinion-building
and decision-making process of the legal system she/he lives in as a citizen.At this point, one
challenge of today's democratic societies appears to be the problem that within legal society not
all right holders can participate in democratic decisions, for example, persons living in this
particular legal society without citizenship of this particular state. Changes in the access to vote
on the community level are first small steps to a solution of this problem.
The second challenge is the following. It is imaginable that a majority is in favor of something
which violates the human rights of a minority. We do not have to look back in history too far to
find some examples for this theoretical observation. The Swiss case to ban the building of
minarets is an example for this, I am afraid. A majority voted in a democratic process in favor of
a law discriminating a minority within the national legal system, in this case that they are not
allowed to build minarets at all. (Beforehand everybody – religious communities and of course
the Muslim community as well – had to respect the Swiss building code in planning and raising
a building.) Furthermore, the ban violates the freedom of religion of this minority as well. The
example shows that a reductionist understanding of democracy can lead to human rights
violations within so-called democratic processes. Why ‘reductionist’? The idea and concept of
democracy includes human rights, as democracy is built on the fundament of human rights, in
front of all on the democratic principle as part of human rights. Therefore, the respect of human
rights is a part of a democratic system. So a democracy must integrate mechanisms which ensure
that human rights are respected regarding the access to democratic opinion-building and
decision-making processes and in the way these processes are taking place

Page: 27
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN

3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology that the researcher will use in the study; it also gives a
description of the study area and the methods that will use to collect data from the field. The
chapter contains such as variable definition, research type, research approach, sample design
(population, sample size, sample techniques), sources of data (primary and secondary sources),
data collection instruments, data presentation, data analysis and interpretation and ethical
consideration.

3.1 Variables definition

✓ Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their
governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core
issues for democratic theory, development and constitution or a system of government by
the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected
representatives
✓ Human rights protection : Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all
humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression,
and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent entitlements of the
individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as responsibilities of the individual
and the government authorities

3.2 Research Type

Case-study research design was used in this study. A case study is an inquiry into an event by
either an individual or an organization. It is produced through systematic research, analysis and
reporting, the methods were both quantitative and qualitative in nature.

3.3 Research Approach

The study will employ descriptive correlation research approach, to describe the relationship
between The role of democracy human right protection , because it will determine the

Page: 28
relationship between the role of Democracy human right protection the quantitative approach
will be adopted to collect quantitative data from respondents using questionnaire

3.4 Sample design

3.4.1 Population
The study area has a population of the human right commission Hargeisa Somaliland is 70
people including staffs, assistant’s security and cleaners.
3.4.2 Sample Size
Sampling is the process of using smaller number or part of a large population to make
conclusion about whose population was used to collect the data. Since it was not possible
and scientific for the researchers to collect all information from the whole population
sampling were employed to select appropriate sample which belongs all characteristics of
scientific sample size and infer the result to the entire population under investigation. The
rule of thumb says if the population is less than 1000 take 30% of them, and in this regard,
since the target population is 70 which is less than 1000, the sample size becomes
70*30%=21; therefore, the sample size of this study is 21 to insure proper and make better
representation of the total population, rule of thumb is used to establish the sample size.

3.5 Sources of Data

The research data was obtained from two sources namely; primary and secondary data.

3.5.1 Primary Data Sources

Primary data was obtained through personal interviews with respondents, observations and self-
administered questionnaires.

3.5.2 Secondary Data Sources

Secondary data was obtained through, annuals reports on general observation, textbooks, and
other student’s research work.

Page: 29
 3.6 Data Collection Instruments
3.6 .1 Questionnaires
The researchers were used self administered questionnaire, because this instrument has a number
of advantages such as; it can be used as a method in its own rights or as a basis for interviewing or
a telephone survey. It can be easily posted, e-mailed or faxed, and may cover a large number of
people or organization. Finally the questionnaire instrument is relatively cheap and no prior
arrangement is needed.

3.6.2. Interview guide

The researchers were also used the interview method; this method was employed to find
information necessary from the group more quickly just to allow individual self expression.
The expert such as seniors’ staffs of the taxation department will have been researched for
interview.

3.6.3. Observation
The researchers were used the observation methods which enabled them to collect data from the
field so as to compile the report. The aim of this technique was obtained the primary data that lay
the stepping stone for the secondary data which together produce a meaningful version for analysis.

3.7 Data Presentation Tools

The data was presented in tabular form, with frequencies and percentages for classifications of
responses, easier analysis and visual impression.

3.8 Data Analysis and Interpretation

In the analyzing stage of the study, the researchers were used quantitative data will be analyzing
using statistical tools for data analysis specifically descriptive data analysis, the data which will be
collected from the field will be analyzed with help of statistical package for social scientists (SPSS).
Objectives will be analyzed as follows: Objective one to three will be analyzed using descriptive
statistics such as percentages, frequencies and correlations. Objective four will be analyzed using
inferential statistics of Pearson correlation of moment. All the data will be analyzed at a significant
level of 0.05 Statistical packages of social scientists (SPSS) tool will be used to aid in the analysis
of the objectives. out by used of frequencies and percentage

Page: 30
 3.9 Ethical Consideration
The research should not only enhance the researcher’s career, but also benefits the group,
organization or population studied therefore, the researchers were met from the study area close
collaboration and reasonable explanation about the problem statement. The researchers were found
good participation from the participants.

REFERENCES

Page: 31