New York, 4 November 2016

Good afternoon everyone. It is very nice to see all of you here. I wish to thank the Governments of Norway and Switzerland, and especially their Permanent Missions here, for organizing this event, with the support of the Universal Rights Group, and for inviting me to address you this morning.

The Universal Rights Group hosted a very similar event last month in Geneva, during which I delivered a statement emphasizing the importance of implementation. My statement today will not be vastly different from what I delivered in Geneva.

The Glion Human Rights Dialogues are quite widely known in Geneva. They provide invaluable space and opportunity for stakeholders to engage in genuine dialogue outside of the Human Rights Council. Discussions that have taken place in Glion have been focused on the challenges facing the UN human rights system, and on ways to make the system stronger. The discussions have led to positive developments in the Human Rights Council and triggered further efforts to strengthen the Council and its work.

For this, I commend the Glion process and I congratulate Norway, Switzerland and the URG for the successful third Glion Human Rights Dialogue.

This afternoon, I will touch on three issues within the Human Rights Council that are directly related to implementation: efficiency, cooperation and the Universal Periodic Review.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

One of the priorities of my Presidency has been to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Human Rights Council. My preoccupation with efficiency was reinforced during the Council’s 31st session last March. I was able to observe first-hand that, due to the Council’s completely packed programme of work, there is limited time for discussions on whether our work is indeed making tangible impact on the ground. I became aware that unless we take concrete steps to make the Council and its methods of work more efficient, the Human Rights Council will not have time and space to lead the international community from ‘the era of declaration’ to the ‘era of implementation’, as was so well stated by former Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan.

Thus, our efforts for efficiency are not merely for the sake of reducing the workload of the Council, but have the larger aim of freeing up space on the Council’s agenda to be able to increase focus on implementation and follow-up.

Since closing that challenging 31st session, I, along with my Vice-Presidents, have devoted a great deal of time and effort to identifying practical and agreeable ways to increase the efficiency of the Council. We are all very well aware, however, that making changes in the Council, even purely technical ones, is a slow process.

This is the premise behind why I decided to hold the Human Rights Council retreat in September outside of Geneva. Representatives of all of the Member States of the Council, along with representatives of regional and political groups, the Council’s Special Procedures and civil society, had the opportunity to gather together in a relaxed atmosphere, outside of Geneva, and engage in frank discussions on how to strengthen the Council’s capacity to deliver on its mandate. Under the overarching topic of cooperation and dialogue at the Human Rights Council, participants focused their discussions on the issues of the working methods of the Human Rights Council, the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and impact on the ground. The issue of increasing the Council’s focus on implementation permeated the discussions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Many participants in the Human Rights Council retreat highlighted the importance of enhanced cooperation and dialogue for securing better implementation of the Council’s work.

General Assembly resolution 60/251, which created the Human Rights Council, recognized that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue

Effective cooperation is indeed essential to many of the key aspects of the Council’s work, including the delivery of capacity-building and technical support, the sharing of good practices and ensuring that the UPR process leads to tangible impact on the ground. But rising tensions within the Council have unfortunately led to a reduction in effective cooperation and constructive dialogue. This adversely affects States’ ability and resolve to engage in implementation efforts, thus reducing the Council’s capacity to effectively fulfil its mandate.

At the Human Rights Council retreat, I think that there was broad agreement that meaningful dialogue between States and Council mechanisms on questions of cooperation and implementation should increase. Attention was drawn to the importance of further strengthening follow-up efforts by Council’s mechanisms, and suggestions were made that cooperation with Special Procedures should be incentivized, and non-cooperation brought to the attention of the Human Rights Council.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Universal Periodic Review holds great potential to lead the charge in increasing the Council’s focus on implementation. As the second cycle of the UPR comes to a close and the start of the third cycle quickly approaches, we are presented with the ideal opportunity to polish this “jewel of the crown”. While it is clear that there is mixed opinion on making changes to this beloved mechanism, there appears to be wide agreement that at least some improvements could be made in how we utilize this important mechanism.

The questions of whether and how to strengthen the UPR in its third cycle was also addressed at the Human Rights Council retreat. Participants agreed that the UPR provides an opportune forum where States’ can showcase good practices in implementing their human rights obligations and recommendations. Some participants pointed out that it could also be a place for discussing the implementation plan of the State under review and matching capacity-building requests with pledges of international support. Strengthening expert or third party assessments of levels of national implementation was discussed, as were the benefits of developing national systems of indicators to measure the real impact made on the enjoyment of human rights. The central importance of national ownership of implementation was emphasized by many.

It is my sincere hope that States, as well as NHRIs and NGOs, will take these discussions forward and seize this opportunity to strengthen the UPR by shifting their focus to implementation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Turning international norms into local reality depends on full cooperation between the Human Rights Council and New York-based bodies, especially the Third Committee. Overlap and duplication in the work of the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council is not efficient use of our limited time and resources. Greater synergy, especially concerning complementarity of initiatives, is therefore needed between the two bodies. The agreed decisions of the Human Rights Council must receive full support in the General Assembly and all unnecessary overlap and duplication in our work should be avoided.

I have mentioned on numerous occasions throughout my Presidency that the Human Rights Council faces a challenge that is often referred to as the “gap” between New York and Geneva. For example, initiatives undertaken in Geneva are not always adequately supported by decisions in New York, and information related to discussions being held in New York often fails to reach Geneva in time. Narrowing this so-called “gap” between New York and Geneva and ensuring effective cooperation between the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council is essential in order for our work to have greater impact on the ground.

I strongly believe that greater cooperation between the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council will enhance spirit of international cooperation and help our common cause to further promote and protect human rights.

As the Human Rights Council turns 10, there is increased focus on ensuring that it is in fact making real, positive impact on the ground. The impact that the Council has, however, depends on State implementation of the recommendations and decisions of the Council and its mechanisms. After ten years of work and thousands of reports, resolutions, and recommendations, I believe that we are indeed seeing a shift within the Council towards a human rights implementation agenda. This implementation agenda will not only contribute to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals, but is also an essential piece in ensuring the prevention of future human rights crises.

As a result of events like the third Glion Human Rights Dialogue and the 2016 Human Rights Council retreat, stakeholders of the Human Rights Council have a greater appreciation for the importance of this human rights implementation agenda as well as a stronger understanding of the role each one plays in implementation efforts.

Now comes the most important part – turning our words into concrete actions.

Thank you very much.