Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
19 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
19 April 2000
Evening
The Chairperson of a Working Group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights introduced a series of recommendations this afternoon that could lead to a shifting in the responsibilities of some Commission working groups and Special Rapporteurs and that would change long-standing practices of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Commission's chief subsidiary body.
Many national delegations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sought time to study the group's report and planned to react on Thursday, but several country representatives spoke at this afternoon's meeting, expressing cautious support and citing some criticisms.
The report was more roundly opposed by NGOs taking the floor. The South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre charged, for example, that some recommendations of the Working Group were not intended to enhance effectiveness of Commission mechanisms but were part of a conspiracy to escape international scrutiny by a "like-minded group" of countries, and to destroy UN human-rights mechanisms. The organization questioned the conclusions of the Working Group in relation to special mechanisms of the Commission, confidential procedures, and the activities of the Subcommission.
Among other steps, the Working Group proposed that the Subcommission no longer be allowed to adopt resolutions on human-rights situations in specific countries and that the Subcommission's annual session be reduced from four weeks to three.
Several country representatives -- Japan, Brazil, India, and Egypt among them -- said the Working Group's suggestions might serve to enhance a cooperative approach to resolving human-rights difficulties, to reduce political pressures on the Commission's work, and to give more attention and resources to economic, social and cultural rights. Brazil recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights produce a biannual report on the human-rights situation in all parts of the world "whose legitimacy would be safeguarded by its multilateral character and whose credibility would be less liable to be challenged".
Also speaking were officials of Malaysia, Iran and the NGOs Human Rights Watch (on behalf of Amnesty International), Human Rights Advocates (on behalf of several NGOs), Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", and Centre Europe - Tiers Monde.
The Commission will continue its debate on proposed revision of its mechanisms when it reconvenes at 10 a.m. Thursday, 20 April.
Report of the inter-sessional open-ended working group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights
In its report (E/CN.4/2000/112), the group recommends, among other things, merging the mandates of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment policies and the Special Rapporteur on external debt; and that it consider, next year, modifying the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the consequences of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic wastes to a mandate on human rights and the environment. It recommends against a suggestion to replace the Working Group on arbitrary detention with a Special Rapporteur; and it comes out against a proposal to end the mandate of the Working Group of contemporary forms of slavery and transfer its responsibilities which aren't assumed by other Commission mechanisms to a new Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery; it does recommend, however, that steps be taken to make the Working Group more focused and effective, including through a streamlining of its agenda to remove duplication of items dealt with by Special Rapporteurs.
The report further recommends that the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights be allowed to continue to debate situations of human rights on which the Commission had taken no action, but that it should no longer adopt resolutions on situations in specific countries, and that the Subcommission's annual session be reduced from four weeks to three weeks.
Statements
ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the inter-sessional open-ended working group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, presenting the report of the group, said most participants were of the view that the 15 days of debate and discussion had been valuable in themselves. The breadth of participation and the strong sense of engagement gave a real validity and significance to the work. There had been a sustained high level of interest among the diplomatic missions. There were clear and strong voices from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). Many small missions, from both developing and developed countries, found the time to involve themselves, along with many NGOs.
The group worked throughout by consensus, and that approach worked well. Most delegations recognized that a vote on mechanisms would be particularly divisive and would significantly affect the atmosphere in which any decision taken would have to be implemented. The positive definition of consensus had an important psychological effect in the group, as it injected a sense of common purpose. Most delegations saw the task of improving the effectiveness of Commission mechanisms as an ongoing challenge. It would be for the Commission to decide the rhythm at which further work was done.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said that the conclusions of the report of the Working Group were the best that could be hoped for. However, it was only the first step, and reform needed to be pushed further and proposals for reform should continue to be encouraged for the betterment of the work of the Commission. Throughout the work the following points had been emphasized: to increase supplementary relations between Commission and the Third Committee, to redefine the Subcommission as a think tank, to give careful consideration to each communication, to undertake a "scrap and build" approach to mandate holders, and to search for mandate holders from a wider range of candidates.
The Japanese delegation believed the Subcommission should remain an advisory body and not a forum for resolutions country-wise or thematically. It was not necessary nor appropriate for the Subcommission, an advisory body, to express political will. Furthermore the process involving resolutions consisted of some experts lobbying only to achieve majority support for the adoption of resolutions without engaging in substantial discussions, which were far more important. There were concerns over the increasing number of mandate holders. Having more mandate holders without sufficient support would lead to a decline in report quality. The general criteria for the rationalization of mandates in the report of the Working Group should be respected.
CELSO AMORIN (Brazil) said those who had been following the activities of the Commission closely had only become too aware of the heated, often politically motivated debates that did not always seen to contribute to the advancement of human rights and global solidarity, and on the contrary sometimes only fuelled circular and sterile patterns of polarization. The procedures for examining country situations came to mind. One could quote from a local newspaper, "Le Temps", to illustrate the effect this state of affairs had on the image and credibility of the Commission. Today's headline in a free translation read as follows: "The Commission on Human Rights punishes and absolves as in a lottery, and the decisions of the Commission make its work appear as one of a world lottery where some are punished and others absolved".
It would be worthwhile examining having the Office of the High Commissioner elaborate, on a biannual basis, a report on the human-rights situation in all parts of the world, whose legitimacy would be safeguarded by its multilateral character and whose credibility would be less liable to be challenged. The Commission's attention would focus on the most serious cases of systematic disrespect for human rights on the basis of the most independent and objective analysis available to the international community, free from the distortions created by narrow political interests or parochial values. The elaboration of a global report could only become a reality if all members demonstrated the courage to be scrutinized and criticized in a spirit of global solidarity and concern for the victims of injustice.
A. GORINATHAN (India) said that against the backdrop of intense and often acrimonious discussions at the last Commission, the consensual outcome of the inter-sessional open-ended working group constituted a significant achievement and should set the tone for future work. Among the important points discussed had been the acceptance of the equal importance of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The report underlined the importance of a balanced allocation of resources towards these two sets of rights. It called for a significant improvement in the financial situation of the Office of the High Commissioner though increased contributions from the United Nations regular budget.
The group had established valuable criteria to guide decision-making on rationalization of mandates. It was particularly important for maintaining a broad balance of mandates for the two sets of rights. The Working Group had rightly recognized the extremely valuable contribution of the Subcommission. It also highlighted that timely availability of documents and greater transparency in regard to resolutions were important. The review of the working mechanisms of the Commission was a slow process. However, it was time to reflect, take stock and consolidate the gains made before any further review was contemplated.
ALI HAMIDON (Malaysia) said the delegation was extremely disappointed with the outcome of the Working Group. The chief reason was that the report did not clarify the issue of the term limits for Special Rapporteurs. Malaysia's feeling was that the tenure of a Special Rapporteur should only be extended for an additional term, totaling a maximum of six years. Unfortunately the report did not make reference to such a rule which would go a long way towards maintaining appropriate detachment and objectivity on the part of Rapporteurs as well as ensuring a regular infusion of new expertise and perspective -- elements which were critical if the human-rights system as a whole was to be credible.
Malaysia had been traditionally cooperative with the mechanisms of the Commission. However, it did not believe that an obligation to cooperate existed per se, especially when, for example, it involved an individual Special Rapporteur who was manifestly against the Government of the country of which he was a national. According to article 55 of the UN Charter, cooperation had to be promoted.
MOHAMMED MOUNIR (Egypt) said the report was a well balanced document reflecting trends of convergence and consensus in a previously controversial area. The Working Group had been a useful experience from which lessons should be drawn. It was important to consolidate the protection of human rights. Second, it was important to undertake a fair dialogue where respect for differences of opinion was maintained. It was only when this occurred that there could be progress. Third, it had been highlighted that it was far more important to secure sustainable progress in human rights than to achieve breakthroughs which were not based on consensus.
Cultural differences and specificities had to be respected in a positive way for the promotion of human rights. Finally, the promotion of human rights was a global process and should be devoid of selectivity. The recommendations of the report were to be assessed through objective and transparent methods.
ALI KHORRAM (Iran) said not all areas of concern had received equal attention from the Working Group. First, some of the review points had apparently been left out, running the risk of adversely affecting the comprehensiveness of the report. Second, certain recommendations were included which appeared to be somewhat distanced from the viewpoint of a considerable number of delegations participating in the negotiations. Despite the fact that the aim and objective of the review process was augmenting the mechanisms' efficiency, certain duplication of work was encouraged and recommended in the report.
While the report of the Bureau of the 54th Session of the Commission recognized that country-specific mandates were the most sensitive, and many participants suggested that the existing practice in this regard was unduly political, confrontational and selective, the issue did not receive sufficient attention from the Working Group. By the same token, not enough attention had been paid to the question of country situations and not practical direction had been offered for depoliticizing the Commission's consideration of country situations.
YUONNE TERLINGEN, of Human Rights Watch, speaking on behalf of Amnesty International, said the report had not provided an adequate response to the serious problems faced by many Special Rapporteurs, such as the lack of adequate support from the United Nations and lack of effective cooperation from many States. The Working Group's proposals on States' cooperation with special procedures lacked substance. The Commission should call upon all States to extend open invitations to special procedures to visit their countries at the start of Commission sessions, and ensure that the UN Secretary-General was informed of any State that persistently refused to cooperate with special procedures.
The Commission should create adequate time and space for a thorough discussion during its sessions of special procedures' reports. The Commission should also ask the High Commissioner to provide an assessment of the resource requirements for professional long-term support for special procedures and urge its member States to instruct their delegations to vote for the allocation of the necessary resources from the regular budget.
ANNA-LENA SVENSSON-McCARTHY, of Human Rights Advocates, speaking on behalf of several other NGOs, said that the report of the Working Group fell short of hopes. In view of the often vague terms of the report, the NGOs were going to closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations, which must be done in good faith so that they truly strengthened the various mechanisms whose task was to contribute to putting an end to human-rights violations wherever they took place. It was important that Governments explain the reasons when they failed to cooperate with Commission mechanisms. However, since Governments had a duty to cooperate under the UN Charter, explanations must not be allowed to constitute an excuse for non-cooperation. In situations which involved immediate threats to human life, the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups did need full and constructive cooperation from the Governments concerned, and therefore Governments were urged to comply with this duty.
The recommendation that time be made available for an interactive debate on the reports of Special Rapporteurs was commended. There was a need to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxic waste to cover a wider range of environmental issues. The recommended limitations of the Subcommission's mandate, the shortened sessions, and the failure to agree on guidelines to ensure the independence of members were negative elements which might contribute to the weakening of the efficiency of the Subcommission.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said the central objective of strengthening the mechanisms of the Commission was to promote human rights and prevent violations. Mechanisms had to be adapted constantly in the sphere of human rights. It was not just a question of rationalization for rationalization's sake, but adapting mechanisms to political changes. A balance between civil, political and economic, social and cultural rights had to be established. This should not be evaluated through mathematical equations, as seemed to be the case in the Working Group. The richest country in the world used the Commission the most for political reasons and did not even pay its dues to the United Nations, and also denied the rights to food, housing, development and the eradication of extreme poverty.
The Working Group recommended limited the annual session and reducing the membership of the Subcommission, in fact limiting contributions NGOs could make to human rights, without reducing the number of items on Subcommission's agenda. A merging of structural-adjustment and foreign-debt Special Rapporteurs had been suggested. Debt had a negative impact on economic and social rights and should therefore have a broader mandate and not be restricted. Rapporteurs should be independent, objective and transparent in their operations. The Commission should give a new mandate in the standard-setting sphere and increase the participation of indigenous peoples.
MALIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, said the recommendation of the Working Group to merge the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on debt with that of the Working Group on structural adjustment was not justified. On the other hand, the proposal to transform the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxic waste into a mandate on "human rights and the environment" was commendable. While it addressed immediate reactions to human-rights violations, the report of the Working Group did not speak at all about preventive measures. The report considered a series of measures in case of non-cooperation with regard to violations of civil and political rights. However, this concern should be applied also to economic, social and cultural rights. In the same way, a more balanced allocation of resources among the different mandates of the High Commissioner was necessary.
The Commission's proposal that the Subcommission carry out research instead of adopting country resolutions could prove interesting to the extent that the Subcommission could reflect on themes such as the negative effects of globalization, the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. It was hoped that the decision to cut the Subcommission's debate to three weeks was provisional. More resources needed to be committed and a certain margin of manoeuvre be given to the Subcommission so that it could fully play its role as think tank.
SUHAS CHAKMA, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said the Working Group had not raised some critical issues raised by human-rights NGOs from Asia during the 55th Session of the Commission. Some of the recommendations of the group were not intended to enhance effectiveness of Commission mechanisms but were part of a conspiracy to escape international scrutiny by the "like-minded group" of countries and destroy UN human-rights mechanisms. The organization questioned the conclusions of the working group on special mechanisms of the Commission, on confidential procedures, and on the Subcommission. Attempts to escape scrutiny by independent experts could not be accepted.
The organization recommended that if duplication of work was one of the concerns of Working Group members, the Subcommission should be allowed to pass resolutions on country situations which had not been dealt with by the Commission.
* *** *
56th session
19 April 2000
Evening
The Chairperson of a Working Group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights introduced a series of recommendations this afternoon that could lead to a shifting in the responsibilities of some Commission working groups and Special Rapporteurs and that would change long-standing practices of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Commission's chief subsidiary body.
Many national delegations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sought time to study the group's report and planned to react on Thursday, but several country representatives spoke at this afternoon's meeting, expressing cautious support and citing some criticisms.
The report was more roundly opposed by NGOs taking the floor. The South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre charged, for example, that some recommendations of the Working Group were not intended to enhance effectiveness of Commission mechanisms but were part of a conspiracy to escape international scrutiny by a "like-minded group" of countries, and to destroy UN human-rights mechanisms. The organization questioned the conclusions of the Working Group in relation to special mechanisms of the Commission, confidential procedures, and the activities of the Subcommission.
Among other steps, the Working Group proposed that the Subcommission no longer be allowed to adopt resolutions on human-rights situations in specific countries and that the Subcommission's annual session be reduced from four weeks to three.
Several country representatives -- Japan, Brazil, India, and Egypt among them -- said the Working Group's suggestions might serve to enhance a cooperative approach to resolving human-rights difficulties, to reduce political pressures on the Commission's work, and to give more attention and resources to economic, social and cultural rights. Brazil recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights produce a biannual report on the human-rights situation in all parts of the world "whose legitimacy would be safeguarded by its multilateral character and whose credibility would be less liable to be challenged".
Also speaking were officials of Malaysia, Iran and the NGOs Human Rights Watch (on behalf of Amnesty International), Human Rights Advocates (on behalf of several NGOs), Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", and Centre Europe - Tiers Monde.
The Commission will continue its debate on proposed revision of its mechanisms when it reconvenes at 10 a.m. Thursday, 20 April.
Report of the inter-sessional open-ended working group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights
In its report (E/CN.4/2000/112), the group recommends, among other things, merging the mandates of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment policies and the Special Rapporteur on external debt; and that it consider, next year, modifying the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the consequences of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic wastes to a mandate on human rights and the environment. It recommends against a suggestion to replace the Working Group on arbitrary detention with a Special Rapporteur; and it comes out against a proposal to end the mandate of the Working Group of contemporary forms of slavery and transfer its responsibilities which aren't assumed by other Commission mechanisms to a new Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery; it does recommend, however, that steps be taken to make the Working Group more focused and effective, including through a streamlining of its agenda to remove duplication of items dealt with by Special Rapporteurs.
The report further recommends that the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights be allowed to continue to debate situations of human rights on which the Commission had taken no action, but that it should no longer adopt resolutions on situations in specific countries, and that the Subcommission's annual session be reduced from four weeks to three weeks.
Statements
ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the inter-sessional open-ended working group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, presenting the report of the group, said most participants were of the view that the 15 days of debate and discussion had been valuable in themselves. The breadth of participation and the strong sense of engagement gave a real validity and significance to the work. There had been a sustained high level of interest among the diplomatic missions. There were clear and strong voices from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). Many small missions, from both developing and developed countries, found the time to involve themselves, along with many NGOs.
The group worked throughout by consensus, and that approach worked well. Most delegations recognized that a vote on mechanisms would be particularly divisive and would significantly affect the atmosphere in which any decision taken would have to be implemented. The positive definition of consensus had an important psychological effect in the group, as it injected a sense of common purpose. Most delegations saw the task of improving the effectiveness of Commission mechanisms as an ongoing challenge. It would be for the Commission to decide the rhythm at which further work was done.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said that the conclusions of the report of the Working Group were the best that could be hoped for. However, it was only the first step, and reform needed to be pushed further and proposals for reform should continue to be encouraged for the betterment of the work of the Commission. Throughout the work the following points had been emphasized: to increase supplementary relations between Commission and the Third Committee, to redefine the Subcommission as a think tank, to give careful consideration to each communication, to undertake a "scrap and build" approach to mandate holders, and to search for mandate holders from a wider range of candidates.
The Japanese delegation believed the Subcommission should remain an advisory body and not a forum for resolutions country-wise or thematically. It was not necessary nor appropriate for the Subcommission, an advisory body, to express political will. Furthermore the process involving resolutions consisted of some experts lobbying only to achieve majority support for the adoption of resolutions without engaging in substantial discussions, which were far more important. There were concerns over the increasing number of mandate holders. Having more mandate holders without sufficient support would lead to a decline in report quality. The general criteria for the rationalization of mandates in the report of the Working Group should be respected.
CELSO AMORIN (Brazil) said those who had been following the activities of the Commission closely had only become too aware of the heated, often politically motivated debates that did not always seen to contribute to the advancement of human rights and global solidarity, and on the contrary sometimes only fuelled circular and sterile patterns of polarization. The procedures for examining country situations came to mind. One could quote from a local newspaper, "Le Temps", to illustrate the effect this state of affairs had on the image and credibility of the Commission. Today's headline in a free translation read as follows: "The Commission on Human Rights punishes and absolves as in a lottery, and the decisions of the Commission make its work appear as one of a world lottery where some are punished and others absolved".
It would be worthwhile examining having the Office of the High Commissioner elaborate, on a biannual basis, a report on the human-rights situation in all parts of the world, whose legitimacy would be safeguarded by its multilateral character and whose credibility would be less liable to be challenged. The Commission's attention would focus on the most serious cases of systematic disrespect for human rights on the basis of the most independent and objective analysis available to the international community, free from the distortions created by narrow political interests or parochial values. The elaboration of a global report could only become a reality if all members demonstrated the courage to be scrutinized and criticized in a spirit of global solidarity and concern for the victims of injustice.
A. GORINATHAN (India) said that against the backdrop of intense and often acrimonious discussions at the last Commission, the consensual outcome of the inter-sessional open-ended working group constituted a significant achievement and should set the tone for future work. Among the important points discussed had been the acceptance of the equal importance of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The report underlined the importance of a balanced allocation of resources towards these two sets of rights. It called for a significant improvement in the financial situation of the Office of the High Commissioner though increased contributions from the United Nations regular budget.
The group had established valuable criteria to guide decision-making on rationalization of mandates. It was particularly important for maintaining a broad balance of mandates for the two sets of rights. The Working Group had rightly recognized the extremely valuable contribution of the Subcommission. It also highlighted that timely availability of documents and greater transparency in regard to resolutions were important. The review of the working mechanisms of the Commission was a slow process. However, it was time to reflect, take stock and consolidate the gains made before any further review was contemplated.
ALI HAMIDON (Malaysia) said the delegation was extremely disappointed with the outcome of the Working Group. The chief reason was that the report did not clarify the issue of the term limits for Special Rapporteurs. Malaysia's feeling was that the tenure of a Special Rapporteur should only be extended for an additional term, totaling a maximum of six years. Unfortunately the report did not make reference to such a rule which would go a long way towards maintaining appropriate detachment and objectivity on the part of Rapporteurs as well as ensuring a regular infusion of new expertise and perspective -- elements which were critical if the human-rights system as a whole was to be credible.
Malaysia had been traditionally cooperative with the mechanisms of the Commission. However, it did not believe that an obligation to cooperate existed per se, especially when, for example, it involved an individual Special Rapporteur who was manifestly against the Government of the country of which he was a national. According to article 55 of the UN Charter, cooperation had to be promoted.
MOHAMMED MOUNIR (Egypt) said the report was a well balanced document reflecting trends of convergence and consensus in a previously controversial area. The Working Group had been a useful experience from which lessons should be drawn. It was important to consolidate the protection of human rights. Second, it was important to undertake a fair dialogue where respect for differences of opinion was maintained. It was only when this occurred that there could be progress. Third, it had been highlighted that it was far more important to secure sustainable progress in human rights than to achieve breakthroughs which were not based on consensus.
Cultural differences and specificities had to be respected in a positive way for the promotion of human rights. Finally, the promotion of human rights was a global process and should be devoid of selectivity. The recommendations of the report were to be assessed through objective and transparent methods.
ALI KHORRAM (Iran) said not all areas of concern had received equal attention from the Working Group. First, some of the review points had apparently been left out, running the risk of adversely affecting the comprehensiveness of the report. Second, certain recommendations were included which appeared to be somewhat distanced from the viewpoint of a considerable number of delegations participating in the negotiations. Despite the fact that the aim and objective of the review process was augmenting the mechanisms' efficiency, certain duplication of work was encouraged and recommended in the report.
While the report of the Bureau of the 54th Session of the Commission recognized that country-specific mandates were the most sensitive, and many participants suggested that the existing practice in this regard was unduly political, confrontational and selective, the issue did not receive sufficient attention from the Working Group. By the same token, not enough attention had been paid to the question of country situations and not practical direction had been offered for depoliticizing the Commission's consideration of country situations.
YUONNE TERLINGEN, of Human Rights Watch, speaking on behalf of Amnesty International, said the report had not provided an adequate response to the serious problems faced by many Special Rapporteurs, such as the lack of adequate support from the United Nations and lack of effective cooperation from many States. The Working Group's proposals on States' cooperation with special procedures lacked substance. The Commission should call upon all States to extend open invitations to special procedures to visit their countries at the start of Commission sessions, and ensure that the UN Secretary-General was informed of any State that persistently refused to cooperate with special procedures.
The Commission should create adequate time and space for a thorough discussion during its sessions of special procedures' reports. The Commission should also ask the High Commissioner to provide an assessment of the resource requirements for professional long-term support for special procedures and urge its member States to instruct their delegations to vote for the allocation of the necessary resources from the regular budget.
ANNA-LENA SVENSSON-McCARTHY, of Human Rights Advocates, speaking on behalf of several other NGOs, said that the report of the Working Group fell short of hopes. In view of the often vague terms of the report, the NGOs were going to closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations, which must be done in good faith so that they truly strengthened the various mechanisms whose task was to contribute to putting an end to human-rights violations wherever they took place. It was important that Governments explain the reasons when they failed to cooperate with Commission mechanisms. However, since Governments had a duty to cooperate under the UN Charter, explanations must not be allowed to constitute an excuse for non-cooperation. In situations which involved immediate threats to human life, the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups did need full and constructive cooperation from the Governments concerned, and therefore Governments were urged to comply with this duty.
The recommendation that time be made available for an interactive debate on the reports of Special Rapporteurs was commended. There was a need to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxic waste to cover a wider range of environmental issues. The recommended limitations of the Subcommission's mandate, the shortened sessions, and the failure to agree on guidelines to ensure the independence of members were negative elements which might contribute to the weakening of the efficiency of the Subcommission.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said the central objective of strengthening the mechanisms of the Commission was to promote human rights and prevent violations. Mechanisms had to be adapted constantly in the sphere of human rights. It was not just a question of rationalization for rationalization's sake, but adapting mechanisms to political changes. A balance between civil, political and economic, social and cultural rights had to be established. This should not be evaluated through mathematical equations, as seemed to be the case in the Working Group. The richest country in the world used the Commission the most for political reasons and did not even pay its dues to the United Nations, and also denied the rights to food, housing, development and the eradication of extreme poverty.
The Working Group recommended limited the annual session and reducing the membership of the Subcommission, in fact limiting contributions NGOs could make to human rights, without reducing the number of items on Subcommission's agenda. A merging of structural-adjustment and foreign-debt Special Rapporteurs had been suggested. Debt had a negative impact on economic and social rights and should therefore have a broader mandate and not be restricted. Rapporteurs should be independent, objective and transparent in their operations. The Commission should give a new mandate in the standard-setting sphere and increase the participation of indigenous peoples.
MALIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, said the recommendation of the Working Group to merge the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on debt with that of the Working Group on structural adjustment was not justified. On the other hand, the proposal to transform the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxic waste into a mandate on "human rights and the environment" was commendable. While it addressed immediate reactions to human-rights violations, the report of the Working Group did not speak at all about preventive measures. The report considered a series of measures in case of non-cooperation with regard to violations of civil and political rights. However, this concern should be applied also to economic, social and cultural rights. In the same way, a more balanced allocation of resources among the different mandates of the High Commissioner was necessary.
The Commission's proposal that the Subcommission carry out research instead of adopting country resolutions could prove interesting to the extent that the Subcommission could reflect on themes such as the negative effects of globalization, the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. It was hoped that the decision to cut the Subcommission's debate to three weeks was provisional. More resources needed to be committed and a certain margin of manoeuvre be given to the Subcommission so that it could fully play its role as think tank.
SUHAS CHAKMA, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said the Working Group had not raised some critical issues raised by human-rights NGOs from Asia during the 55th Session of the Commission. Some of the recommendations of the group were not intended to enhance effectiveness of Commission mechanisms but were part of a conspiracy to escape international scrutiny by the "like-minded group" of countries and destroy UN human-rights mechanisms. The organization questioned the conclusions of the working group on special mechanisms of the Commission, on confidential procedures, and on the Subcommission. Attempts to escape scrutiny by independent experts could not be accepted.
The organization recommended that if duplication of work was one of the concerns of Working Group members, the Subcommission should be allowed to pass resolutions on country situations which had not been dealt with by the Commission.
* *** *