COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES DEBATE ON RATIONALIZATION OF ITS WORK

AFTERNOON
HR/CN/99/58
26 April 1999


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon
concluded a debate on the rationalization of its work.

Representatives of country delegations and non-governmental organizations said the need for reform and rationalization of the mechanisms of the Commission for the protection and promotion of human rights was universally accepted. The goal of these reforms was to increase the effectiveness of the work of the Commission. Many also noted the need for an increased spirit of cooperation within the Commission, as well as for a depoliticisation of the atmosphere.

Speakers emphasized the importance of the open-ended inter-sessional working group. Failure to carry out the reforms would seriously damage the Commission’s reputation and ability to fulfill its mandate. The Commission needed to meet the challenge of the new millennium with a streamlined, effective body.

Delegates from the following countries took the floor: the United Kingdom, Nepal, Tunisia, Cuba, Norway, Canada, the Russian Federation, Malaysia, Spain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Estonia, Croatia, Australia, and Eritrea.

Representatives from Human Rights Watch, the American Association of Jurists, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, the World Jewish Congress, the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Advocates, the International Federation of Human Rights, the Asian Cultural Forum on Development, Human Rights Internet, Pax Romana, the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, the Association of World Citizens, the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, Christian Solidarity International and the Lutheran World Federation also spoke.

The Commission resumed taking action on its draft resolutions in an extended evening session.

Statements

AUDREY GLOVER (the United Kingdom) said the numerous consultations over recent weeks had made progress in the right direction, even if that had not always appeared to be the case. All speakers had supported the need to improve and modernize this Commission's mechanisms. The Commission needed to build on that. Draft resolution L.101, co-sponsored by over 50 delegations, was not an attempt at a quick-fix. It was a modest, sensible and realistic approach. It represented a significant compromise and reflected a large degree of flexibility on the part of many delegations who had listened carefully to and taken due account of all points of view.

The United Kingdom was confident that the fifty-fifth session of the Commission would achieve two things: it would achieve convergence on a modest number of elements which had come from the recommendations of the previous Bureau, and it would finalize arrangements for the post-sessional process, which all accepted would now be necessary to carry the work forward.

SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said his country wished to express its appreciation to Ambassador Jacob Selebi and other members of his Bureau for the seriousness with which they had undertaken the important work entrusted to them on the review of the mechanisms of the Commission. Nepal’s participation in these deliberations had always been guided by its desire to enhance the effectiveness of the Commission and its mechanisms within an environment in which the body acquired renewed relevance in the protection of human rights and promotion of universal values. The mandate for the review was the result of a widely held view in favour of a comprehensive assessment of the workings of the Commission's subsidiary machinery. It was in this context that the Commission had discussed the recommendations of the report.

Mr. Simkhada said rationalization of the Commission’s mandates in a balanced manner would reflect the indivisibility of all human rights. It was necessary to strike a balance between monitoring and capacity building; to create a more objective assessment of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and devise a dispassionate assessment of the role of the Bureau. That and establishment of an appropriate inter-governmental mechanism for the inter-sessional period constituted some of the important elements of a comprehensive review exercise. All sides needed to resist the temptation to focus on their own pet pieces within this complex and comprehensive undertaking and instead should approach the whole exercise impartially.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said the Commission needed restructuring, within the context of the diversity of needs of human rights; the reforms should focus on consolidation and efficacy; and the reform package should enjoy consensus, or at least broad agreement. The Bureau’s report had given rise to many differing views and reactions. Despite the complex nature of the subject, positive exchanges of views showed that all delegates held human rights dear. Mutual trust had been built. The best way to deal with the situation was through an open-ended inter-sessional working group to examine and discuss proposals, and to find a solution. The approach to reform required democracy. The thematic and country machinery and mandates should not be arbitrarily reduced. The functions and tasks of the machinery should take note of the concerns of the countries involved, and should include structural recommendations in the report. The Bureau should be reinforced. Judgement of moral qualities, technical qualities, independence, objectivity and justice should be employed in the selection of special rapporteurs. The mandates of special mechanisms should last three years.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said his country was surprised at the position of like-minded countries in document L.120 in Spanish. It but found that the first page was in Spanish and the following pages in English. Another frustration concerned the debate in general. The Cuban delegation had the impression that the Commission member were not really interested in a frank and open dialogue. Cuba had serious reservations. Proposals which had been tabled could have very, very serious consequences, and they had to be discussed and agreed upon by the Commission.

On the question of special mechanisms and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, there were two mechanisms that referred only to the special mechanisms but not to the Subcommission. Cuba was certain that given the lack of a real interchange, this Commission did not really have any ability to take decisions on substantive issues. Cuba was ready to work in an inter-sessional working group, although there was no reason to have an inter-sessional meeting or to set up a new commission on reform.

BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said that since the Bureau had been entrusted with the reforms, many deliberations and discussions had taken place. Its recommendations were coherent and deserved support. Monitoring should continue as long as human rights were violated. There was scope for streamlining and strengthening these mechanisms. National and local capacity-building in the field of human rights should be encouraged. Consensus on human-rights issues would be ideal, but concrete agreements on substance would be acceptable.

Mr. Skogmo said there was broad support for recommendations 5, 6, and 13. The key question facing the Commission was what kind of decisions should be formulated in the time remaining. Substantive issues should be concentrated on. Agreement could only be found if there were elements of process as well as substance. To expect that a decision could be made concerning only the inter-sessional working group was not realistic. A decision on the entire range of recommendations was not realistic either. A merger was needed. A post-sessional open-ended working group was required.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that on balance, the Bureau’s report was not a bad report. Canada wanted to commend Poland, Ecuador and Bangladesh, with whom Canada had worked closely. Canada assured the Commission that individual submissions, including those of the Asian Group, had been taken into account, and the delegation would be glad to discuss how these had been considered and integrated into the report. Canada was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution and underscored that it had made a very serious effort to take into account the reservations by some representatives not to move too quickly. There was only one point which Canada and others felt to be essential and that was that this Session must reach some concrete decisions. Without that there would be a feeling that the Commission would have failed its mandate. Canada agreed with the recommendations in the Bureau report that called on all parties to work positively and hoped that substantive decisions could be reached this session.

Y. BOITCHENKO (the Russian Federation) said the need to rationalize work had been accepted for a few years. Reform was inevitable, since there had been a significant increase and change in the calls made upon the Commission. New procedures and new legal instruments had appeared. The question of enhancing effectiveness had become more acute. As many human rights as possible needed to be defended. Many complicated issues were pointed out in the report. The result was not complete, and it did contain difficult points, but it could serve as the basis for launching reforms. The main problem was that the issues where the Commission could arrive at consensus were not clearer. An inter-sessional machinery was required, and flexibility was needed for decisions of principle. The main responsibility for protection of human rights lay with governments. Reform should be focused on those tasks that reflected the importance of human rights throughout the United Nations system.

RAJA NUSHIRWAN (Malaysia) said the delegation appreciated the Chairperson's efforts in building confidence, but the level of confidence had risen and fallen with alarming volatility during the course of the Commission. Procedural issues had been given adequate attention but still needed finishing touches. If agreement on these was found, and it seemed there was an increasing convergence of views on this, then everyone could discuss other issues, including a work programme for the open-ended inter-sessional working group and a limiting time frame at which work on the issue must be stopped. The mechanics of the open ended inter-sessional working group included issues such as chairmanship, rules of procedure, and frequency of meetings. Perhaps delegations could agree on a "baskets" approach involving availability of unedited advance versions of reports to interested delegations. The most difficult issues relating to the expansion of the powers of the Bureau and measures related to increasing the level of cooperation with or coercion of States perhaps should be considered last.

JUAN ZURITA SALVADOR (Spain) said the Bureau’s recommendations needed to carried out objectively and dispassionately; it was important to organize the mechanisms of the Commission with objectively and professionalism and to keep the process free from political influences. The Commission needed to have a form of rolling review process. Some of the machinery needed to be more thoroughly considered because of the importance of getting around bottlenecks. Issues that had not been properly discussed and treated here needed to be considered in inter-sessional working group activities. Spain pledged its support in assisting and contributing to this effort.

ALI KHORRAM (the Islamic Republic of Iran) said there remained little doubt that the special procedures of the Commission, in particular country-situation procedures, were flawed; they suffering from selectivity, double standards, bias and arbitrariness, as well as being overly influenced by political considerations. Some were still holding on to their favourite method of work of the Commission and its existing mechanisms. The system should be emancipated from the whims and wishes of those who had so far undermined its impartiality, since it was only through impartiality and non-selectivity that the Commission could make a meaningful contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights globally. Suggestions had to be made regarding the country-situation rapporteurs, their status and work. There was a need for more time and more discussions to reach an understanding. No rash actions should be taken, since they would be counter-productive and would do a disservice to attempts at confidence building and at bridging divergent positions.

MALLE TALVET (Estonia) said the expectations for reform were too great. Estonia would have thought that decisions on the size of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the criteria for election and nomination of its members, such as their independence and the requirement that they not be employed in the executive branches of their countries’ Governments, could have been taken at this session of the Commission and applied during the next one. Estonia had co-sponsored the relevant draft resolution L.101 in which the post-session body was entrusted with further consideration of these matters. Estonia was convinced that changes in the functioning of human-rights mechanisms in all four areas identified were necessary as proposed by the Bureau report.

NARCISA BECIREVIC (Croatia) said that during informal consultations, the delegations had had the opportunity to express their views on both procedural matters and substantial issues. This showed the willingness of the majority to proceed with the proposed reforms. With the purpose to facilitating dialogue, the draft resolution "Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights" had been prepared and Croatia hoped that during this plenary discussion a general agreement would be achieved on the text.

Mr. Becirevic said Croatia’s comments on special procedures, namely country-specific mandates, resulted from the seven years during which it had been subject to such scrutiny. During that period it had encountered the deficiencies and ambiguities inherent in these mandates. Croatia wanted to support, among other proposals, that the mandates be decided on a case-by-case basis in light of the requirements of the situations concerned, but that aims and expectations be clearly spelt out. At each session the Commission should conduct more focused and systematic dialogue on the observations and recommendations related to these mechanisms, including to what extend current and relevant past recommendations had been followed by concerned Governments. As regards the preparation of annual reports under mandates, dialogue should be ensured between the special rapporteurs and the concerned countries.

ANDREW GOLEDZINOWSKI (Australia) said the report of the Bureau challenged the delegates to think about the future of the Commission. Its recommendations had been assessed on their merits by Australia, which associated itself with the statements made by Norway, the Republic of Korea, and MERCOSUR. There was a need for balance. All views should be heard and taken into account. There should be agreement on the inter-sessional process, so that all could feel happy with it.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said his country recognized the recommendations contained in the report of the Bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1999/104) on the rationalization of its work as an important contribution to the realization of the human rights objectives of the United Nations. It also had co-sponsored draft resolution L.101 although it had a minor reservation on an operative paragraph because it did not go as far as the provisions of recommendation 12 (b) of the report. Eritrea commended the Commission for launching a comprehensive review process aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of human rights mechanisms, particularly the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities which, according to the Chairman of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission, was the most prominent mechanism of the Commission.

Mr. Tekle said Eritrea was in agreement with the conclusions of Chairman that the Subcommission must, if it was to become a relevant and credible mechanism, increase the perception and reality of its independence, enhance its credibility by avoiding expressions based on inadequate deliberations and very thin expertise, and develop a partnership with non-governmental organizations to enrich the Commission's implementation procedures.


JOANNA WESCHLER, of Human Rights Watch, said the special procedures of the Commission were the essence of the United Nations efforts to draw attention to human rights violations worldwide, and to enforce international human rights law. All too often, however, the findings and recommendations presented to the Commission had not been acted upon. The enormous potential of the special procedures had not been fully realised. There was concern, however, with some of the recommendations, notably in the case of the replacement of the Working Group on arbitrary detention with a single rapporteur, and the recommendation regarding a code of conduct for rapporteurs. The creation of an intersessional mechanism was welcomed. It was noted that this was the draft resolution with the broadest and most diverse support, cutting across geographical and political lines.

LUIS NARVAEZ GARCIA, of the Association of American Jurists, said it did not agree with observation 7 in the report. The reality of the world was confrontation because there existed many different interests. Voting was a key mechanism of the democratic functioning of the Commission, and the search for a consensus could create a paralysis. The organization agreed with observation 12 and recommendation 2. There was a need for urgent agreement on the two of them. Reforms had to ensure the equilibrium in the treatment of all human rights without exception, that was to say civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights. The organization doubted that this was the case of the orientation of the Bureau proposals. The need for impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity of the Commission was underscored, and although this lightly treated in observation 2, it needed to be dealt with in greater detail.

CYNTHIA NEURY, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, said that the improvement of the mechanisms of human rights implied a deep, serious and transparent study. The recommendations contained in the report by the Bureau once again showed the desire of certain governments to politicise the United Nations institutions, including the Commission. This explained the discrepancy between the speeches and the real state of human rights. The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities played an important role in the creation of thematic mechanisms. The promotion of human rights in the context of the existing mechanisms implied the reinforcement of national capacities that would encourage governments to ask for technical assistance. Any rationalization should not discourage the democratic bend of the mechanisms, nor their balanced, non-selective nature.

DAVID BELL, of the the World Jewish Congress and UN Watch, said two decades ago, the Commission began to construct, piece-by-piece, a special procedure system that investigated and further publicized human rights violations when found to exist. Now there was momentum for systematically reforming the Commission to ensure that it continued to fulfill its obligations. This effort must produce swift, concrete result so that the Commission remained the world's pre-eminent human rights forum. The Bureau had issued a report (E/CN.4.1999/104) of well-reasoned, relatively modest proposals that took into account the suggestions of governmental, inter-governmental, and non-governmental delegations. To defer consideration of these proposals to another working group would only mire the reform process in more United Nations bureaucracy. The goal should be simple: to help this forum accomplish what it was intended to do - to define, protect, and advance the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

MONA RISHMAWI, of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), stressed the importance of strengthening the United Nations human rights mechanisms. ICJ considered that the report on the Working Group on arbitrary detention contained many useful elements and deserved serious and prompt attention. It was concerned about the delaying tactics which prevented adequate action from being taken by the Commission in matters of substance related to this issue. Dealing seriously and promptly with last year's Bureau report would enhance the Commission's credibility. Victims should not be used as bargaining chips for political goals.

IRENE CHANG, of Human Rights Advocates, said many of the recommendations in the Bureau's report would indeed strengthen the work of the Commission. One such example was the suggestion to include the issue of human rights and the environment on the agenda. However, the organization was concerned that some of the recommendations, related to the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, did impact negatively on the effectiveness of the human rights machineries. In the face of these changes, the organization wanted to highlight some of the remarkable aspects of the Subcommission.

Ms. Chang said the Subcommission had played a truly vital role in shaping human rights history by first helping to prepare drafts for several significant instruments such as the Declaration and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; The UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education; and the Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files. By reducing the Subcommission to a bare minimum, the proposals injured the very people the United Nations as a whole was trying to give voice and protect.

ELENI PETOULA, of the International Federation of Human Rights, said the Bureau’s report increased the role of the Chair of the Commission. This should not detract in any way from the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The importance accorded by the Bureau to the special mechanisms of the Commission was welcomed, since these constituted the most important means of protecting and promoting human rights from violations. The switch from a Working Group on arbitrary detention to a special rapporteur was strongly opposed, as was that from a Working Group on involuntary and enforced disappearances to a rapporteur. There was a need to reinforce the independence of the members of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The proposal to abolish the Subcommission’s competence to adopt country resolutions was also opposed. The way to proceed was by adopting a number of proposals that had found the largest support by Member States. Then, an open-ended inter-sessional working group could be established.

AYESHA MAGO, of the Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFD), responded to the views of the like-minded group on the review of the Commission's mechanisms and read the Asian non-governmental organizations’ response to the group’s position. The group appeared to be a continuation of the same gathering of countries that had attempted to raise the issue of 'regional particularities' at the Vienna World Conference in 1993. The report of the group reflected few of the views of Asian civil society and the same governments from Asia were attempting to introduce the issue of "national traditions, culture and particularities" through their general rejection of the Bureau's recommendations on mechanisms. The group rightly reminded the organization that human rights were interrelated and criticised the Bureau's move to "merge and cut down mandates related to economic, social and cultural rights." Consensus should not have been used as a veto power, even at the working group level, and had prevented productiv
e outcomes.


Ms. Mago said the Forum recommended that persons who were serving in an official capacity with executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should be prohibited from nomination as members of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The Commission should establish mechanisms to ensure that requests for country visits by special rapporteurs could not be refused for more than two years and sanctions should be introduced against countries that refused to cooperate with the Commission.

LAURIE WISEBERG, of Human Rights Internet, said that in June 1998, 250 representatives of non-governmental organizations from all regions of the world had met in Ottawa for the Vienna Plus Five International NGO Forum and had had the opportunity to share their concerns and views about the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. The organization was pleased with the trust of the Bureau's recommendations, even if it did not agree on all the details. It shared the opinion of the Bureau that "the ultimate relevance and credibility of the Commission depended on the objectivity and quality of its fact-finding, which provided an essential foundation for any genuine dialogue and thus represented an essential starting point for the work of special procedures.” The special procedures must be supported by the necessary human and financial resources and States should cooperate fully with them.

Mr. Wiseberg said that with regard to a framework for reform, the organization recommended, among others: follow-up on recommendations of the special procedures by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General in all their country visits; coordination by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure comprehensive implementation throughout the United Nations system of the recommendations of the mechanisms; provision of adequate human and financial resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights from the regular United Nations budget; and recognition of the critical role of non-governmental organizations in the provision of information to special procedures by affirming their full and unhindered access to the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.

JOSEPH RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said that the current exercise was aimed at fashioning a pro-active strategy that would rectify the response. By rationalizing existing mechanisms, the sovereignty of victims was restored with due status and self-respect. Ample indicators underlying the exercise had emerged over the last few weeks. The recommendations and proposals that had emerged were appropriate and possible. However, those that diverged from the consensus should be suitably accommodated. Special procedures were fundamental to the entire work of the Commission. Their effectiveness had been a constant preoccupation, searching for coherence among multiplicity, both thematic and country based. The unique role of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities indicated that matters pertaining to its size and duration deserved less attention. The Subcommission was moving towards cross-sector, as well as a comprehensive rights approach. This should be encouraged. Effectiveness was enhanced through political will without compulsion.

COLIN McNAUGHTON, of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, said that in light of the lamentable refugee situation in Kosovo, it was clear that the High Commissioner for Human Rights was even more burdened with increased financial need. The lack of financial provisions must not allow the pursuit of protection and promotion of human rights to be adversely affected. Globalization and particularly the interests of multinational corporations which required the creation of armed conflicts to accommodate the selling of arms were unacceptable. The importance of promoting the depoliticization of the Commission's work by taking the necessary measures was underscored. It was unacceptable that certain nations obscenely tried to distort the true function of the Commission to advance their political objectives. This was the greatest obstacle to the legitimate functioning of the High Commission for human rights.

EWA BRANTLEY, of the Association of World Citizens, said it welcomed recommendations 8 and 10 of the report of the Bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1999/104), for their enhancement of thematic mechanisms and potential contribution to the prevention of mass human rights violations. This statement highlighted the need to elaborate a procedure for the effective on-going utilization of the thematic mechanisms recommendations as "early warning". The tragic consequences of the Commission's failure to act on its advice and information was all too evident today. In 1993, for example, the Commission ignored the information of its Special Rapporteur on mercenaries, Henrique Bernales Ballesteros, concerning the mass displacement and executions of civilians by mercenaries in Sierra Leone. One year later, it disregarded his impassioned appeal following his mission to Rwanda. The recommendations of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the first Special Rapporteur on the former Yugoslavia, who began warning the Commission of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo already in 1992, were likewise never acted upon by the Commission. Recommendations 8d and 10 of the Bureau report marked the first step in elaboration of an on-going preventive procedure.

LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said fifty years after the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the indigenous peoples and minorities had seen a selective, discriminate and unjust manner of application of the mechanisms of human rights. There had been an abuse of the mechanisms by the United States with its allies of the north and its new satellites of central and eastern Europe. Dissidents and minorities in struggles had been used by countries such as Cuba, Iraq and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Christian Solidarity International (CSI), said the observations, proposals and recommendations contained in this report were inspired by a simple purpose: to enhance the capacity of the United Nations to promote and protect internationally recognized human rights and to contribute to the prevention of their violation. An important key to advancing the above purpose would be to promote maximum depoliticization of the Commission's work and free it of influence from extraneous and other considerations. Furthermore, mutual confidence could be further enhanced if all States were to engage constructively and cooperatively in deliberations that related to the promotion and protection of international human rights standards within their own countries. There had to be a willingness to confront and speak out. The pitfalls of consensus resolutions were axiomatic and the adoption last Friday of L.29 on Sudan illustrated this by the number of Member States anxious to ignore the facts to be found in the eleven reports of Special Rapporteurs and elsewhere and by the refusal to call "a slave a slave".

PETER PROVE, of the Lutheran World Federation, on behalf of the World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women, and Defence for Children International, said that the report was overall an important contribution towards achieving the stated purpose of the review. The issues raised in the review were very complex for many delegations, and a considerable amount of work needed to be done to achieve consensus. The failure to achieve a broad consensus on the main elements of the review was most disappointing. It was the consequence of having lost sight of the fundamental objective of the review, to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights for all those who were or would be the victims of discrimination, oppression and violence. Objections were based on the view that the measures did not serve the fundamental objective. Some of the primary objects of concern were the recommendations concerning the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the Working Groups on arbitrary detention and on enforced or involuntary disappearances. All members of the Commission should reflect on the purpose of the review of the mechanisms and on their responsibility to the victims of human rights violations around the world, and to review their entrenched positions.