COMMISSION HOLDS INFORMAL SESSION TO DISCUSS HUMAN RIGHTS SECTIONS OF REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON REFORM

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
12 April 2005


The Commission on Human Rights this morning held an informal session to discuss the human rights sections of the report of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on reform.

Commenting on the Secretary-General's package of reform proposals included in his report, "In Larger Freedom" and also on the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, many of the speakers supported the proposals, especially concerning the reform of the Commission on Human Rights. There was agreement that there was a need for a more effective and more efficient body to deal with human rights which included Experts on human rights situations, non-governmental organizations as well as States.

Delegates said political selectivity had become one of the main problems of the Commission and it had to be ensured that the proposed Human Rights Council would not suffer from the same problem. However, many questions were raised on the composition, size and mandate of this Council.

There were calls to increase the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights from the regular budget of the United Nations.
Speakers said it was necessary to integrate human rights effectively in all the work of the United Nations, adding that there was also a need for a greater presence in the field by the United Nations both to provide technical assistance to countries which wanted to make progress on human rights and to monitor and protect in situations that called for it.

The discussion also included disagreements with and criticism of the Secretary-General's reforms. One speaker said that the proposed methods to choose the members of the Human Rights Council sought to exclude those who denounced the hypocrisy and double standards of the powerful and would lead to even more politicisation of the body. What must change was the attitudes and behaviour of the rich, developed world, which were responsible for the current state of affairs. Another speaker said it was inappropriate to present a plan to reform an official inter-governmental body without seeking first the opinion of that body and that to which it reported, the Economic and Social Council. Both these bodies should be allowed to discuss the plan formally and in depth before it was presented to a world summit.

A number of speakers underlined that the reform of the United Nations human rights machinery must not be considered in isolation, but in the context of a comprehensive review of the United Nations itself. They also said that the mechanisms in the Commission which worked effectively today, such as the Special Rapporteurs, should be retained and strengthened, and the important role played by non-governmental organizations should be strengthened in any new structure.

At the end of the informal session, Makarim Wibisono, the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said that the discussion had been favourable and of extreme interest for all. The assessment was shared that the challenge was to make the necessary improvements to ensure that the work lived up to expectations. There had been many constructive proposals regarding living up to this challenge, and it was hoped that the meeting would be helpful for the future.

The following national delegations participated in the meeting: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (on behalf of the Like-Minded Group), Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the African Union), Algeria (on behalf of the North African region), Honduras, India, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference), Israel, Japan, Kenya, Libya (on behalf of the Arab Group), Liechtenstein (on behalf of San Marino, Andorra and Monaco), Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Iran, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea (on behalf of the Asian Group), Republic of Korea, Romania (on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania), Russian Federation, Congo (on behalf of countries of Central Africa), Singapore, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United States, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Zimbabwe.

Also providing statements were the non-governmental organizations International Service for Human Rights (in a joint statement with several NGOs1), Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations - CONGO (in a joint statement with several NGOs2) and South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre.

The Commission today is holding three back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When it concludes its informal session at noon, the Commission will immediately start a formal plenary at noon to take action on draft resolutions on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, and on the right to development. The Commission will then continue its consideration of the situation of specific groups and individuals.

Statements

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said regarding the report of the Secretary-General, which included a proposal to reform the mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, including the Commission, when the High-Level Panel issued its recommendations, Argentina had said there was a need for progress in reform, which should be done substantively and operatively. When the Security Council took on its role to protect, this should be done as clearly defined by the General Assembly. The Security Council should have a warning mechanism. It could directly draw on the important information provided by the Special Rapporteurs and the special mechanisms, as well as on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in order to address a particular situation appropriately. There should be a budgetary increase for the OHCHR. On the operative side, the trend where the Commission was used by some Member States to criticise others should be reversed.

Any reform should be aimed at strengthening the human rights function of the Commission, and not to weaken it. The suggestion of Switzerland was supported, as this would give greater importance to human rights in the context of development and security. There was a need for a more effective and more efficient body, with Experts on human rights situations and non-governmental organizations as well as States. The proposals of the Secretary-General were supported.

ANTONIO CARLOS DO NASCIMENTO PEDRO (Brazil) said there was a need for a comprehensive approach to the debate on the reform of the United Nations human rights system. The recommendations made in the report of the Secretary-General were being considered with interest. Human rights, side by side with security and development, were the three pillars of the United Nations. The whole human rights situation had been strongly criticised. Political selectivity was one of the main problems. Action was necessary to overcome this. The creation of an Human Rights Council was an interesting proposal that required further reflection on aspects such as its nature, mandate and composition. Also important would be the definition of the relationship with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A deepening of the relationship would be preferable in order to avoid overlapping of functions and mandates, and this was crucial.

Regarding politicisation and selectivity, it was necessary to face this problem seriously. There should be a new global report on human rights, which would offer a more comprehensive and objective view of human rights, and would treat thematic issues in a better way. Such a global report could contribute to reduce politicisation and subjectivity, which were among the main criticisms, as well as enhance system capacity. It would reinforce transparency and legitimacy, as well as the independence of the system. There was a space for improvement in the United Nations human rights field, and Brazil was ready to embark on discussions in this issue.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said the Secretary-General had proposed to strengthen the work of the United Nations with respect to human rights. The approach he put forward addressed in many ways the views and expectations of States from all regions. The objective should be a system that continued to develop and promote universal norms and standards, a system that truly helped all to move to an era of implementation. What was needed was a system that was effective and made a difference for people wherever they lived, and there was a need for human rights institutions that had the legitimacy and credibility to do so.

What was needed was to integrate human rights effectively in all the work of the United Nations. There was also a need for a greater presence in the field by the United Nations both to provide technical assistance to countries which wanted to make progress on human rights and to monitor and protect in situations that called for it. There was also a need for more effective human rights treaty bodies, a periodic consideration of the human rights situation of each United Nations Member State, an active discussion about the proposed Human Rights Council, a public pledge by Member States on how they intended to contribute to the achievement of human rights objectives, and finally the system of special procedures should be maintained. The continued involvement of civil society should be ensured.

JUAN ANTONIO MARTABIT (Chile) expressed support for a comprehensive reform process to encompass the three main pillars of the Organization - security, development and human rights. Human rights matters should run throughout the agenda of the entire United Nations system, as the vital importance of human rights as a prerequisite for security and development could not be sufficiently stressed. Chile supported the creation of an Human Rights Council, at the same hierarchical level as those responsible for peace and security and economic and social development. In defining that Council's composition, the principles of legitimacy and representativeness, as well as the need to ensure the investigation of human rights abuses around the world, must be ensured. The Council should also be able to convene its own meetings, and to meet more frequently. Its constitution must not have a negative impact on the participation of civil society. The Council must also be able to respond more effectively to the suffering of victims, and to provide assistance to States that engaged legitimately to ensure the human rights of their citizens.

The reform process should seek to strengthen and harmonize the system as a whole, she said, including the Commission on Human Rights, the treaty body system, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Reform should also give due consideration to the achievements of the past half century, including the development of norms and the question of cooperation. Reforms should also take into account the central role played by civil society. Those familiar with the daily activities of the system of human rights should give serious consideration to the issue, and the discussion should commence immediately following the conclusion of the current session of the Commission. The document arrived at should serve as the basis for the final decision to be taken at Headquarters.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said the Like-Minded Group welcomed efforts to promote changes in the United Nations human rights machinery, and took note of the proposals on human rights contained in the Secretary-General's report, as well as his statement to the Commission. Aware that all the proposals contained in the report were under heated discussion at Headquarters, he stressed that, as the central human rights organ, the Commission had contributed to the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide, including through the drafting of international legal instruments, the development and establishment of the concept of the right to development, and the eradication of apartheid in South Africa. At the same time, it had been plagued by declining credibility and professionalism. The Like-Minded Group agreed that change was needed to sustain long-term, high-level engagement on human rights issues.

The Like-Minded Group held that the key to reform was to change the current practice of politicizing human rights issues, as manifested by selective naming-and-shaming and the promulgation of country-specific resolutions, he continued. There must be a return to the principles of the Charter in order to promote cooperation and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. A mere change of the title or name of the body would not work, just as putting old wine in a new bottle did not work. The like-Minded Group noted the proposal to create a small-scale Human Rights Council to replace the Commission, but also noted that none of the other institutions of the United Nations system had been consulted on that proposal. Such a proposal required a thorough understanding and full discussion before it could be seriously considered, particularly as the proposal would create a new body within the United Nations system and scrap an existing mechanism, which had played an important role despite its weakness. He also stressed that reform should be system-wide. For developing countries, issues such as economic development and poverty alleviation were equally, if not more, important, and deserved equal attention. There should be a strengthening of the United Nations mechanisms that dealt with economic and social issues as well.

MARCO VINICIO VARGAS (Costa Rica) agreed with the Secretary-General that the Commission should have stood as one of the central pillars of the United Nations system. However, it had failed the purposes of the Charter, as could be seen in continued violations of human rights. If the United Nations failed to provide a prompt response and effective solutions to today's concerns, it risked failing the desires of the twenty-first century. Given that Costa Rica was only a small country, he expressed full support for the reform process, and thought that the international community should take the time to pause, review its successes and correct its errors. The international community must not be afraid of change, and Costa Rica would take part, with a constructive spirit, in the dialogue now beginning, in order to permit future generations to live in a fairer world in which the realization of human rights in all parts of the world was ensured. The time had come to consider what changes were necessary, what should be urgently adopted, and what should be done more gradually.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened, and should be granted increased resources without delay, he affirmed. The Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should also be retained. Experience from Latin America on the protection and promotion of human rights could serve as an important reference in analyzing the matter. Costa Rica remained open to all suggestions, such as the proposals of the Peruvian Foreign Minister and others during the high-level segment, and felt that the time had come to implement the Brazilian proposal for the global system of human rights protection.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) recalled Cuba's statement at the opening of the present session of the Commission which had stated that the Commission was a sinking ship, being wrecked by the growing lack of credibility and prestige, political manipulation and double standards, inconsistencies and impunity enjoyed by the privileged few. Cuba had been denouncing this state of affairs for nearly 15 years. Now the alarm had been raised to save the sinking ship, yet the proposals on how to do so were nothing but simple and tricky bodywork, which only sidestepped the fundamental problem.

Creating a Human Rights Council with a more restricted membership, whose members would be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, would move away from the real problem. The proposal sought to exclude those at the forefront in denouncing the hypocrisy and double standards of the powerful. The problem was not how many sat on the Commission, but how they acted. What must change was the attitudes and behaviour of the rich, developed world, which were responsible for the current state of affairs. The choice should be universalization. Cuba rejected the proposal, and would oppose the great danger it presented to the peace and development of the peoples of the South. As to the proposal for a global report on the state of human rights worldwide, he asked whether it would truly end double standards and selectivity. What would be its parameters? Could it be conducted by an Office, whose officials largely came from one ideological and cultural background? There were serious doubts about the proposal. Finally, he stressed that the Commission was the reflection of an unjust and unequal world. It was that world, which must be changed.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Union, said the African Union believed that all the proposed measures to reform the United Nations should be pursued in a holistic, comprehensive, inclusive, balanced and effective manner. The African Union was of the view that the Secretary-General's Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change did not sufficiently stress the critical linkage between development and poverty as the root causes of insecurity. In the Union's view, the focus on poverty alleviation was the most effective tool for conflict prevention. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had affirmed poverty as a violation of human rights. The African Union preferred to see the status quo on the Commission maintained, both in terms of composition and location. More importantly, the Union strongly believed that the reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be referred to the General Assembly. Any relationship between the Commission and the Security Council should be limited, clearly defined, and should follow the proper line of institutional accountability via the Economic and Social Council and the Third Committee of the General Assembly.

The African Union had been consistent in expressing its reservations against the one-sided approach adopted by some, which purported to single out only one Covenant – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- as constituting the mandate of the Commission. It had always cautioned against that dangerous approach. It should be clear to all that the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights derived from the International Bill of Human Right, which was predicated on the two Covenant as well as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Those who had been advancing that one-sided approach should taken responsibility of the Commission's loss of credibility and failure to unite behind its mandate. The African Union did not believe that even with the best of intentions and goodwill, a simplistic transition from Commission to the proposed Human Rights Council would resolve all the problems currently faced by the Commission. The reality was that the Commission was divided in the middle along North-South polarization, which was discernable not only in the Commission but right across the United Nations system.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the countries of the North African region, said commitment to reforms in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the United Nations was important, but there were misgivings for the form and content of some reforms suggested by the Secretary-General. The countries of the North African region shared the same commitment to the reforms and also the same misgivings. It was felt that it was inappropriate to present a plan to reform an official inter-governmental body without seeking first the opinion of that body and that to which it reported, the Economic and Social Council, as this could undermine the system. Both these bodies should be allowed to discuss the plan formally and in depth before it was presented to a world summit.

Presenting the Secretary-General's proposal as a package did not do justice to the proposals. In the institutional aspect, while the machinery of the United Nations was respected, disconnecting the human rights machinery from the Economic and Social Council could restrict human rights to a restrictive definition which referred only to civil rights. Entitlement to membership of the proposed Human Rights Council as suggested as restricted to those countries which allegedly respected the highest criteria of human rights would lead to even more politicisation of the body. The usual United Nations system of geographical representation and rotation would avoid this. When the United Nations was unable to address substance, it usually attacked the forum, as was the case here. There was a need to address the substance and see how human rights could be addressed so as to improve the situation of the individual's human rights. The adulteration of the noble concept that would be instrumentalised as a justification to reduce to nothing the space left to developing countries to run their own affairs would be the effect. There should be reinforcement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the effectiveness of the Special Rapporteurs should be enhanced. The OHCHR should be able to bolster the effectiveness of human rights at all levels.

J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras) said the delegation of Honduras believed that a reform of the Commission was necessary through an exhaustive and analytical manner. However, Honduras had certain reservations on the proposed creation of the Human Rights Council. Further constructive discussion should be pursued before such an institute was created. The membership of the present Commission should be maintained, but Member States should be limited to be elected to two periods of three years each so that there was an effective rotation that gave the opportunity to all countries to be members. Honduras did not share the idea of universal membership.

Honduras believed that as part of the reforms of the Commission on Human Rights, it should be placed directly under the General Assembly. At the same time, the relationship between the Security Council and the Commission should be strengthened, and duplication of efforts should be avoided. The Commission should become a permanent organ that meets whenever was appropriate during the year. The principal problem of the present Commission was its politicization by some States. Honduras supported the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, particularly its increased role in providing technical assistance to those States that sought such cooperation.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said that before deciding on the reform of the Commission, one should know if the proposed Human Rights Council would truly treat the causes of human rights problems. What would be the status of the proposed Council? Would it be a permanent organ or not? He asked if the Council would be located in New York or in Geneva. What would be the mandate of the Council and its relations with the other bodies of the United Nations? What would be the composition of the Council? What would be the role of regional groupings?

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC's position on the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which had been communicated in February 2005, was based on principles which continued to remain valid, including importance of the promotion and protection of all human rights; respect for religious and cultural values of all religions/cultures, which was essential for the promotion and protection of human rights; concern about the increasing politicisation of the Commission, including the increasing trend of politicisation of Islam; support for the mandate of the High Commissioner; and the indivisibility and inter-relatedness of all human rights. The proposals presented by the Secretary-General would be carefully examined, as these needed to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the General Assembly before consideration or approval.

The fault did not lie with the existing structures, but with the working methods of the United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms, that did not permit addressing genuine situations where gross and systematic violations of human rights were taking place. These included, inter alia, lack of objectivity, selectivity of certain issues, politicisation seen as the invocation of human rights arguments to justify interference in the internal affairs of States, rules of procedures and the processes being driven by one set of countries. These issues needed to be addressed. The discussion on rationalisation should not primarily focus on structures, but on addressing the root causes of the problem. Existing structures could be made effective through, among other things, full and effective implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action; balance between collective and individuals rights; need to respect cultural specificities in order to establish a genuine and fruitful dialogue; evolving a consistent policy towards standard setting; developing a code of conduct for civil society; ensuring and guaranteeing official development assistance and technical cooperation to developing countries in the field of human rights; and ensuring de-politicisation and non-selectivity in the field of human rights addressing genuine human rights situations and disallowing consideration of non-human rights related objectives. There should be a comprehensive reform of the international human rights machinery.

DANIEL MERON (Israel) said Israel had welcomed the words of the Secretary-General, especially when he had said that the Commission's ability to perform its task had been undermined by the politicisation of its sessions. Nowhere was this more visible than with Israel, as it was the only country with a specific agenda item. That the rest of the world was under one item, spoke volumes of the politicisation, and strengthened the call to replace the Commission. That there were so many resolutions, with minimal or no resolutions against countries that were gross violators of human rights, should bother all. The Commission, founded in the aftermath of the worst of the evils of the twentieth century, the Holocaust, was supposed to deal with all issues of human rights abuse in the world. It should be putting its main resources and time in stopping these, and not wasting Member States time with political debates that had nothing to do with promoting the cause.

Israel was the only country that currently could not become a member of the Commission due to the regional grouping system, and this should be a factor in the deliberations to replace the Commission. Israel wished to take part in the discussions and looked towards a more efficient body in the future.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said Japan welcomed the Secretary-General's initiative in his recent report which should be commended. The idea that the current Commission should be upgraded to an Human Rights Council was a meaningful suggestion which would increase the United Nations' ability to deal with human rights issues. The world was not expecting the body to identify only problems in the Commission, and it should endeavour to seek efficient solutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. This was what the peoples of the world were expecting.
AMINA C. MOHAMED (Kenya) said the efforts of the Secretary-General were to be commended. Under his dynamic leadership, the United Nations had systematically taken far-reaching reform measures hitherto unforeseen. Reform was a process, not an event, and so it should be. In his latest reform proposal, the Secretary-General had reminded everyone that in the era of global interdependence, the glue of common interest should bind all States together in the struggle to make everybody everywhere more secure and more prosperous and able to enjoy their human rights better. Development, security and human rights went hand in hand. They reinforced each other, and one should not be pursued at the expense of the other, rather they should be pursued together as a single undertaking.

The Secretary-General had thrown down the gauntlet to the Commission and to the Organization as a whole to address the issue of reform of the body as a matter of priority, noting that its efficiency was undermined by its lack of credibility and increasing politicisation, and this had been noted across the political and development divide by Member States during preceding meetings. It was up to the Commission to decide how this should progress. The Commission could only be as effective as Member States wanted it to be.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said concerning the reform of the Commission, the latest Arab Summit held in March 2005 had dealt with great interest with a number of issues related to the report of the Secretary-General and the reform. The comprehensive concept of a balanced process of reform was adhered to. The need to enhance the United Nations and all its bodies had been reaffirmed in a way that would enhance the objectives stated in the United Nations Charter. The Summit had also realised the importance of dealing with the reform in an integrated manner that would deal with institutionalised reform in a way that would allow the machinery to realise its mandate. The report was a very important contribution, and granted a conducive opportunity to consult on the reform of the Commission, which could not be dealt with in isolation of all other reform. The commitment to non-aligned countries vis-à-vis reform should be restated. The success of any reform process required the prevention of imbalance.

The reform of the Commission had become an urgent matter. The standards and norms according to which the Commission worked and adopted its resolutions were not always transparent, and there had been instances of duplicity and selectivity, weakening the Commission without serving human rights. The proposals required wide-spread consultations, and a profound study of content within the regional groups in order to reach consensus. The substitution of the Commission by a Council required a public and transparent plenary of all countries in order to study its structure, target and composition, in order to avoid politicisation. A reform of the Commission should not be a pretext to weaken some countries and their sovereignty. The respect of the values of multilateral work required a study by the Commission, then by the Economic and Social Council, then the Secretary-General should submit the matter to the summit of leaders.

PATRICK RITTER (Liechtenstein), speaking on behalf of San Marino, Andorra and Monaco, said that he could only offer preliminary comments on the Secretary-General's proposal, as it had yet to be fleshed out in full detail. The proposed Human Rights Council should become the main focus for human rights discussions, and should replace, not duplicate, the work of the General Assembly. While he had been inclined to support universalization of the Commission, he recognized the Secretary-General's proposal to establish a small Human Rights Council, but suggested that a mid-size Council would be favoured, as it would give small and mid-sized States the chance to serve. Election of the membership by a two-thirds majority was also supported, but the question of immediate re-election must be addressed. It would not do to see a body, even smaller than the Commission, whose membership remained unchanged for long periods of time. Given scepticism over the prospect of achieving agreed criteria for membership on the Council, other ways of ensuring that elected members of the body would live up to the high expectations placed upon them must be explored.
It was unlikely that questions of such complexity would be agreed on before the September summit, he stressed, but agreement on a decision in principle, with a time-bound mandate to explore its details, could work. Overall, the question of institutional reform must not overshadow the other reform proposals contained in the Secretary-General's report; measures on treaty body reform and increasing resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were of crucial importance for the future of human rights work, irrespective of institutional reform.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said some of the ideas before the Commission today required further thought, which the European Union would conduct with its partners in the coming weeks. The reform process must be considered as part of overall European Union programming on reform of the United Nations system. Generally, the all-encompassing and comprehensive nature of the report was welcomed, and he stressed that international economic and social cooperation, the maintenance of peace and security, and the protection and promotion of human rights remained the top priorities of the Organization, and were mutually reinforcing. Emphasizing the importance of strengthening democracy, he said that, while awaiting the details on the functioning and structure of the United Nations Fund for Democracy, the European Union could support the proposal in theory. He also endorsed the statement that there was a responsibility to protect, affirming that while it was a duty that fell first and foremost to Member States, blatant violations of human rights and acts of genocide required a firm response from the international community. Good governance, the administration of justice, and the fight against impunity, both nationally and internationally, constituted effective elements of human rights protection.

The strategic objective of reform must be to integrate human rights into all activities of the United Nations system, he stressed. Furthermore, the reform process must preserve the achievements made by the existing system, including in the areas of standard setting, public denouncement of the most egregious violations of human rights, and the system of monitoring bodies. Reform must also preserve the active participation of civil society in the work of human rights. Finally, due to synergies with other organizations located here, Geneva should continue to play its role as being the focus of United Nations human rights work.

Expressing support for the strengthening of coordination between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Security Council, he said that it could be useful for the High Commissioner to report regularly to that body. The idea to create an Human Rights Council to strengthen grassroots issues was also supported, and the European Union would closely examine the Secretary-General's proposals, particularly with regard to election of the membership, its permanent nature, and synergies with the United Nations system. The European Union supported the proposal to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and felt the High Commissioner should present the plan suggested by the Secretary-General. The resources necessary for the Office's expanded mandate would have to be provided, and a greater share of that financing should come from the United Nations regular budget. The Union also supported the strengthening of human rights at the country-level, particularly with regard to inclusion of human rights in the work of the Office's country teams.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said Malaysia was studying the Secretary-General's report, but due to its far-reaching implications, she was not in a position to provide specific comments at present. In general, reform of the United Nations human rights machinery must not be considered in isolation, but in the context of a comprehensive review of the United Nations itself, and taking into account the proper balance and outcome of all questions. Member States had the right to table positions and make comments on the issues raised by the Secretary-General. Concern over the declining credibility of the Commission on Human Rights was shared, but replacing the Commission with a smaller Human Rights Council would not in itself address the issue of politicization and selectivity. The existing culture of addressing human rights issues must be changed. Finally, she said, Malaysia associated itself with the statements made by the Arab Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Like-Minded Group,

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said the Commission had made contributions to the codification and development of human rights law. It had developed diverse mechanisms to ensure respect for human rights standards, and human rights were today more respected than at any other time in world history. Moreover, the participation of non-governmental organizations had become stronger, to the extent that their role was almost on an equal footing with that of non-members working with the Security Council. However, progress had yet to be made. No country could claim that human rights were being fully respected. The Commission and its mechanisms could contribute to the protection of human rights throughout the world, but the Commission must improve its working methods, streamline its agenda, establish the possibility of convening special sessions, and pay greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights.

A simple change of name and status would not by themselves lead to improvement, he cautioned, and the proposal for a smaller membership on an Human Rights Council contradicted the desire for representativeness advocated by the Secretary-General. The membership of the Commission had been expanded to 53 a number of years ago, and the United Nations' membership had expanded by about 30 since then. There was a trend towards enlargement. Issues such as official development assistance should not be tied conditionally. As the discussion surrounding the expansion of the Security Council showed, reform required time. The criticisms of the Commission were unfair, because the bodies responsible for international peace and security and for economic and social development had done no better.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA GONGORA (Mexico) said the fact that the Commission was dealing with a very difficult issue was attested to by the holding of the current informal session. The specific issues of the Commission were discussed in Geneva while the generalities of human rights were dealt in New York. The proposed body, whether it was called a Human Rights Council or not, should be a matter of discussion. Concerning its membership, the Council should have the same members as the Commission. It should be capable of preventing any violation of human rights. It should also have sufficient resources to function. The funds allocated to the Council should be from the regular budget. The issue of the proposed Council needed further discussion.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said New Zealand welcomed the Secretary-General's report "In Larger freedom", strongly endorsing the concept that the United Nation's work should rest on three equal pillars: security, development and human rights. New Zealand agreed that enhanced recognition of the vital importance of human rights as a cornerstone of how the United Nations and the international community responded to crises and challenges was long overdue. Reform of the United Nations was essential to allow the Organization to better meet the challenges raised by the fundamental interlinkages between the three pillars. Those interlinkages should be woven through all aspects of the work of the United Nations including at the country level. Human rights should not be an after-thought or an add-on. The proposal for an Human Rights Council deserved careful consideration. While there were clearly many details to consider, one could already identify those essential elements.

In meeting the international community's demand to strengthen the United Nation's human rights machinery, one needed to ensure that due respect was given to the considerable achievements of the Commission. A prominent place should be ensured for the international human rights instruments that had gained such wide ratification. One needed to ensure that the special procedures were strengthened and supported both with sufficient resources and political will.

E.A. OGUNNAIKE (Nigeria) said the initiatives taken by the Secretary-General to effectively deal with the current challenges of the United Nations system in general and particularly the Commission were commendable. Nigeria believed that all human rights were universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and that the international human rights agenda and the mandate of the Commission should be addressed in a fair, balanced and effective manner. Therefore, Nigeria like other Member States, would urge that everyone continue to consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General to further the effectiveness of the Commission. Nigeria believed that reform should address the long standing problems faced by the Commission, notably that its members routinely resorted to double standards in addressing country situations and that membership was too often used to shield the Commission members from human rights scrutiny instead of to protect and promote human rights. The reform should also aim to create more effective United Nations human rights institutions capable of addressing protection and promotion of human rights in all countries at all times and capable of responding effectively to crisis situations.

The reform had proposed the upgrading of the Commission to the level of a principal organ of the United Nations, which would require the amendment of the United Nations Charter. The delegation of Nigeria considered that proposal as far; it would require careful consideration on the part of all. Nigeria believed that the actual problem of the Commission was the politicization of the system, the use of double standards and limited resources available to deal with its ever-growing human rights responsibilities.

WEGER STRØMMEN (Norway) said the United Nations human rights machinery was in need of reform. The widening gap between expeditions for credible United Nations action in human rights and the current system's capacities should be bridged. The idea of elevating the status of the United Nations main human rights body was attractive, and so was the notion of a responsive, permanent Council equipped to deal effectively with human rights challenge. The proposed Human Rights Council gave rise to certain questions. It was not yet clear how the proposed scheme would ensure a legitimate and effective membership. To ensure legitimacy, Norway had expressed preference for universal membership. All States should be involved in discussing universal human rights issues. It was also essential that a new human rights body preserved certain valuable features of the existing Commission. That included the mandates and independence of the special procedures and the active role of non-governmental organizations. The discussion of human rights was inherently political and controversial. It could not be changed by way of organizational measures.

Norway believed that the momentum created by the Secretary-General should be used to consider far-reaching reforms of the UN human rights machinery. There were a number of immediate steps which States could and should take which would greatly contribute to strengthening the existing human rights machinery. These included that states should regularly review all existing reservations to human rights instruments, fulfil their reporting obligations, and follow-up on recommendations and concluding observations by treaty bodies. They should also issue standing invitations to the special procedures.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said Iran believed that the international community should further intensify its efforts to allow the United Nations human rights machinery to rise to the challenges ahead to fulfil its daunting task. The delegation of Iran concurred with the Secretary-General's view that the human rights machinery suffered from a credible deficiency and lacked of professionalism in enforcing the universally agreed standards throughout the globe. However, Iran firmly believed that that state of affairs had little correlation with the existing structure of the machinery per se, nor the membership of the Commission and the final shape of the relevant human rights bodies. Rather, based on past experiences, the failure of the Commission to live up to the promises undertaken under the Charter was more characterized by the political manipulation of the human rights agenda by some major powers, the lack of objectivity and the exercise of double standards in the Commission and other relevant bodies than its current status in the existing hierarchy within the world organization or the insufficient frequency of its sessions.

The Secretary-General's proposed reforms in the human rights arena, namely the establishment of an Human Rights Council might not necessarily lead to an increase in the credibility and professionalism of the system. Instead, it might further marginalize the developing countries, leaving the ground wide open for further polarization and even more politicization in the proceedings of the Commission. Furthermore, the proposed reforms were clearly a departure from the principle of the indivisibility and interrelatedness of human rights and the longstanding consensus that the civil and political rights as well as the right to development were to be the central focus in the human rights domain in the United Nations system.

ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru) said during the address by the Secretary-General last week, he had reminded the Commission that its response to the universal promotion and protection of human rights was arriving late where it was needed. The Commission should be able to respond immediately to such violations. Peru had carefully studied the Secretary-General's initiative, and all other proposals intended for the strengthening of human rights. However, the report did not solve the key issue facing the Commission today, which was the contradiction between national objectives and the logic of promoting and protecting human rights, which in order to be effective should exclude political interference. It would be more appropriate to replace the current para-State paradigm by an expert body that would be more effective in protecting human rights.

The mechanisms in the Commission which worked effectively today, such as the Special Rapporteurs, should be retained and strengthened, and the important role played by non-governmental organizations should be strengthened in any new structure. An inter-governmental body to address grave and systematic human rights violations could be retained, but trusteeship procedures such as the adoption of measures on gross human rights violations should be addressed in an independent body. A Human Rights Council in line with the proposal of the Secretary-General could be a body meeting at this level, as suggested by Switzerland.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should schedule meetings devoted to the reform issue so that it would be possible to give it further consideration. The Philippines was examining carefully the proposals to strengthen the United Nations' capacity to promote human rights as outlined in the Secretary-General's report, particularly the proposal to replace the Commission with a smaller standing Human Rights Council. The details of this proposal should be closely examined, especially with regard to its possible size and membership, as these aspects would have a direct bearing on the way a Council operated and the perceived representatives of its decision-making process.

Creating a new principal United Nations organ would entail a revision of the United Nations Charter, which in itself could be a long, drawn out process. Making the Council a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, as suggested by the Secretary-General, would avoid this process. However, other factors would have to be taken into account if this option were to be taken. The Philippines looked forward to further exchanges of views with delegations and other concerned parties on reform and other proposals in the field of human rights in the future.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Commission had played a pivotal role for the protection and promotion of human rights by setting standards for the past 60 years. But the Asian Group also shared concerns over the declining credibility of the Commission on Human Rights, which had cast a shadow on the credibility of the system as a whole. Strengthening the spirit of cooperation and dialogue between States on the one hand, and enabling the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen its protection and promotion of human rights, including by strengthening technical assistance, on the other would strengthen the work of the system for human rights. The Asian Group looked forward to discussing all proposals.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the proposals contained in the Secretary-General's report had a number of positive elements. There was full support for placing human rights reform within the larger context of the Freedom to Live in Dignity, with its three pillars of the Rule of Law, Human Rights, and Democracy. There was also strong agreement with the Secretary-General that without implementation, the numerous United Nations declarations and treaties were meaningless. The goal, therefore, should be to improve the human rights situation of people around the world through enhanced effectiveness of the human rights system, and an increased engagement of Member States towards stronger commitments on human rights. No country in the world had a perfect human rights record, nor did any country have a monopoly on the issue, and therefore the proposal to institute a peer review of all United Nations Member States was welcome.

The establishment of a smaller, standing Human Rights Council had some benefits, most notable of which would be its ability to respond more rapidly to serious cases and threats against human rights violations or crises, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should play a more active role in fulfilling its mandate. The Secretary-General's proposed reforms were part of a larger package of United Nations reforms. Although it had been suggested that the Commission first agree on the principle of establishing an Human Rights Council before delving into details, in many cases there was a need for greater clarity of the components of the proposal before decisions could be taken. The detailed programme on strengthening the OHCHR was therefore looked forward to, along with the possibility of an intersessional meeting to discuss the overall reform proposal on human rights.

DORU COSTEA (Romania), speaking on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania, said these countries shared the Secretary-General's view that protection and promotion of human rights should be confirmed as a central priority of the United Nations, along with security and development. The human rights system was under strain, he agreed, but this did not testify to inherent weaknesses in the system, but to the strain of development. There were many more States parties to international instruments and increased numbers of mechanisms themselves to be resourced. The weakness of the system was due to the lack of adequate resources allotted to support the normative and political efforts of those dedicated to support of human rights work. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights required greater resources. The countries also supported the idea of mainstreaming human rights throughout the United Nations system, and integrating human rights issues into the debates of the Security Council. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law should be integrated in all peacekeeping operations. The treaty body system must also be strengthened, including by coordinating reporting requirements and focusing on implementation.

On the proposal to transform the Commission on Human Rights into an Human Rights Council, he expressed support for the idea of a standing body, especially as the human rights agenda was full of events. A standing body would also be able to react properly and specifically to situations of grave human rights violations in any part of world. Moreover, those elected should abide by the highest standards. However, that principle should equally be applied to the Commission on Human Rights. Responding adequately to the concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-General required agreement about minimum standards for election to membership on the new Council. The countries also welcomed the proposal to make the proposed Council a principle body of the United Nations system. However, if there was agreement to disband the Commission, it should only be done by explicitly spelling out that the Commission had not failed, but had successfully accomplished its work. The creation of a new body could only be the expression of a response to a new reality marked by more human rights norms, and more States committed to their implementation.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the report of the Secretary-General on reform of the Organization was interesting and deserved further elaboration; there were several questions that needed clarification. While welcoming the upgrading of the main United Nations human rights body, one must ask whether a small body could reflect the inclusiveness of the United Nations human rights component. Was a limited membership not too sharp a contrast with the idea of universalizing the membership of the Commission on Human Rights? Moreover, as to the proposed criteria for membership on the Council, the introduction of such criteria was doubtful on many counts. Who would judge the solidity of a State's reputation? Would the proposal not cut out developing countries, who faced objective difficulties for participation in the proposed Council? Would not the proposal be too exclusive and paternalistic? Further, would the principle of equitable geographic distribution be maintained? The procedure of electing members on the basis of regional groups should be preserved.

The Secretary-General's proposal concerning a publication on implementation of human rights obligations by all States was interesting, he added, and deserved support. However, there were questions in that regard as well, namely concerning the fact that different States, having taken on different levels of obligations under international instruments, had different levels of what was expected of them. How would that be dealt with? Moreover, how would duplication of the work of the treaty bodies be avoided? And, while agreeing that the proposed Council should be a standing body, he asked whether that meant that the old system of sessions of set duration would be abandoned. Finally, would these reform proposals entail amending the Charter?

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo), speaking on behalf of the countries of Central Africa, said those countries had largely been victims of serious violations of human rights and continued to lack enjoyment of the most fundamental human rights. Much of that situation was due to their history of conquest by enslaving colonial countries, which now wished to push themselves forward as champions of human rights, without recognizing their responsibility for the human rights abuses suffered in these countries. Recalling the legacy of assassinations of African leaders, he also stressed that the guilty had never been condemned for their actions, which had had serious consequences for the development of these countries. Overall, those claiming to be the new champions of human rights had never adequately redressed their histories of colonization and other extreme forms of racism, nor had the Commission on Human Rights adequately condemned the evil of colonialism.

None had worried about respect for human rights during the Cold War, he added, only whether a State was on the "right" side. Now, a new division existed. The States of the North respected human rights, while those of the South flouted them. That double standard had led to the Commission's loss of credibility. Most of the countries of Central Africa were least developed countries, whose situations left them unable to escape the vicious cycle of instability, armed conflict and human rights violations. That cycle could not be broken without simultaneously addressing all the factors contributing to the situation. The international community had thus far been unable to live up to its promises of a fairer world based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the outcome of major international conference and summits. Even in cases of genocide, such as in Rwanda, the Security Council had been warned, but had not acted.

BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore) said the creation of a smaller body than the Commission would be a step backward. The politicization and selectivity in the Commission should be stopped. Any new body should have direct links with the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that the Secretary-General had proposed that members of the Human Rights Council should have a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards. What could be the possible benchmarks in that regard? Should those benchmarks include action by States to become parties to all major human rights treaties? Sri Lanka, as a country, which had demonstrated commitment to openness and accountability, had faced problems from terrorism, and insurgency, and today continued to strengthen its national human rights protection system. Sri Lanka welcomed continued discussion in and among the regional groups in Geneva on the Secretary-General's reform proposals today and in the months to come. One of the main difficulties that States faced in addressing that question was that neither in the High-Level Panel report, nor in the Secretary-General's report "In larger Freedoms" was there a good discussion on the reasons behind that new most dramatic of proposals on Commission reform.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) called on all members to seriously consider the proposed reform of the Commission. The creation of a permanent organ to deal with human rights at the level of an institution corresponded to the political importance for peace and security. The Human Rights Council should be able to satisfy its mission and a political agenda. It should acquire some of the Commission's tasks, in particular the participation of non-governmental organizations. Switzerland believed that the members of the Council should be elected by the General Assembly because that would give the Council universal legitimacy. Switzerland was not in favour of introducing criteria for the election of the members. Switzerland supported the idea of a Council that would meet periodically.

CHAIYONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said Thailand agreed that the system of treaty bodies should be streamlined and strengthened in order to be more effective. It was also important that those treaty bodies functioned in a coherent manner as a strong and unified system. Thailand agreed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened and equipped with better human and financial resources. Increasing demand and expectations of the international community on the Office should be matched with commensurate increases in supply of resources and support. At the same time, the Office was called upon to attach greater priority to technical assistance and capacity-building in its future work as a means to achieve effective long-term prevention of human rights abuses.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine) said supported the necessity of the reform and especially the creation of a new body, but its size, composition, mandate and relation to other United Nations institutions needed careful consideration. The quickest solution should not be reached at the expense of quality. Irrespective of its composition, the body should be the most important United Nations body in the sphere of human rights. New United Nations bodies in this sphere should be formed according to the principle of fair geographical representation. The protection of human rights was not a fight against any particular State, but rather it was in support of democracy all over the world. The prime aim of the reform was to root out selectivity, politicisation and the double standard approach to the evaluation of the human rights situation worldwide. In order to achieve this aim, there was a need to elaborate clear-cut criteria for the assessment of human rights violations and for the appointment of independent experts.

Regarding the suggestion of tasking the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a periodic report on the situation of human rights worldwide, this document should cover every country with no exception. The idea of mainstreaming human rights into the work of the Security Council was supported, as were the recommendations of a more active involvement of the High Commissioner in the Security Council deliberations. Equal attention should be given to civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as to the right to development. Appropriate attention should be paid to environmental aspects of human rights and possible standard-setting in this field. The Secretary-General's suggestions did not offer a magical solution to all problems, but offered a good point of departure for the creative and innovative approaches that were needed to reinvigorate the human rights machinery of the United Nations.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States) said the positive emphasis of the Secretary-General on the importance of promoting freedom and respect for human rights, advancing democracy and strengthening the rule of law was fully endorsed. United Nations reform was aptly focused on enlarging freedom. In particular, there was support for the Secretary-General's recommendation to replace the Commission with a smaller, more effective Human Rights Council, and that this Council's members be elected by the General Assembly, rather than simply enlarging the existing Commission to include the full United Nations membership. Elected members should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards.

Because of the need to improve the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to promote the rule of law on the ground in countries, the High Commission's Plan of Action was looked forward to, as it would assist Member States in assessing how best to ensure that critical human rights work would not be hamstrung by block voting and by those States that systematically violated human rights. There was a need for a serious review of the inadequate funding of the OHCHR. An important area where it needed additional resources was training, standardisation and professionalisation of staff for the Special Procedures. There was a need for human rights machinery that fulfilled the Charter's vision. The Commission had reached a point where its declining credibility had cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

GEORGI AVRAMCEV (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia associated itself with the statement made by the European Union.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said the Secretary-General had identified the Commission's declining credibility as a major reason behind his proposal to scrap it, and replace it with an Human Rights Council. He had decried the politicisation and selectivity that characterised its work, and Zimbabwe had said the same countless times in this and other fora. However, Zimbabwe believed that the solution lay not in the creation of a new body, to which the old problems would be transferred, but in a complete change of approach to human rights issues. There was no need to change the forum; instead, the attitudes of the members should be changed. The new approach would require doing away with the stereotype that human rights violations belonged to developing countries, while it remained the right of the West, in spite of the atrocious human rights records of some of their members, to pontificate to the rest on the observance of human rights. What was required was equal treatment of all human rights, equal punishment of all transgressors, big and small nations, and a clarity of purpose by all that this was done so as not to render the human rights issue a tool for abuse by some countries against the small and weak for political and other ends.

All desired a fair, balanced, non-selective and de-politicised approach to issues of human rights, and the members of the Commission should commit themselves to this new approach. There was therefore opposition to the creation of a club of the self-righteous, the so-called committed, which would do little, in all probability, to reverse the trend that had resulted in the alleged decline in the credibility of the Commission. The Commission should remain the theatre of all tongues and behaviour in which each other's human rights records could be exchanged and scrutinised without fear or favour. It was not possible to find objectivity in human rights matters anywhere else but from all in the Commission. It was the selective demonisation and double-standards which had brought about the unwholesome reputation now attached to the body. The mooted Human Rights Council would be nothing but veiled internationalism, in many cases, of localistic transgressions onto the international arena. This should be resisted; a forum should not be changed for no other real reason than that its discourses could not be controlled.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, delivering a joint statement with 14 other non-governmental organizations, said the Secretary-General had set out a compelling vision of the need to reform the United Nations system. Security, development and human rights were intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing. For years, non-governmental organizations had been exposing the shortcomings of the United Nations' main human rights body. The Commission had been undermined by a number of actions, including by States seeking election to the Commission, not to strengthen human rights, but to avoid criticism for their own shortcomings, by States using procedural ploys to avoid discussion of certain aspects of human rights, by States undermining norms and by the imposition of double standards and selectivity that had led to abuses being ignored. Any reform effort must result in a stronger United Nations human rights system, which must address human rights abuses in all countries on a systematic and effective basis, and based on impartial evidence.

Regarding criteria for election to the new Council, cooperation must mean that States responded fully and promptly to communications and worked with special mechanisms and implemented their recommendations. The non-governmental community supported the call to replace the Commission with a new Council, which would have greater authority. As a standing body, it could meet whenever necessary to respond to human rights violations anywhere in the world. States should set up an inclusive process including civil society to shape this new system. The new system must also respond effectively to early warning needs and ensure follow-up and implementation of country-specific recommendations and decisions, as well as treaty body recommendations, and continue to develop human rights standards and norms. Non-governmental organizations must have full opportunity to participate in the work of the new Council, at least on the same level and same basis. The special procedures must also be maintained, or significantly strengthened, in any new body. Victims relied on the growing impact of the human rights treaty monitoring bodies, but these faced severe overload. States must work with all stakeholders to strengthen the treaty bodies to function as a strong, professional and unified system. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should also be strengthened, with more meaningful human rights presences in the field and increased resources from the regular United Nations budget.

RENATE BLOEM, of Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO), in a joint statement with several NGOs2, said much of the non-governmental organization community had welcomed the higher profile given to human rights in the report of the Secretary-General on reform of the United Nations system. She reaffirmed the indivisibility of human rights, and the need for all States to protect values and to promote the responsibility to implement all human rights. The Secretary-General's proposals challenged all stakeholders to make the protection and promotion of all human rights stronger. Among the principles the non-governmental organizations felt should be reaffirmed were those of transparency, interdependence, measurable achievement and commitment to progress in the reform process, as well as effective international cooperation and national action to implement recommendations. There was also a need to emphasize the importance of mainstreaming human rights throughout the United Nations system, and of linking consideration of human rights with development and security.

The reform process should ensure the inclusion of a peer review process and continued openness to monitoring by civil society, she said. There was genuine concern that the proposals for reform should not undermine the existing system. The system of special procedures should be maintained, and cooperation between Governments in partnership with civil society in the work of the independent experts should be enhanced. The Commission's work in standard setting should be maintained, while the special mechanisms should be strengthened, as well as capacity for monitoring and implementation of their recommendations. The accuracy of the Economic and Social Council's accreditation process for non-governmental organizations must be maintained and improved. Some Governments still restricted or controlled civil society participation, which was damaging. The United Nations human rights machinery should continue to be maintained largely in Geneva. The challenge brought by the Secretary-General needed the widest possible consultation at the international, regional and national levels, and with inclusiveness to facilitate the contributions of all groups, including those most vulnerable.

RAVI NAIR, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that all were aware of the severe shortcomings of the Commission on Human Rights and the idea of reform was welcome. The Secretary-General's proposals required negotiations. Regardless of whether the main human rights body was the Commission or a new Council, standard setting must remain important, while implementation should be improved. The monitoring aspect should also be improved. Welcoming the idea of criteria for membership on the body, he said the idea of a standing body also had merit. However, the six-week focal point session should be continued so non-governmental contributions were not limited to those able to attend all year round. States must ensure that their primary concern was to address serious violations of human rights in all countries. They must not use the spurious argument of politicization to dilute human rights implementation in their own backyard.

Conclusion

MAKARIM WIBISONO, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said that the discussion had been favourable and of extreme interest for all. Individual States had provided information regarding how each was considering the reform process as suggested by the Secretary-General in his report and in his speech. The gap between what was promised and what was done had grown. The assessment was shared that the challenge was to make the necessary improvements to make the work live up to expectations. There had been many constructive proposals regarding living up to this challenge, and it was hoped that the meeting would be helpful for the future.

* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record


1Joint statement : International Service for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Association for the Prevention of Torture, Baha'i International Community, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Franciscans International, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, Lutheran World Federation, World Organization against Torture, Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER).


2Joint statement: Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO), Agir Ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, Center for Women's Global Leadership, Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, International Association for Religious Freedom, International Council of Women, International Federation of Social Workers, International Save the Children Alliance, Pax Romana, Women's World Summit Foundation, and World Young Women's Christian Association