Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES ITS SIXTY-SECOND AND LAST SESSION
27 March 2006
Share
Commission on Human Rights
27 March 2006
Refers All Reports of its Mechanisms to the Human Rights Council
for Further Consideration at its First Session in June 2006
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its sixty-second and last session after 60 years of work for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission adopted a resolution on the closure of its work, recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, which created the Human Rights Council, and resolution 2006/2 of 22 March 2006; taking note of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006; referring all reports to the Human Rights Council for further consideration at its first session in June 2006; expressing its appreciation to all those who contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights during its 60 years of existence; and deciding to conclude its work in accordance with the above mentioned resolutions.
The Commission heard statements from Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros of Peru, the Chairman of the sixty-second session; Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia, Chairman of the sixty-first session; and representatives of the regional groups and non-governmental organizations.
The Commission also observed a minute of silence to pay tribute to the memory of all those who throughout the 60 years of its existence had lost their lives as victims of human rights violations or as defenders of those rights.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights said there were millions of people all over the world who were looking to the United Nations for protection and redress against the violation of their rights and deprivation of their freedoms. It was her firm belief that the resolution passed by the General Assembly with regard to the Human Rights Council made a major stride forward for the United Nations human rights system. The founding document of the Human Rights Council had created a strong global human rights body. The Council would convene for the first time on 19 June and begin its work. Its credibility required quick action on matters of substance. In particular, it would have to take urgent interim measures to ensure that there would be no protection gap. That would require at the outset taking measures that would enable it to assume and implement fully the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities inherited from the Commission.
Ms. Arbour said it would be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to the Commission on Human Rights, if one failed on this occasion to celebrate its achievements even as one, in full knowledge of its flaws, welcomed the arrival of its successor. The Council should build on the achievements and strengths of the Commission.
The Chairman of the sixty-second session, Mr. Rodriguez Cuadros, said throughout its 60 years of existence, the Commission had been the most dynamic factor in the creation and development of international human rights law and this task of creating instruments to afford protection had been an ongoing one. The Commission was leaving to the Human Rights Council the adoption, hopefully at its first session, of the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It was his hope that among the first substantive decisions taken by the Council at its first session would be the adoption of these instruments. The custodianship of human rights could not be limited to the formulation of instruments, however. It was necessary to move beyond the limits of the logical, formal work of legal norms. The duty to provide guarantees and compensate the victims was likewise indispensable.
Resolution on the Closure of the Work of the Commission
The Commission adopted without a vote resolution E/CN.4/2006/L.2 entitled “closure of the work of the Commission” recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, which created the Human Rights Council, and Economic and Social Council resolution 2006/2 of 22 March 2006; taking note of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006; referring, accordingly, all reports to the Human Rights Council for further consideration at its first session in June 2006; expressing its appreciation to all those who contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights during its 60 years of existence; and deciding to conclude its work in accordance with the above mentioned resolutions.
Statements
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS, Chairman of the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights, recalled that on 20 March, the Commission had decided to wait until the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) took a decision conforming to paragraph 13 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March. On 22 March, ECOSOC had adopted resolution 2006/2 in which it requested the Commission to conclude its work at its sixty-second session, which should be short and procedural, and to transmit its final report to the Council.
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, recalled that history was made on the fifteenth of March. For without question the creation of the Human Rights Council was a moment of historical importance. There has been a quiet revolution in human rights in recent months, which had culminated in the creation of the Council. It had served to return human rights to their rightful place firmly at the centre – indeed, at the very foundation – of the United Nations. However, the actual impact of this decision of historical significance was still to be determined. Much would rest on the profound culture shift that must accompany this institutional reform. The protection of human rights would thrive in a rigorous, frank and cooperative environment. Progress could not be made in an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect and through the pursuit of narrow self-interest.
There were millions of people all over the world, right now, who were looking to the United Nations for protection and redress against the violation of their rights and deprivation of their freedoms. It was to them, and to future generations, that the work of the Human Rights Council should be dedicated. Ms. Arbour said it was her firm belief that the resolution passed by the General Assembly with regard to the Human Rights Council made a major stride forward for the United Nations human rights system. In September last year, all heads of State and government resolved to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring the effective enjoyment of all human rights by all. The founding document of the Human Rights Council had created a strong global human rights body. But there was no guarantee that the Council would fully realize the goals for which it was created.
As things stood, Ms. Arbour said, the Council was still just a document. It could be criticized or praised only in the abstract. The first opportunity to breathe life into that new institution would come with the elections of its first members, scheduled for the ninth of May. That would be a vital opportunity for the United Nations to begin setting the standard for its human rights work in the future. It would be an opportunity not to be missed – by candidates and the electorate alike – for it would visibly set the tone and the ethos of that new body. The Council would convene for the first time on 19 June and begin its work. It was important that during its first sessions the Human Rights Council quickly find a way to deal with its substantive mandate even as it established its working procedures. Its credibility required quick action on matters of substance. In particular, it would have to take urgent interim measures to ensure that there would be no protection gap. That would require at the outset taking measures that would enable it to assume and implement fully the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities inherited from the Commission.
As with the creation of the Council, she said, much had also been said about the demise of the Commission. It would, however, be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to that institution, if one failed on this occasion to celebrate the achievements of the Commission even as one, in full knowledge of its flaws, welcomed the arrival of its successor. It had been repeatedly asserted in the last two months, correctly in her view, that the Council should build on the achievements and strengths of the Commission.
Ms. Arbour said, first, the Commission had built the framework for international human rights protection and had steadily continued to set standards on a wide range of human rights issues. In its first days, in the immediate aftermath of the devastation wreaked by the Second World War, the Commission had drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It went on to draft the two other pillars of what had come to be known as the International Bill of Human Rights: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Then, the Commission had gone much further in the formulation of other core human rights treaties and norms. Standards pertaining to women, children, human rights defenders, as well as violations such as genocide, racial discrimination, torture, and the right to development, to name just a few, were now part of the international framework of protected rights and liberties.
The Commission had also established the system of special procedures, becoming a protector of human rights, in addition to their promoter. Made up of independent experts, special rapporteurs, special representatives of the Secretary-General, special representatives of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Working Groups, those individuals had now come to represent in many ways the frontline human rights troops the Office turned to for early warning and protection. Another achievement of the Commission was its work in considering the situation of human rights in specific countries. That subject had become a matter of intense, even poisonous, debate in recent years. But one should never forget that for years the Commission was able to demonstrate its relevance to the victims of human rights violations in specific country situations and that it was able to marshal a global consensus in responding to their plight. The Commission had also created the first human rights complaints mechanism in the UN system: the so-called "1503 procedure". That confidential procedure drew the attention of the Commission to allegations of wide-spread patterns of gross human rights violations in any country.
Ms. Arbour said lastly, the Commission had created a global forum for dialogue on human rights issues and nurtured a unique close relationship with civil society, allowing for discussion on human rights by senior government officials, victims of human rights abuses, national human rights institutions, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations.
Concluding, Ms. Arbour said that the vigorous and broad discussions at the Commission had helped to identify emerging and key human rights issues, thus moving the international agenda forward. National institutions and non-governmental organizations had provided the Commission with information, through parallel events, as well as oral and written statements, about human rights situations in all regions of the world and they had contributed expertise to the thematic issues on the Commission’s agenda. The robust presence of civil society was a credit to the openness and inclusiveness uniquely displayed by that intergovernmental organization. Those, then, were the achievements that the international community should today take note of and, tomorrow, build on. They were not perfect achievements. But at their core, they represented very real strengths on which the future Council could build. In that vital task, she would offer her unflagging commitment and dedication and that of all her colleagues in Geneva, in New York and in duty stations throughout the world.
MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia), Chairman of the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights, said that the sixty-first session of the Commission last year had attracted some 4,000 participants and saw over 930 public and private parallel events. Participation by non-governmental organizations in the work of the Commission had been high, with some 2,000 representatives. Difficult issues and resolutions had been addressed, and participants of the sixty-first Commission had also deliberated the issue of United Nations reform, especially concerning the human rights mechanisms. The sixty-first session had been unique in that it had held two informal consultative sessions on this issue, in April and June of last year; and a summary of these consultations had been submitted to the President of the General Assembly. Another informal meeting had been organized in New York in November 2005 to exchange views on the modalities for the establishment of the Human Rights Council. These informal consultations had played a contributing role in the historic establishment of the Human Rights Council.
In concluding the work of this Commission and in welcoming the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Wibisono hoped that the positive achievements of the Commission could be built upon, without repeating the pitfalls. The strengths of the Commission included the existing human rights legal international standards and the increasingly influential international system for the promotion and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, the Commission also suffered from a tendency to over-politicize, become selective and engage in double standards. There would be great promise in the Human Rights Council if, in its work, it reaffirmed the principles of universality, impartiality and non-selectivity and embraced international cooperation and dialogue while performing universal periodic reviews of the human rights records of all States. The Human Rights Council should make capacity-building a priority.
Ensuring that the Human Rights Council delivered its promises would not be easy, he said. However, with the spirit of inclusiveness, cooperation and dialogue, the Human Rights Council could, and would, make a difference. What was truly important was that the Human Rights Council should be able to guarantee that its decisions were implemented on the ground.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that, decades ago, the first session of the Commission had started with a vision and that, today, its last session concluded with the same one: the advent of a world in which all human beings could equally and unreservedly enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, as underlined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That was a heavy responsibility that all had to shoulder for present and future generations. In that context, the African Group was fully committed to the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The African Group believed that human rights issues were inextricably linked to issues of equality, justice, peace and development at national and international levels: if there were no equality and justice there could be no peace, if there was no peace there could be no development, and if there were no development the individual could not enjoy his rights nor assume his responsibilities or duties. Therefore the African Group underlined that the right to development should enjoy equal pride of place among other rights. They also believed that cultural diversity, specificities and different value systems were inherent and enriching attributes of our societies. Therefore any attempt to impose one's value system on others indicated disregard for other cultures and civilizations. Attempts to wrongly associate certain religions or communities with terrorism were totally unacceptable.
The Commission had played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights, including in standard and norm setting, in contributing to the demise of Apartheid in South Africa, its promotion of the right to development, and its facilitation of NGOs and national institutions' participation in its work. However, the credibility of the Commission had suffered from politicization, selectivity and double standards, and in the naming and shaming of States, instead of strengthening the promotion of civilized dialogue and cooperation. The African Group welcomed the adoption of the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council on Human Rights to replace the Commission. Even though it did not reflect all of their concerns, it represented a step towards strengthening the human rights machinery based on dialogue and cooperation. The Council would have to address and redress the shortcomings of the Commission. It would have to grant equal attention to all rights -- economic, social, civil and political, as well as the right to development -- and to the relationship between them. It would have to safeguard respect for cultural and religious diversity and different value systems, promote respect for the national sovereignty and equality of all States, stress dialogue and cooperation, and most importantly, it should do all of that in a manner that avoided politicization, selectivity and the use of double standards. The African Group committed itself to work closely with other regional groups to make the new Council a better forum of dialogue for the promotion and protection of human rights.
ABDULWAHAB ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Asian region represented a large section of humanity, not only in number of peoples and nations, but also in terms of cultural diversity. The region’s commitment to promotion and protection of human rights was rooted in its rich cultural heritage and its firm belief in the recognition of the inherent dignity of human beings and respect for principles of equality, freedom and justice. The Asian countries continued to emphasize universality, impartiality and non-selectivity as the essential elements of the international human rights system. The region consistently stressed on cooperation and dialogue, education, technical assistance and capacity building for promoting the realization of all human rights.
Today, the international human rights machinery was at a critical juncture in its history. Adoption by the General Assembly on 15 March 2006 of the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council marked the culmination of the six decades of the valuable work of the Commission, which was now being transferred to the Council. The Asian Group recognized the achievements of the Commission. Over the years, it had been instrumental in establishing norms and settings; promoting education and awareness about human rights; realization of those rights through cooperation with States and other stakeholders; and addressing critical human rights issues.
The normative framework built around the Commission and its mandates had contributed to promote basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. The impact in some areas had been significant. The Commission had consistently affirmed all people's right to self-determination. That had also helped the peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in the process of decolonization. The Commission had continued to reaffirm the inalienable right of self-determination of Palestinian people including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity. In that regard, the Asian countries reiterated their support for the Palestinian people to establish their sovereign and independent state. The Asian Group also reaffirmed its support for the continuous campaign against foreign occupation and its implications in the occupied Palestinian Territory, the Syrian Golan and south Lebanon, and reiterated its support for the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law in all occupied territories in any part of the world.
The Asian countries attached great importance to the efforts for promoting respect for religions and cultures, and for combating religious and racial intolerance. The Group agreed that it was “important that the relevant organs of the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, make positive contributions in this respect and promote much needed dialogue on these sensitive issues”. He affirmed the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States, welcomed the fact that all the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights had been transferred to the Human Rights Council. One of the most innovative and tangible achievements of the Commission was the system of special procedures. This mechanism had been designed to keep critical and precarious topics in the spotlight of the international community and had brought concrete attention to situations on the ground. Furthermore, the Commission had always been one of the main international forums for human rights studies and analyses, assisted in this task by the Sub-Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights.
Another positive achievement of the Commission was the creation of a unique interaction with civil society and non-governmental organizations, he said. It would therefore be appropriate and necessary to develop the means for substantive and constructive participation of civil society in future deliberations. Dialogue with non-governmental organizations was also an asset, which should be built upon and enhanced. The creation of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner had also been important achievements. History had shown that these steps had improved the functioning of the United Nations human rights machinery and institutions.
It had been recognized that the Commission was not flawless and that despite its achievements, various shortcomings had increasingly prevented it from effectively discharging its mandate. Human rights should be the factor that brought nations and peoples together and improved the overall climate of international relations, he said. That was why it was extremely important that the future Human Rights Council served as a standard-setting body, strengthening international cooperation in the field of human rights. Recognizing the shortcomings of the Commission, the Group of Eastern European States expected that the Council would ensure universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, as well as the prevention of double standards and politicization.
It was important that today be regarded not as the end, but rather as the beginning of a new process through which to move forward. To be effective in the implementation of the human rights norms the Council needed to take into account and help promote the linkages between the United Nations primary goals of security, development and human rights. Human rights, as a universal value, did not recognize boundaries, and it would take a dedicated and genuine effort on the part of everyone involved to create a better instrument to address human rights violations with the efficacy that they deserved.
C. HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), said that he wished to express GRULAC's profound dissatisfaction and concern over the process that had led to the present session being stripped of all substance. They had missed the opportunity to take up important subjects, as well as other items that the Commission had been working on for over two decades. They had been told that the reason for the non-substantive Commission was the need to concentrate on the Council, and that those subjects would be taken up in that context. GRULAC stressed that it had not participated in the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution L.2, closing the present session. But, in the same constructive spirit it had always displayed in the Commission, GRULAC would not prevent its adoption by consensus. In that connection, GRULAC would work to ensure that the Council would deal with substantive issues from its very first session.
Since the creation of the Commission on Human Rights 60 years ago, to prevent a repetition of the horrors of an armed conflict that had plunged the world into violence, it had converted itself into an important forum for debate on many issues, including the fight against poverty, gender equality, the recognition of the rights of the child, and the rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of migrants, the right of people's to self-determination, the right to development, the fight against racism and xenophobia, and the elimination of torture and forced disappearances. The Commission had also equipped itself with significant and important instruments and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, including a system of special procedures, and human rights norms, and it had protected victims and supported the work of human rights defenders. The legacy of the Commission was important for GRULAC. Its countries had improved their human rights situations using the mechanisms set up by the Commission and they had found support in the face of such human rights violations as forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions. The Commission had also contributed to the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in several countries.
GRULAC realized the relevant role played by non-governmental organizations in the human rights system and it was committed to ensuring the effective participation of NGOS from the first session of the new Council.
A new era was being ushered in and GRULAC urged all delegations and NGOs to work, as soon as the sixty-second session of the Commission concluded, on preparations for the Council. The International Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Disappearance and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were ready for adoption. If those instruments could have been adopted at the present session, it would have been a positive sign and made a fitting end for the Commission. GRULAC hoped -- and would endeavour to ensure -- that the Council maintained and built on the achievements of the Commission, and that it would eliminate once and for all the problems that underlay the credibility crisis.
IAN M. DE JONG (The Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the Western Group, said over the course of its 60 years of existence, the Commission had grown to become the heart of the expanding and increasingly important United Nations human rights machinery. The Commission had continued to build and expand upon its mandate in a manner that the drafters of the 1946 resolution of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) could have scarcely imagined. Sixty years later, the Commissioner had established an unchallenged acquis on its main functions.
In carrying out its fundamental functions, the Commission had become a body that had far exceeded initial expectations. While being a mere functional Commission of ECOSOC, its decisions, resolutions and deliberations had attracted the attention of public, governments and media all over the world and thus had gained considerable authority.
With the establishment of the Human Rights Council, the world community had shown its commitment to enhance the protection of human rights through constructive engagement and ongoing dialogue within the framework of the United Nations. While membership was open to all, members of the Commission would be held accountable for their commitment to abide by the highest human rights standards. The Western Group pledged not to cast its votes for any candidate for Commission membership that was under sanctions by the Security Council for human rights related reasons. It was also the Group’s firm view that no State guilty of gross and systematic violations of human rights should serve on the Council.
Making the Human Right Council work effectively would be a great responsibility. The Council’s output would be vital to the work of the United Nations, where human rights were now rightly recognized as one of the main pillars of its mandate. Honest and open dialogue and cooperation would be essential if the Council was to fulfil its responsibility for promoting universal freedoms for all.
CHRIS SIDOTI, International Service for Human Rights, in a statement on behalf of 265 non-governmental organizations, said that during the 60 years of the Commission on Human Rights, non-governmental organizations had played, in the words of the General Assembly, “an important role at the national, regional and international levels, in the promotion and protection of human rights”. Unfortunately the arrangement made for their participation in the final session of the Commission through a single statement did not allow this important role to be reflected.
Non-governmental organizations were very diverse, reflecting the variety and multiplicity of human experiences. They had brought to the Commission the voices of the voiceless and of victims of violations throughout the world. That diversity and those voices could not be encapsulated in a single statement. It was noted with disappointment and a sense of loss that they were missing from the final session of the Commission. It had been decided, therefore, that a single non-governmental statement to assess the work of the Commission would not be made. The non-governmental organizations did not accept that this was an appropriate way to proceed now or in the future and urged States to acknowledge this.
The non-governmental organizations were looking forward positively to the establishment of the Human Rights Council and wished to remind all States of the terms of the recent General Assembly resolution which committed the future Human Rights Council to “ensuring the most effective contribution” of non-governmental organizations to its work “based on arrangements … and practices observed by the Commission”.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS, Chairman of the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights, said a new horizon was opening up that would hopefully allow the United Nations to move towards a higher degree of efficiency, coverage and legitimacy in its essential task of promoting and protecting human rights around the world in an objective and non-selective manner. He asked all present to observe a minute of silence to pay tribute to the memory of all those who throughout the 60 years of the Commission’s existence had lost their lives as victims of human rights violations or as defenders of those rights.
The Commission had been born following the war, he said, when the memory of genocide was still fresh, and colonialism was a persistent reality. Against this background, the Commission in 1947, had sought a general consensus for the establishment of a list of human rights that would allow it to say to each of the world’s citizens: you have rights. This came into being the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had grown to become a legal norm that was enforceable in respect of all States. It expressed a universal legal consensus that stood as the best example of dialogue and understanding among cultures, civilizations and religions as the other supreme value of human dignity. This was one of the Commission’s most important legacies to mankind.
Throughout its 60 years of existence, the Commission had been the most dynamic factor in the creation and development of international human rights law and this task of creating instruments to afford protection had been an ongoing one. The Commission was leaving to the Human Rights Council the adoption, hopefully at its first session, of the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It was his hope that among the first substantive decisions taken by the Council at its first session would be the adoption of these instruments. The custodianship of human rights could not be limited to the formulation of instruments, however. It was necessary to move beyond the limits of the logical, formal work of legal norms. The duty to provide guarantees and compensate the victims was likewise indispensable.
The achievements of the Commission had been more modest in recent years owing to insufficiencies, weaknesses and new problems that undermined its credibility and legitimacy. Especially harmful had been the public procedure of adopting resolutions on specific countries, which had resulted in extreme politicization, affecting the Commission’s credibility. He hoped that the Council would be more effective and legitimate than the Commission; that the focus of its work would be the real and potential victims of human rights violations; and that its protective efforts would be truly universal in scope. In this he was certain it would be successful. It had all the necessary tools and its creation had been decided by a majority of wills. The Commission’s adoption of this session’s decisions without a vote offered, in his view, a constructive symbol. He hoped this would augur well for the best possible conditions for consultations and negotiations on the substantive agenda that the Human Rights Council would consider at its first session on 19 June.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
27 March 2006
Refers All Reports of its Mechanisms to the Human Rights Council
for Further Consideration at its First Session in June 2006
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its sixty-second and last session after 60 years of work for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission adopted a resolution on the closure of its work, recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, which created the Human Rights Council, and resolution 2006/2 of 22 March 2006; taking note of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006; referring all reports to the Human Rights Council for further consideration at its first session in June 2006; expressing its appreciation to all those who contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights during its 60 years of existence; and deciding to conclude its work in accordance with the above mentioned resolutions.
The Commission heard statements from Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros of Peru, the Chairman of the sixty-second session; Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia, Chairman of the sixty-first session; and representatives of the regional groups and non-governmental organizations.
The Commission also observed a minute of silence to pay tribute to the memory of all those who throughout the 60 years of its existence had lost their lives as victims of human rights violations or as defenders of those rights.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights said there were millions of people all over the world who were looking to the United Nations for protection and redress against the violation of their rights and deprivation of their freedoms. It was her firm belief that the resolution passed by the General Assembly with regard to the Human Rights Council made a major stride forward for the United Nations human rights system. The founding document of the Human Rights Council had created a strong global human rights body. The Council would convene for the first time on 19 June and begin its work. Its credibility required quick action on matters of substance. In particular, it would have to take urgent interim measures to ensure that there would be no protection gap. That would require at the outset taking measures that would enable it to assume and implement fully the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities inherited from the Commission.
Ms. Arbour said it would be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to the Commission on Human Rights, if one failed on this occasion to celebrate its achievements even as one, in full knowledge of its flaws, welcomed the arrival of its successor. The Council should build on the achievements and strengths of the Commission.
The Chairman of the sixty-second session, Mr. Rodriguez Cuadros, said throughout its 60 years of existence, the Commission had been the most dynamic factor in the creation and development of international human rights law and this task of creating instruments to afford protection had been an ongoing one. The Commission was leaving to the Human Rights Council the adoption, hopefully at its first session, of the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It was his hope that among the first substantive decisions taken by the Council at its first session would be the adoption of these instruments. The custodianship of human rights could not be limited to the formulation of instruments, however. It was necessary to move beyond the limits of the logical, formal work of legal norms. The duty to provide guarantees and compensate the victims was likewise indispensable.
Resolution on the Closure of the Work of the Commission
The Commission adopted without a vote resolution E/CN.4/2006/L.2 entitled “closure of the work of the Commission” recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, which created the Human Rights Council, and Economic and Social Council resolution 2006/2 of 22 March 2006; taking note of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006; referring, accordingly, all reports to the Human Rights Council for further consideration at its first session in June 2006; expressing its appreciation to all those who contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights during its 60 years of existence; and deciding to conclude its work in accordance with the above mentioned resolutions.
Statements
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS, Chairman of the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights, recalled that on 20 March, the Commission had decided to wait until the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) took a decision conforming to paragraph 13 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March. On 22 March, ECOSOC had adopted resolution 2006/2 in which it requested the Commission to conclude its work at its sixty-second session, which should be short and procedural, and to transmit its final report to the Council.
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, recalled that history was made on the fifteenth of March. For without question the creation of the Human Rights Council was a moment of historical importance. There has been a quiet revolution in human rights in recent months, which had culminated in the creation of the Council. It had served to return human rights to their rightful place firmly at the centre – indeed, at the very foundation – of the United Nations. However, the actual impact of this decision of historical significance was still to be determined. Much would rest on the profound culture shift that must accompany this institutional reform. The protection of human rights would thrive in a rigorous, frank and cooperative environment. Progress could not be made in an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect and through the pursuit of narrow self-interest.
There were millions of people all over the world, right now, who were looking to the United Nations for protection and redress against the violation of their rights and deprivation of their freedoms. It was to them, and to future generations, that the work of the Human Rights Council should be dedicated. Ms. Arbour said it was her firm belief that the resolution passed by the General Assembly with regard to the Human Rights Council made a major stride forward for the United Nations human rights system. In September last year, all heads of State and government resolved to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring the effective enjoyment of all human rights by all. The founding document of the Human Rights Council had created a strong global human rights body. But there was no guarantee that the Council would fully realize the goals for which it was created.
As things stood, Ms. Arbour said, the Council was still just a document. It could be criticized or praised only in the abstract. The first opportunity to breathe life into that new institution would come with the elections of its first members, scheduled for the ninth of May. That would be a vital opportunity for the United Nations to begin setting the standard for its human rights work in the future. It would be an opportunity not to be missed – by candidates and the electorate alike – for it would visibly set the tone and the ethos of that new body. The Council would convene for the first time on 19 June and begin its work. It was important that during its first sessions the Human Rights Council quickly find a way to deal with its substantive mandate even as it established its working procedures. Its credibility required quick action on matters of substance. In particular, it would have to take urgent interim measures to ensure that there would be no protection gap. That would require at the outset taking measures that would enable it to assume and implement fully the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities inherited from the Commission.
As with the creation of the Council, she said, much had also been said about the demise of the Commission. It would, however, be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to that institution, if one failed on this occasion to celebrate the achievements of the Commission even as one, in full knowledge of its flaws, welcomed the arrival of its successor. It had been repeatedly asserted in the last two months, correctly in her view, that the Council should build on the achievements and strengths of the Commission.
Ms. Arbour said, first, the Commission had built the framework for international human rights protection and had steadily continued to set standards on a wide range of human rights issues. In its first days, in the immediate aftermath of the devastation wreaked by the Second World War, the Commission had drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It went on to draft the two other pillars of what had come to be known as the International Bill of Human Rights: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Then, the Commission had gone much further in the formulation of other core human rights treaties and norms. Standards pertaining to women, children, human rights defenders, as well as violations such as genocide, racial discrimination, torture, and the right to development, to name just a few, were now part of the international framework of protected rights and liberties.
The Commission had also established the system of special procedures, becoming a protector of human rights, in addition to their promoter. Made up of independent experts, special rapporteurs, special representatives of the Secretary-General, special representatives of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Working Groups, those individuals had now come to represent in many ways the frontline human rights troops the Office turned to for early warning and protection. Another achievement of the Commission was its work in considering the situation of human rights in specific countries. That subject had become a matter of intense, even poisonous, debate in recent years. But one should never forget that for years the Commission was able to demonstrate its relevance to the victims of human rights violations in specific country situations and that it was able to marshal a global consensus in responding to their plight. The Commission had also created the first human rights complaints mechanism in the UN system: the so-called "1503 procedure". That confidential procedure drew the attention of the Commission to allegations of wide-spread patterns of gross human rights violations in any country.
Ms. Arbour said lastly, the Commission had created a global forum for dialogue on human rights issues and nurtured a unique close relationship with civil society, allowing for discussion on human rights by senior government officials, victims of human rights abuses, national human rights institutions, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations.
Concluding, Ms. Arbour said that the vigorous and broad discussions at the Commission had helped to identify emerging and key human rights issues, thus moving the international agenda forward. National institutions and non-governmental organizations had provided the Commission with information, through parallel events, as well as oral and written statements, about human rights situations in all regions of the world and they had contributed expertise to the thematic issues on the Commission’s agenda. The robust presence of civil society was a credit to the openness and inclusiveness uniquely displayed by that intergovernmental organization. Those, then, were the achievements that the international community should today take note of and, tomorrow, build on. They were not perfect achievements. But at their core, they represented very real strengths on which the future Council could build. In that vital task, she would offer her unflagging commitment and dedication and that of all her colleagues in Geneva, in New York and in duty stations throughout the world.
MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia), Chairman of the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights, said that the sixty-first session of the Commission last year had attracted some 4,000 participants and saw over 930 public and private parallel events. Participation by non-governmental organizations in the work of the Commission had been high, with some 2,000 representatives. Difficult issues and resolutions had been addressed, and participants of the sixty-first Commission had also deliberated the issue of United Nations reform, especially concerning the human rights mechanisms. The sixty-first session had been unique in that it had held two informal consultative sessions on this issue, in April and June of last year; and a summary of these consultations had been submitted to the President of the General Assembly. Another informal meeting had been organized in New York in November 2005 to exchange views on the modalities for the establishment of the Human Rights Council. These informal consultations had played a contributing role in the historic establishment of the Human Rights Council.
In concluding the work of this Commission and in welcoming the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Wibisono hoped that the positive achievements of the Commission could be built upon, without repeating the pitfalls. The strengths of the Commission included the existing human rights legal international standards and the increasingly influential international system for the promotion and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, the Commission also suffered from a tendency to over-politicize, become selective and engage in double standards. There would be great promise in the Human Rights Council if, in its work, it reaffirmed the principles of universality, impartiality and non-selectivity and embraced international cooperation and dialogue while performing universal periodic reviews of the human rights records of all States. The Human Rights Council should make capacity-building a priority.
Ensuring that the Human Rights Council delivered its promises would not be easy, he said. However, with the spirit of inclusiveness, cooperation and dialogue, the Human Rights Council could, and would, make a difference. What was truly important was that the Human Rights Council should be able to guarantee that its decisions were implemented on the ground.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that, decades ago, the first session of the Commission had started with a vision and that, today, its last session concluded with the same one: the advent of a world in which all human beings could equally and unreservedly enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, as underlined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That was a heavy responsibility that all had to shoulder for present and future generations. In that context, the African Group was fully committed to the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The African Group believed that human rights issues were inextricably linked to issues of equality, justice, peace and development at national and international levels: if there were no equality and justice there could be no peace, if there was no peace there could be no development, and if there were no development the individual could not enjoy his rights nor assume his responsibilities or duties. Therefore the African Group underlined that the right to development should enjoy equal pride of place among other rights. They also believed that cultural diversity, specificities and different value systems were inherent and enriching attributes of our societies. Therefore any attempt to impose one's value system on others indicated disregard for other cultures and civilizations. Attempts to wrongly associate certain religions or communities with terrorism were totally unacceptable.
The Commission had played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights, including in standard and norm setting, in contributing to the demise of Apartheid in South Africa, its promotion of the right to development, and its facilitation of NGOs and national institutions' participation in its work. However, the credibility of the Commission had suffered from politicization, selectivity and double standards, and in the naming and shaming of States, instead of strengthening the promotion of civilized dialogue and cooperation. The African Group welcomed the adoption of the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council on Human Rights to replace the Commission. Even though it did not reflect all of their concerns, it represented a step towards strengthening the human rights machinery based on dialogue and cooperation. The Council would have to address and redress the shortcomings of the Commission. It would have to grant equal attention to all rights -- economic, social, civil and political, as well as the right to development -- and to the relationship between them. It would have to safeguard respect for cultural and religious diversity and different value systems, promote respect for the national sovereignty and equality of all States, stress dialogue and cooperation, and most importantly, it should do all of that in a manner that avoided politicization, selectivity and the use of double standards. The African Group committed itself to work closely with other regional groups to make the new Council a better forum of dialogue for the promotion and protection of human rights.
ABDULWAHAB ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Asian region represented a large section of humanity, not only in number of peoples and nations, but also in terms of cultural diversity. The region’s commitment to promotion and protection of human rights was rooted in its rich cultural heritage and its firm belief in the recognition of the inherent dignity of human beings and respect for principles of equality, freedom and justice. The Asian countries continued to emphasize universality, impartiality and non-selectivity as the essential elements of the international human rights system. The region consistently stressed on cooperation and dialogue, education, technical assistance and capacity building for promoting the realization of all human rights.
Today, the international human rights machinery was at a critical juncture in its history. Adoption by the General Assembly on 15 March 2006 of the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council marked the culmination of the six decades of the valuable work of the Commission, which was now being transferred to the Council. The Asian Group recognized the achievements of the Commission. Over the years, it had been instrumental in establishing norms and settings; promoting education and awareness about human rights; realization of those rights through cooperation with States and other stakeholders; and addressing critical human rights issues.
The normative framework built around the Commission and its mandates had contributed to promote basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. The impact in some areas had been significant. The Commission had consistently affirmed all people's right to self-determination. That had also helped the peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in the process of decolonization. The Commission had continued to reaffirm the inalienable right of self-determination of Palestinian people including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity. In that regard, the Asian countries reiterated their support for the Palestinian people to establish their sovereign and independent state. The Asian Group also reaffirmed its support for the continuous campaign against foreign occupation and its implications in the occupied Palestinian Territory, the Syrian Golan and south Lebanon, and reiterated its support for the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law in all occupied territories in any part of the world.
The Asian countries attached great importance to the efforts for promoting respect for religions and cultures, and for combating religious and racial intolerance. The Group agreed that it was “important that the relevant organs of the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, make positive contributions in this respect and promote much needed dialogue on these sensitive issues”. He affirmed the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States, welcomed the fact that all the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights had been transferred to the Human Rights Council. One of the most innovative and tangible achievements of the Commission was the system of special procedures. This mechanism had been designed to keep critical and precarious topics in the spotlight of the international community and had brought concrete attention to situations on the ground. Furthermore, the Commission had always been one of the main international forums for human rights studies and analyses, assisted in this task by the Sub-Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights.
Another positive achievement of the Commission was the creation of a unique interaction with civil society and non-governmental organizations, he said. It would therefore be appropriate and necessary to develop the means for substantive and constructive participation of civil society in future deliberations. Dialogue with non-governmental organizations was also an asset, which should be built upon and enhanced. The creation of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner had also been important achievements. History had shown that these steps had improved the functioning of the United Nations human rights machinery and institutions.
It had been recognized that the Commission was not flawless and that despite its achievements, various shortcomings had increasingly prevented it from effectively discharging its mandate. Human rights should be the factor that brought nations and peoples together and improved the overall climate of international relations, he said. That was why it was extremely important that the future Human Rights Council served as a standard-setting body, strengthening international cooperation in the field of human rights. Recognizing the shortcomings of the Commission, the Group of Eastern European States expected that the Council would ensure universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, as well as the prevention of double standards and politicization.
It was important that today be regarded not as the end, but rather as the beginning of a new process through which to move forward. To be effective in the implementation of the human rights norms the Council needed to take into account and help promote the linkages between the United Nations primary goals of security, development and human rights. Human rights, as a universal value, did not recognize boundaries, and it would take a dedicated and genuine effort on the part of everyone involved to create a better instrument to address human rights violations with the efficacy that they deserved.
C. HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), said that he wished to express GRULAC's profound dissatisfaction and concern over the process that had led to the present session being stripped of all substance. They had missed the opportunity to take up important subjects, as well as other items that the Commission had been working on for over two decades. They had been told that the reason for the non-substantive Commission was the need to concentrate on the Council, and that those subjects would be taken up in that context. GRULAC stressed that it had not participated in the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution L.2, closing the present session. But, in the same constructive spirit it had always displayed in the Commission, GRULAC would not prevent its adoption by consensus. In that connection, GRULAC would work to ensure that the Council would deal with substantive issues from its very first session.
Since the creation of the Commission on Human Rights 60 years ago, to prevent a repetition of the horrors of an armed conflict that had plunged the world into violence, it had converted itself into an important forum for debate on many issues, including the fight against poverty, gender equality, the recognition of the rights of the child, and the rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of migrants, the right of people's to self-determination, the right to development, the fight against racism and xenophobia, and the elimination of torture and forced disappearances. The Commission had also equipped itself with significant and important instruments and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, including a system of special procedures, and human rights norms, and it had protected victims and supported the work of human rights defenders. The legacy of the Commission was important for GRULAC. Its countries had improved their human rights situations using the mechanisms set up by the Commission and they had found support in the face of such human rights violations as forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions. The Commission had also contributed to the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in several countries.
GRULAC realized the relevant role played by non-governmental organizations in the human rights system and it was committed to ensuring the effective participation of NGOS from the first session of the new Council.
A new era was being ushered in and GRULAC urged all delegations and NGOs to work, as soon as the sixty-second session of the Commission concluded, on preparations for the Council. The International Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Disappearance and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were ready for adoption. If those instruments could have been adopted at the present session, it would have been a positive sign and made a fitting end for the Commission. GRULAC hoped -- and would endeavour to ensure -- that the Council maintained and built on the achievements of the Commission, and that it would eliminate once and for all the problems that underlay the credibility crisis.
IAN M. DE JONG (The Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the Western Group, said over the course of its 60 years of existence, the Commission had grown to become the heart of the expanding and increasingly important United Nations human rights machinery. The Commission had continued to build and expand upon its mandate in a manner that the drafters of the 1946 resolution of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) could have scarcely imagined. Sixty years later, the Commissioner had established an unchallenged acquis on its main functions.
In carrying out its fundamental functions, the Commission had become a body that had far exceeded initial expectations. While being a mere functional Commission of ECOSOC, its decisions, resolutions and deliberations had attracted the attention of public, governments and media all over the world and thus had gained considerable authority.
With the establishment of the Human Rights Council, the world community had shown its commitment to enhance the protection of human rights through constructive engagement and ongoing dialogue within the framework of the United Nations. While membership was open to all, members of the Commission would be held accountable for their commitment to abide by the highest human rights standards. The Western Group pledged not to cast its votes for any candidate for Commission membership that was under sanctions by the Security Council for human rights related reasons. It was also the Group’s firm view that no State guilty of gross and systematic violations of human rights should serve on the Council.
Making the Human Right Council work effectively would be a great responsibility. The Council’s output would be vital to the work of the United Nations, where human rights were now rightly recognized as one of the main pillars of its mandate. Honest and open dialogue and cooperation would be essential if the Council was to fulfil its responsibility for promoting universal freedoms for all.
CHRIS SIDOTI, International Service for Human Rights, in a statement on behalf of 265 non-governmental organizations, said that during the 60 years of the Commission on Human Rights, non-governmental organizations had played, in the words of the General Assembly, “an important role at the national, regional and international levels, in the promotion and protection of human rights”. Unfortunately the arrangement made for their participation in the final session of the Commission through a single statement did not allow this important role to be reflected.
Non-governmental organizations were very diverse, reflecting the variety and multiplicity of human experiences. They had brought to the Commission the voices of the voiceless and of victims of violations throughout the world. That diversity and those voices could not be encapsulated in a single statement. It was noted with disappointment and a sense of loss that they were missing from the final session of the Commission. It had been decided, therefore, that a single non-governmental statement to assess the work of the Commission would not be made. The non-governmental organizations did not accept that this was an appropriate way to proceed now or in the future and urged States to acknowledge this.
The non-governmental organizations were looking forward positively to the establishment of the Human Rights Council and wished to remind all States of the terms of the recent General Assembly resolution which committed the future Human Rights Council to “ensuring the most effective contribution” of non-governmental organizations to its work “based on arrangements … and practices observed by the Commission”.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS, Chairman of the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights, said a new horizon was opening up that would hopefully allow the United Nations to move towards a higher degree of efficiency, coverage and legitimacy in its essential task of promoting and protecting human rights around the world in an objective and non-selective manner. He asked all present to observe a minute of silence to pay tribute to the memory of all those who throughout the 60 years of the Commission’s existence had lost their lives as victims of human rights violations or as defenders of those rights.
The Commission had been born following the war, he said, when the memory of genocide was still fresh, and colonialism was a persistent reality. Against this background, the Commission in 1947, had sought a general consensus for the establishment of a list of human rights that would allow it to say to each of the world’s citizens: you have rights. This came into being the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had grown to become a legal norm that was enforceable in respect of all States. It expressed a universal legal consensus that stood as the best example of dialogue and understanding among cultures, civilizations and religions as the other supreme value of human dignity. This was one of the Commission’s most important legacies to mankind.
Throughout its 60 years of existence, the Commission had been the most dynamic factor in the creation and development of international human rights law and this task of creating instruments to afford protection had been an ongoing one. The Commission was leaving to the Human Rights Council the adoption, hopefully at its first session, of the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It was his hope that among the first substantive decisions taken by the Council at its first session would be the adoption of these instruments. The custodianship of human rights could not be limited to the formulation of instruments, however. It was necessary to move beyond the limits of the logical, formal work of legal norms. The duty to provide guarantees and compensate the victims was likewise indispensable.
The achievements of the Commission had been more modest in recent years owing to insufficiencies, weaknesses and new problems that undermined its credibility and legitimacy. Especially harmful had been the public procedure of adopting resolutions on specific countries, which had resulted in extreme politicization, affecting the Commission’s credibility. He hoped that the Council would be more effective and legitimate than the Commission; that the focus of its work would be the real and potential victims of human rights violations; and that its protective efforts would be truly universal in scope. In this he was certain it would be successful. It had all the necessary tools and its creation had been decided by a majority of wills. The Commission’s adoption of this session’s decisions without a vote offered, in his view, a constructive symbol. He hoped this would augur well for the best possible conditions for consultations and negotiations on the substantive agenda that the Human Rights Council would consider at its first session on 19 June.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: