HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONSIDERS REVIEW
OF MANDATES AND MECHANISMS
28 June 2006
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
28 June 2006
Speakers Urge Extension of Mandates of Special Procedures for One Year Pending Examination in an Inter-Sessional Working Group
The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the review of the mandates and mechanisms which it inherited from the former Commission on Human Rights.
In the discussion, speakers said the special procedures system was an indispensable mechanism of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. The special procedure mechanisms formed part of the backbone of the system of international human rights protection and were critical for monitoring the observance of human rights standards and in addressing any of the most serious human rights violations. Speakers urged caution in reform, so as not to end up with more fragile, less representative instruments.
Among suggestions for the reform, many speakers urged a transparent process of consultation using both formal and informal processes in order to reach good agreement, saying that the process should benefit from the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, and should be a practical implementation of the spirit of the General Assembly resolution 60/251 which created the Council. The mandates of all special procedures needed to be extended for one year without distinction of any kind and in accordance with the principle of a balanced approach in dealing with various human rights issues. In particular, many speakers raised the issue of the Sub-Commission’s role, urging that this be maintained.
Regardless of positions on individual mandates, there were many shared objectives, speakers said. The confidential 1503 procedure was mentioned by many speakers, some of whom said the Council should maintain a complaints procedure, but many agreed that the existing procedure had been tainted by selectivity and politicisation. It was agreed that any new complaints mechanism would have to avoid this taint by remaining impartial and balanced. An inter-sessional, open-ended Working Group to review the mechanisms and special procedures with an aim to reform was widely supported by delegations.
Among the speakers were the representatives of Austria, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Malaysia, Tunisia, Japan, Peru, Cuba, Switzerland, China, the United States of America, Singapore, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Thailand, Colombia, Norway, Chile and Iran.
NGO representatives of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with Union de l'action feminine, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, World Young Women's Christian Association, Pax Romana, International Federation of University women, world federation of United Nations Associations, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development), Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues), International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with Indigenous World Association, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action), International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, World Organization against Torture, Amnesty International, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (in a joint statement with International Indian Treaty Council; Indigenous World Association; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; Sami Council; Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples and Asociacion Kunas Unidos por Napguana) also spoke.
The next meeting of the Council will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 June 2006, when it will take up the programme of work for future sessions of the Council.
Statements
ELISABETH ELLISON KRAMER (Austria) on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed the opportunity to have an exchange of views on the review of mandates and mechanisms, and the debate last Friday had proved very interesting. The principles of inclusiveness and transparency should drive the Council through the process, with participation of all stakeholders, which was crucial and should be ensured through all stages of the process. The process should also draw on the expertise of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The special procedure system was an indispensable mechanism of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. Increased cooperation by States was essential for achieving the goal of enhancing the capacity of special procedures to effectively protect victims of human rights violations. The fundamental features of the system, the provision of independent, objective and expert advice, should be maintained. The setting up of a system of expert advice of the Council should begin with an analysis on the achievements and shortcomings of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. There was a clear need for a complaint mechanism in the framework of the Council, however, the 1503 procedure in its current form, including its methods and functions, should be reviewed and improved.
JILLIAN DEMPSTER (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Australia and Canada, said that the many mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, viewed as a whole, required an historian’s knowledge of the issues of the day – the worst violations of human rights, the political backdrop to intergovernmental debate, and the hard work done by non-governmental organizations to attract the attention and support of members. They had already assumed those mandates. As they turned to the rest of the task given to them by the General Assembly – to review, and where necessary, improve and rationalize the special procedures – their delegations were conscious that regardless of positions on individual mandates, there were many shared objectives.
New Zealand, Australia and Canada supported President de Alba’s efforts to establish a transparent process of consultation using both formal and informal processes in order to reach good agreement. That process would benefit from the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, and would be a practical implementation of the spirit of General Assembly resolution 60/251. The Council could learn from the good practices of other bodies, and make sure that its work was complementary to efforts elsewhere. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was already enhancing its capacity to assist States, and the Council should invite those States and the High Commissioner to brief them on positive developments as part of the Council’s work.
The Representative of Indonesia said Indonesia attached great importance to the necessity of avoiding any protection gaps during the transitional period between the Commission and the Council. It was for that purpose that the delegation of Indonesia fully supported the consideration at the next session of the Council in September of the reports of all special procedures submitted to the last session of the Commission, together with the updates, through the organization of interactive dialogues with all mandate holders. In order to facilitate those objectives, continued support should be provided to all human rights mandates and mechanisms within the extended period as agreed by the Member States of the Council.
The mandates of all special procedures needed to be extended for one year without distinction of any kind and in accordance with the principle of a balanced approach in dealing with various human rights issues. The special procedure mechanisms formed part of the backbone of the system of international human rights protection and were critical for monitoring the observance of human rights standards and in addressing any of the most serious human rights violations.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina had requested the High Commissioner to prepare a diagram or letter which could be used as the basis for negotiations, giving a balanced idea of the present state of the mandates and which could be used for a comparative study before review and possible rationalisation. The Council would have an opportunity to identify shortcomings and gaps in the present system. There should also be issues where the system could be strengthened, and there were places where new mandates could be created to cover new issues under international scrutiny.
Argentina was convinced the review should be removed as much as possible from political influence. The identification of candidates and the ultimate individuals designated should be chosen as per their qualities. Recommendations should stand up due to the impartiality of their creators. The review in the Council should benefit from advice from the present mandate-holders, and the preliminary comments of the President of the Coordinating Committee were welcomed. With regards to the 1503 procedure, a seminar should be held to identify shortcomings and future courses of action.
CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil) said that the creation of the Human Rights Council gave Member States a window of opportunity to make its mechanisms more effective. The new Council had indeed a valuable opportunity to promote the rationalization of its mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies, the 1503 procedure, and the Sub-Commission. The membership as well as the content of those mechanisms could be reviewed. Brazil felt that merging some of the issues considered by those mechanisms would be useful.
There were, however, risks involved, Brazil cautioned. In the process of reform, the Council had to be careful not to end up with more fragile, less representative instruments. They should also not lose the specificity of the mechanisms and the added value brought by the treaty bodies and the Sub-Commission to the whole human rights system.
MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was in favour of preserving the positive elements achieved by the former Commission. It was in favour of all the special procedures, which had been inherited, as they were positive mechanisms in monitoring human rights violations. The combination of several responsibilities in the UN system would also be a positive measure. The issue of voting for a candidate for a certain post might not be a good idea. The Russian Federation was also in favour of having expert group, a sort of think-thank to provide expertise to the Council. Such a group would carry out studies on such issues as terrorism and other pressing subjects. The Russian Federation welcomed the idea of creating an open-ended working group to establish modalities to review the special procedures and mandates.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), on behalf of the African Group, said the review of mandates was a broad subject encompassing a wide range of issues which should be discussed in an open-ended inter-governmental inter-sessional Working Group, including the review of mandates and rationalisation of the work of the stakeholders, special procedures, and the inter-relationship between the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The mandate of the special procedures should be extended for one year and the Sub-Commission’s role should be maintained and its mandate extended pending review. The African Group supported the proposal for enabling the Sub-Commission to hold its session in August as initially scheduled.
AMRAN MOHAMED ZIN (Malaysia) said that consideration of the review of mandates and mechanisms was crucial as it represented one of the broad areas of Council work during this transitional period. Malaysia agreed to the extension on an exceptional basis of all the Commission’s special procedures and the term of office of mandate holders, including the members of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and its mechanisms, as well as the 1503 procedure for one year to ensure that there were no protection gaps. Malaysia also agreed to the establishment of an intergovernmental working group of the Council to undertake review, during the Council’s first year, for the purpose of improving and rationalizing all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights and supported the efforts of the President of the Council in that regard.
Malaysia believed that the Sub-Commission and its working groups should be allotted sufficient time to undertake the tasks that the Council would entrust to them during this transitional period. And, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251, the Council should maintain the system of expert advice. The Council therefore had to ensure the continuity of the work done by the Sub-Commission thus far, and it should not be lost in the transition to its successor expert advisory body, which the Council would establish.
SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said the Council should preserve the positive achievements of the Commission as in the case of the special procedures and mandates. The Council, as a primary body of human rights, should guarantee that the special procedures and mandate holders based their research on reliable sources. Tunisia supported the maintenance of the various special procedures inherited from the Commission. Their independence should, however, be strengthened and guaranteed in the process of reviewing their mandates.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) said the special procedures mechanism was a strength of the late Commission, and although not perfect, it had provided a tool to examine in an independent manner various aspects of human rights. The new Council should inherit this system, and therefore the mandates of all the special procedures should be extended for one year.
At the same time, Japan believed that in order to strengthen the special procedures, some kind of reform was required. What was important was to maintain the highest standards of impartiality, objectivity, independence and expertise to fulfil the mandates of the special procedures. The establishment of an inter-sessional open-ended working group was supported.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said that Peru, like the majority of speakers, fully supported the renewal of the mandates of the special procedures, including the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, for a year, just as it supported the holding of the Sub-Commission’s session this year with its customary, usual methods of work. What the Council needed was a holistic overview that kept in mind the purpose of their work in seeking to reform the human rights mechanisms and procedures of the Commission.
Special procedures were central to the entire system. They should be strengthened and made formal. They should also be a central part of the universal periodic review mechanism. The 1503 procedure should cease to be confidential. A central mechanism for communications should be handled by an independent body, and not by States, when it came to communications and complaints. States could not be both judge and jury. The universal review mechanism should have links to the special procedures in order to lend content, specificity and legitimacy to the work performed. In that regard, Peru was in favour of establishing an open-ended consultative working group to review the mandates and mechanisms.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the resolution of the General Assembly did not say that the Council should maintain the system of the Commission. Some of the procedures had been targeting other States. Referring to two statements by New Zealand, speaking on behalf of Canada and Australia, and the European Union, Cuba believed that procedures, which were manipulated under the Commission, should not be continued in the Council. Cuba would be a member of the Council for the next three years. The idea of the European Union to eliminate the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights was unacceptable. Serving “an old wine in a new bottle” was not acceptable. A spirit of dialogue should be pursued and prevail in all works of the Council.
NATHALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) said the review of mandates, like all the work relating to the establishment of the Council, should contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. It should therefore be totally transparent, and include all stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and the special procedures themselves. A representative number of mandate holders should be able to participate in all negotiations and consultations affecting them, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide support to this effect.
The special procedures expertise would be helpful, and mandate holders should submit suggestions for the review procedure. It was hoped the interactive dialogue with the special procedures in September would help the realisation of their importance for the work of the Council.
DONG ZHIHUA (China) said that China recognized the value of the special procedures which shouldered a special responsibility to fulfil their mandates with the highest standards of impartiality and expertise. The Human Rights Council should examine the existing mandates and rationalize their number. Furthermore, the Council should adopt a uniform manual of operations for the special mechanisms to address allegations of human rights violations, conduct media interaction, and conduct country missions upon the invitation of the States concerned. The special procedures should provide standardized reports based on credible and reliable information. The reports should be sent to the States concerned before making them public. The criteria for allegations of human rights violations should be the minimum evidentiary standards: verification of facts and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Communications sent to Governments should be personally signed by the mandate holders, and Governments should not be obliged to reply without signatures.
China recognized the value of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as a think tank of independent experts. In view of its importance, the Sub-Commission should be retained and made a subsidiary body of the Council. That group should remain at its present size of 26 members, and membership should be on the basis of equitable geographic distribution. Regarding the 1503 procedure, it served as an important channel for individuals and groups to channel their human rights complaints. The character of that instrument should be maintained. Finally, China supported the establishment of an open-ended working group to review of mandates and mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.
MAY MCKEE (United States) said that the Council had an historic opportunity to renew and strengthen human rights mechanisms. The United States would urge careful consideration of overlapping and duplication modalities. With respect to the Sub-Commission, the United States believed that very careful consideration should be given to a body, which was intended to advise Member States on the best ways to promote and protect human rights. The Council should reserve for itself all of the tools necessary to promote human rights, including in the worst cases, country mandates.
TAN E-LYN (Singapore) said the review of the mandates and mechanisms was an excellent opportunity to reduce the politicisation and selectivity of the Commission. Hence, it was important to go back to basics to ensure that problems did not recur. The credibility of the special procedures was regrettably undermined by mandate-holders who were not subject to any accountability and hence were prone to overstepping their mandates and going beyond agreed norms.
To enhance the transparency and accountability of the special procedures, mandate-holders should ensure that they respected the scope of their mandate. The proposals to establish a system of peer review of mandate-holders and to develop a manual of operations containing, among others, a code of conduct, would serve to address problems. A reformed body retaining the strengths of the Sub-Commission while addressing its shortcomings would continue this crucial role of providing expert advice to the Council.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shared the view that there was a need to establish an open-ended inter-sessional working group to conduct transparent and inclusive consultations and that all mandates should be extended until such time as the review was completed. It was all the more important and urgent for the Council in its ground-laying stage to eliminate politicization, double standards and selectivity. To do that, the system of special procedures had to properly address its past. The area that was densely pervaded with politicization was the special procedures in general and country-specific mechanisms in particular. As for all the politicised and country-specific mechanisms and resolutions, they had unexceptionally been enforced unilaterally in complete ignorance of the will of those concerned, on the basis of political motives.
Those mechanisms and resolutions represented a breach of sovereign rights, which was the highest manifestation of human rights violations as well as hostility. In order to ensure that the Council avoided a repetition of politicization, double standards and selectivity, it was important that the working group give priority to the review of politicised country-specific mandates and direct due attention to their elimination.
DUSIT MANAPAN (Thailand) said Thailand believed that the review of all mandates and mechanisms of the Commission would contribute to the overall effectiveness of the newly established Council. On the issue of duplication of work among various mandate holders, it was important to have clear guidelines on the rationalization and criteria for the setting up of new mandates in order to avoid a proliferation and duplicating exercise of the different mandate holders, causing unnecessary burdens on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and jeopardizing the credibility of the mandate holders themselves.
The methods of work of the special procedures might be guided by their specific mandates as stipulated in the resolution creating them. It was important for the mandate holders to have a common set of guidelines on the methods of work in order to assist them in carrying out their tasks in a more systematic and less ad-hoc manner.
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said that according to its experience, there was a proliferation of mandates both in civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and there was a need for rationalisation of the mandates. The selection of Special Rapporteurs should be transparent, and they should be bound by a code of conduct. Diplomacy should be prompted by impartiality and objectivity. Mandates should not exceed the competence of the Convention or Committee established, and duplication with other Special Rapporteurs or Committees should be avoided.
The mandate to review and rationalise all mandates should run in concurrence with that on the universal periodic review, as it was necessary to have an overall view ensuring convergence between the elements of the review.
ASTRID HELLE AJAWAY (Norway) said that any review process had to flow from an overall objective or vision and then consider the role of the special procedures in attaining that objective. The Council should therefore not consider every mandate in isolation but should view them as parts of a system. In that perspective, the review should consider both possible overlaps in the existing system and, indeed, gaps that still remained to be filled. In Norway’s view it was of utmost importance to preserve the independent role of the special procedures if they were to remain one of the core instruments for the international promotion and protection of human rights.
Regarding the review process, Norway supported the proposed two-track procedure with both informal and formal mechanisms, including the establishment as soon as possible of an open-ended intersessional working group open to participation of all stakeholders. To strengthen the system of special procedures, the review process should also consider ways in which the cooperation of States and the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could be even further strengthened.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said special procedures were essential for the protection and promotion of human rights. Agreement on the methodology of the special procedures within the Council was necessary. It was up to each State, through their cooperation, to see that the special procedures succeeded in their missions. The creation of the Council was a clear signal from the international community on its determination to promote the human rights of the United Nations system. The review of the special procedures would also strengthen the system and enhance the work of the Council. The review should further increase the coherence of the system in dealing with thematic issues and would identify areas of concern, through the elimination of duplication.
ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) said the review process should first focus on the special procedures of the Commission. The 1503 procedure should be reviewed. The review should begin with those procedures whose mandate was due to expire in one year. The special procedures could be clustered so as to be included within the agenda of the Council. To prepare the agenda, primary sources should be used, the General Assembly resolution, and the work done by the Commission over the last 60 years, and an agenda drawn up in consultation and in a non-selective manner. Agenda item 9 of the Commission on Human Rights in its current format should be eliminated, as it was the source for the credibility crisis which destroyed the Commission.
MICHELLE AREVALO-CARPENTER, of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with Union de l'action feminine, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, World Young Women's Christian Association, Pax Romana, International Federation of University women, world federation of United Nations Associations, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development) said that the League would like to collaborate with the Council to: consider constructively the participation of non-governmental organizations throughout the process leading to the establishment of a universal periodic review, as well as in the review of mechanisms and mandates; address the difficulties faced by grass-roots non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-Geneva-based NGOs in participating in the Council’s sessions, as well as in consultations taking place in between sessions; explore ways to import mechanisms for NGO participation used in other forums of the United Nations to be used in addition to the already established mechanisms; build on their diversity and maintain a healthy dialogue; and establish formal arrangements for interaction between special procedures mandate holders and civil society.
MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues) said that there was no set formula for rationalizing the special procedures system. Any process should keep in mind that special procedures played many roles including providing independent information on violations of human rights, monitoring ongoing crises and formulating concrete recommendations based on independent expert advice, affording protection and remedies to victims, and addressing non-compliance. In pursing the review, the Council should look at issues of substance and not merely at numbers.
ALBERTO SALDAMANDO, of International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with Indigenous World Association, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action) said it was clear that the many issues faced by the Council with regard to its organization required a great deal of discussion and expert advice before final decisions could be made regarding specific mandates and human rights mechanisms. The extension of the mandate of the special procedures was supported fully, particularly the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous issues, and the re-establishment of the agenda item on indigenous issues within the Council’s agenda. The Council should not prematurely end those deliberative mechanisms which had served the Commission well and the promotion and protection of human rights for the last 60 years.
ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said that an in-depth review of all the mandates and mechanisms was necessary if the Council was to have renewed and effective mechanisms. For that reason, the International League supported the establishment of an open-ended working group capable of holding open and transparent exchanges on that question. It was necessary that the Council avoid the demons of selectivity and politicization that had tarnished the image of the Commission, but it also had to ensure that the rationalization of those mandates was not a pretext to do away with mechanisms that were not to the liking of some parties. The Council could not start its new mandate in a vacuum, leaving victims open to human rights protection gaps. For that reason the International League supported the extension of the mandates and mechanisms of the Commission, including the Sub-Commission, until the Council had completed its review.
ERIC SOTTAS, of World Organization against Torture, drew the Council’s attention to the erosion of certain fundamental norms with regard to the prohibition of torture and the essential guarantee to reinforce mechanisms through the provision of authority to the mandate holders from falling into policies of national selectivity of States. The 1993 World Summit of Vienna had adopted a declaration affirming the universality of human rights, thus rejecting the reference of culture by some States to justify the practice of torture and human degradation. The Convention against Torture had clearly prohibited the practice of torture, particularly in the absence of diplomatic guarantees for persons extradited to a country where torture was believed to be practiced.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said if the Council kept sight of the objective of maintaining a system of special procedures, it would have valuable guidance both for how the review process was carried out and for the eventual results. The review should be more than a piecemeal consideration of individual mandates. It should determine first what it expected of its system of special procedures, and only then would it be possible to assess the place of existing mandates in that system. Maintaining a system of special procedures was about more than eliminating overlaps and filling gaps: it was about enhancing the special procedures as an institution. Improvement and rationalisation of the special procedures was not a mere accounting exercise, it should give the Council a stronger and more effective system in the interest of better protection of rights-holders, including victims of human rights violations.
LAZARO PARY, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said that universal review of mandates and procedures should be prompted by the major challenges of the globalized world, where they saw excessive human rights violations in far too many countries. The purpose of the review was to ensure democracy in human rights bodies and to throw open the doors to victims of human rights violations. Today the Palais des Nations was increasingly closing its doors and becoming a kind of bunker that non-governmental organizations and victims of human rights violations were increasingly having difficulty in accessing. The review should bear in mind objectivity, transparency and independence. In the view of Tupaj Amaru, that mandate should be entrusted to independent experts, rather than a working group.
WILLIE LITTLECHILD, of International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (in a joint statement with International Indian Treaty Council; Indigenous World Association; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; Sami Council; Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples and Asociacion Kunas Unidos por Napguana) said that the organization recognized the considerable advances which were achieved at the Commission in focusing world attention on indigenous issues and helping the indigenous peoples bring to light the wide range of human rights violations carried out against them around the world. The establishment of the Council was a vital opportunity to continue to move forward in that process and to make it more effective.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/HRC/06/21 of 27 June, 2006, the statement by the World Federation of United Nations Associations should read as follows:
BRUNA MOLINA FAIDUTTI, of World Federation of United Nations Associations, said that the question of enforced disappearances was first brought to the attention of the United Nations by the Special Rapporteur on Chile in the 1980s. Now, the Human Rights Council had before it for consideration a draft convention on enforced disappearances. Tribute had to be paid to the non-governmental organizations, experts and Member States who had worked tirelessly on that text. The Convention, once approved, would fill a legal gap in the legal instruments for the promotion and protection of human rights of the United Nations system. The establishment of a committee of experts would help in prevention and would assist in monitoring the implementation of the Convention. The Convention also reaffirmed the principles of restitution to the family of origin and contemplated the provision of reparations for the families of the disappeared.
* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record
HRHRC06024E
AFTERNOON
28 June 2006
Speakers Urge Extension of Mandates of Special Procedures for One Year Pending Examination in an Inter-Sessional Working Group
The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the review of the mandates and mechanisms which it inherited from the former Commission on Human Rights.
In the discussion, speakers said the special procedures system was an indispensable mechanism of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. The special procedure mechanisms formed part of the backbone of the system of international human rights protection and were critical for monitoring the observance of human rights standards and in addressing any of the most serious human rights violations. Speakers urged caution in reform, so as not to end up with more fragile, less representative instruments.
Among suggestions for the reform, many speakers urged a transparent process of consultation using both formal and informal processes in order to reach good agreement, saying that the process should benefit from the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, and should be a practical implementation of the spirit of the General Assembly resolution 60/251 which created the Council. The mandates of all special procedures needed to be extended for one year without distinction of any kind and in accordance with the principle of a balanced approach in dealing with various human rights issues. In particular, many speakers raised the issue of the Sub-Commission’s role, urging that this be maintained.
Regardless of positions on individual mandates, there were many shared objectives, speakers said. The confidential 1503 procedure was mentioned by many speakers, some of whom said the Council should maintain a complaints procedure, but many agreed that the existing procedure had been tainted by selectivity and politicisation. It was agreed that any new complaints mechanism would have to avoid this taint by remaining impartial and balanced. An inter-sessional, open-ended Working Group to review the mechanisms and special procedures with an aim to reform was widely supported by delegations.
Among the speakers were the representatives of Austria, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Malaysia, Tunisia, Japan, Peru, Cuba, Switzerland, China, the United States of America, Singapore, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Thailand, Colombia, Norway, Chile and Iran.
NGO representatives of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with Union de l'action feminine, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, World Young Women's Christian Association, Pax Romana, International Federation of University women, world federation of United Nations Associations, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development), Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues), International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with Indigenous World Association, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action), International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, World Organization against Torture, Amnesty International, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (in a joint statement with International Indian Treaty Council; Indigenous World Association; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; Sami Council; Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples and Asociacion Kunas Unidos por Napguana) also spoke.
The next meeting of the Council will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 June 2006, when it will take up the programme of work for future sessions of the Council.
Statements
ELISABETH ELLISON KRAMER (Austria) on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed the opportunity to have an exchange of views on the review of mandates and mechanisms, and the debate last Friday had proved very interesting. The principles of inclusiveness and transparency should drive the Council through the process, with participation of all stakeholders, which was crucial and should be ensured through all stages of the process. The process should also draw on the expertise of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The special procedure system was an indispensable mechanism of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. Increased cooperation by States was essential for achieving the goal of enhancing the capacity of special procedures to effectively protect victims of human rights violations. The fundamental features of the system, the provision of independent, objective and expert advice, should be maintained. The setting up of a system of expert advice of the Council should begin with an analysis on the achievements and shortcomings of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. There was a clear need for a complaint mechanism in the framework of the Council, however, the 1503 procedure in its current form, including its methods and functions, should be reviewed and improved.
JILLIAN DEMPSTER (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Australia and Canada, said that the many mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, viewed as a whole, required an historian’s knowledge of the issues of the day – the worst violations of human rights, the political backdrop to intergovernmental debate, and the hard work done by non-governmental organizations to attract the attention and support of members. They had already assumed those mandates. As they turned to the rest of the task given to them by the General Assembly – to review, and where necessary, improve and rationalize the special procedures – their delegations were conscious that regardless of positions on individual mandates, there were many shared objectives.
New Zealand, Australia and Canada supported President de Alba’s efforts to establish a transparent process of consultation using both formal and informal processes in order to reach good agreement. That process would benefit from the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, and would be a practical implementation of the spirit of General Assembly resolution 60/251. The Council could learn from the good practices of other bodies, and make sure that its work was complementary to efforts elsewhere. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was already enhancing its capacity to assist States, and the Council should invite those States and the High Commissioner to brief them on positive developments as part of the Council’s work.
The Representative of Indonesia said Indonesia attached great importance to the necessity of avoiding any protection gaps during the transitional period between the Commission and the Council. It was for that purpose that the delegation of Indonesia fully supported the consideration at the next session of the Council in September of the reports of all special procedures submitted to the last session of the Commission, together with the updates, through the organization of interactive dialogues with all mandate holders. In order to facilitate those objectives, continued support should be provided to all human rights mandates and mechanisms within the extended period as agreed by the Member States of the Council.
The mandates of all special procedures needed to be extended for one year without distinction of any kind and in accordance with the principle of a balanced approach in dealing with various human rights issues. The special procedure mechanisms formed part of the backbone of the system of international human rights protection and were critical for monitoring the observance of human rights standards and in addressing any of the most serious human rights violations.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina had requested the High Commissioner to prepare a diagram or letter which could be used as the basis for negotiations, giving a balanced idea of the present state of the mandates and which could be used for a comparative study before review and possible rationalisation. The Council would have an opportunity to identify shortcomings and gaps in the present system. There should also be issues where the system could be strengthened, and there were places where new mandates could be created to cover new issues under international scrutiny.
Argentina was convinced the review should be removed as much as possible from political influence. The identification of candidates and the ultimate individuals designated should be chosen as per their qualities. Recommendations should stand up due to the impartiality of their creators. The review in the Council should benefit from advice from the present mandate-holders, and the preliminary comments of the President of the Coordinating Committee were welcomed. With regards to the 1503 procedure, a seminar should be held to identify shortcomings and future courses of action.
CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil) said that the creation of the Human Rights Council gave Member States a window of opportunity to make its mechanisms more effective. The new Council had indeed a valuable opportunity to promote the rationalization of its mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies, the 1503 procedure, and the Sub-Commission. The membership as well as the content of those mechanisms could be reviewed. Brazil felt that merging some of the issues considered by those mechanisms would be useful.
There were, however, risks involved, Brazil cautioned. In the process of reform, the Council had to be careful not to end up with more fragile, less representative instruments. They should also not lose the specificity of the mechanisms and the added value brought by the treaty bodies and the Sub-Commission to the whole human rights system.
MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was in favour of preserving the positive elements achieved by the former Commission. It was in favour of all the special procedures, which had been inherited, as they were positive mechanisms in monitoring human rights violations. The combination of several responsibilities in the UN system would also be a positive measure. The issue of voting for a candidate for a certain post might not be a good idea. The Russian Federation was also in favour of having expert group, a sort of think-thank to provide expertise to the Council. Such a group would carry out studies on such issues as terrorism and other pressing subjects. The Russian Federation welcomed the idea of creating an open-ended working group to establish modalities to review the special procedures and mandates.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), on behalf of the African Group, said the review of mandates was a broad subject encompassing a wide range of issues which should be discussed in an open-ended inter-governmental inter-sessional Working Group, including the review of mandates and rationalisation of the work of the stakeholders, special procedures, and the inter-relationship between the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The mandate of the special procedures should be extended for one year and the Sub-Commission’s role should be maintained and its mandate extended pending review. The African Group supported the proposal for enabling the Sub-Commission to hold its session in August as initially scheduled.
AMRAN MOHAMED ZIN (Malaysia) said that consideration of the review of mandates and mechanisms was crucial as it represented one of the broad areas of Council work during this transitional period. Malaysia agreed to the extension on an exceptional basis of all the Commission’s special procedures and the term of office of mandate holders, including the members of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and its mechanisms, as well as the 1503 procedure for one year to ensure that there were no protection gaps. Malaysia also agreed to the establishment of an intergovernmental working group of the Council to undertake review, during the Council’s first year, for the purpose of improving and rationalizing all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights and supported the efforts of the President of the Council in that regard.
Malaysia believed that the Sub-Commission and its working groups should be allotted sufficient time to undertake the tasks that the Council would entrust to them during this transitional period. And, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251, the Council should maintain the system of expert advice. The Council therefore had to ensure the continuity of the work done by the Sub-Commission thus far, and it should not be lost in the transition to its successor expert advisory body, which the Council would establish.
SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said the Council should preserve the positive achievements of the Commission as in the case of the special procedures and mandates. The Council, as a primary body of human rights, should guarantee that the special procedures and mandate holders based their research on reliable sources. Tunisia supported the maintenance of the various special procedures inherited from the Commission. Their independence should, however, be strengthened and guaranteed in the process of reviewing their mandates.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) said the special procedures mechanism was a strength of the late Commission, and although not perfect, it had provided a tool to examine in an independent manner various aspects of human rights. The new Council should inherit this system, and therefore the mandates of all the special procedures should be extended for one year.
At the same time, Japan believed that in order to strengthen the special procedures, some kind of reform was required. What was important was to maintain the highest standards of impartiality, objectivity, independence and expertise to fulfil the mandates of the special procedures. The establishment of an inter-sessional open-ended working group was supported.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said that Peru, like the majority of speakers, fully supported the renewal of the mandates of the special procedures, including the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, for a year, just as it supported the holding of the Sub-Commission’s session this year with its customary, usual methods of work. What the Council needed was a holistic overview that kept in mind the purpose of their work in seeking to reform the human rights mechanisms and procedures of the Commission.
Special procedures were central to the entire system. They should be strengthened and made formal. They should also be a central part of the universal periodic review mechanism. The 1503 procedure should cease to be confidential. A central mechanism for communications should be handled by an independent body, and not by States, when it came to communications and complaints. States could not be both judge and jury. The universal review mechanism should have links to the special procedures in order to lend content, specificity and legitimacy to the work performed. In that regard, Peru was in favour of establishing an open-ended consultative working group to review the mandates and mechanisms.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the resolution of the General Assembly did not say that the Council should maintain the system of the Commission. Some of the procedures had been targeting other States. Referring to two statements by New Zealand, speaking on behalf of Canada and Australia, and the European Union, Cuba believed that procedures, which were manipulated under the Commission, should not be continued in the Council. Cuba would be a member of the Council for the next three years. The idea of the European Union to eliminate the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights was unacceptable. Serving “an old wine in a new bottle” was not acceptable. A spirit of dialogue should be pursued and prevail in all works of the Council.
NATHALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) said the review of mandates, like all the work relating to the establishment of the Council, should contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. It should therefore be totally transparent, and include all stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and the special procedures themselves. A representative number of mandate holders should be able to participate in all negotiations and consultations affecting them, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide support to this effect.
The special procedures expertise would be helpful, and mandate holders should submit suggestions for the review procedure. It was hoped the interactive dialogue with the special procedures in September would help the realisation of their importance for the work of the Council.
DONG ZHIHUA (China) said that China recognized the value of the special procedures which shouldered a special responsibility to fulfil their mandates with the highest standards of impartiality and expertise. The Human Rights Council should examine the existing mandates and rationalize their number. Furthermore, the Council should adopt a uniform manual of operations for the special mechanisms to address allegations of human rights violations, conduct media interaction, and conduct country missions upon the invitation of the States concerned. The special procedures should provide standardized reports based on credible and reliable information. The reports should be sent to the States concerned before making them public. The criteria for allegations of human rights violations should be the minimum evidentiary standards: verification of facts and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Communications sent to Governments should be personally signed by the mandate holders, and Governments should not be obliged to reply without signatures.
China recognized the value of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as a think tank of independent experts. In view of its importance, the Sub-Commission should be retained and made a subsidiary body of the Council. That group should remain at its present size of 26 members, and membership should be on the basis of equitable geographic distribution. Regarding the 1503 procedure, it served as an important channel for individuals and groups to channel their human rights complaints. The character of that instrument should be maintained. Finally, China supported the establishment of an open-ended working group to review of mandates and mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.
MAY MCKEE (United States) said that the Council had an historic opportunity to renew and strengthen human rights mechanisms. The United States would urge careful consideration of overlapping and duplication modalities. With respect to the Sub-Commission, the United States believed that very careful consideration should be given to a body, which was intended to advise Member States on the best ways to promote and protect human rights. The Council should reserve for itself all of the tools necessary to promote human rights, including in the worst cases, country mandates.
TAN E-LYN (Singapore) said the review of the mandates and mechanisms was an excellent opportunity to reduce the politicisation and selectivity of the Commission. Hence, it was important to go back to basics to ensure that problems did not recur. The credibility of the special procedures was regrettably undermined by mandate-holders who were not subject to any accountability and hence were prone to overstepping their mandates and going beyond agreed norms.
To enhance the transparency and accountability of the special procedures, mandate-holders should ensure that they respected the scope of their mandate. The proposals to establish a system of peer review of mandate-holders and to develop a manual of operations containing, among others, a code of conduct, would serve to address problems. A reformed body retaining the strengths of the Sub-Commission while addressing its shortcomings would continue this crucial role of providing expert advice to the Council.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shared the view that there was a need to establish an open-ended inter-sessional working group to conduct transparent and inclusive consultations and that all mandates should be extended until such time as the review was completed. It was all the more important and urgent for the Council in its ground-laying stage to eliminate politicization, double standards and selectivity. To do that, the system of special procedures had to properly address its past. The area that was densely pervaded with politicization was the special procedures in general and country-specific mechanisms in particular. As for all the politicised and country-specific mechanisms and resolutions, they had unexceptionally been enforced unilaterally in complete ignorance of the will of those concerned, on the basis of political motives.
Those mechanisms and resolutions represented a breach of sovereign rights, which was the highest manifestation of human rights violations as well as hostility. In order to ensure that the Council avoided a repetition of politicization, double standards and selectivity, it was important that the working group give priority to the review of politicised country-specific mandates and direct due attention to their elimination.
DUSIT MANAPAN (Thailand) said Thailand believed that the review of all mandates and mechanisms of the Commission would contribute to the overall effectiveness of the newly established Council. On the issue of duplication of work among various mandate holders, it was important to have clear guidelines on the rationalization and criteria for the setting up of new mandates in order to avoid a proliferation and duplicating exercise of the different mandate holders, causing unnecessary burdens on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and jeopardizing the credibility of the mandate holders themselves.
The methods of work of the special procedures might be guided by their specific mandates as stipulated in the resolution creating them. It was important for the mandate holders to have a common set of guidelines on the methods of work in order to assist them in carrying out their tasks in a more systematic and less ad-hoc manner.
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said that according to its experience, there was a proliferation of mandates both in civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and there was a need for rationalisation of the mandates. The selection of Special Rapporteurs should be transparent, and they should be bound by a code of conduct. Diplomacy should be prompted by impartiality and objectivity. Mandates should not exceed the competence of the Convention or Committee established, and duplication with other Special Rapporteurs or Committees should be avoided.
The mandate to review and rationalise all mandates should run in concurrence with that on the universal periodic review, as it was necessary to have an overall view ensuring convergence between the elements of the review.
ASTRID HELLE AJAWAY (Norway) said that any review process had to flow from an overall objective or vision and then consider the role of the special procedures in attaining that objective. The Council should therefore not consider every mandate in isolation but should view them as parts of a system. In that perspective, the review should consider both possible overlaps in the existing system and, indeed, gaps that still remained to be filled. In Norway’s view it was of utmost importance to preserve the independent role of the special procedures if they were to remain one of the core instruments for the international promotion and protection of human rights.
Regarding the review process, Norway supported the proposed two-track procedure with both informal and formal mechanisms, including the establishment as soon as possible of an open-ended intersessional working group open to participation of all stakeholders. To strengthen the system of special procedures, the review process should also consider ways in which the cooperation of States and the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could be even further strengthened.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said special procedures were essential for the protection and promotion of human rights. Agreement on the methodology of the special procedures within the Council was necessary. It was up to each State, through their cooperation, to see that the special procedures succeeded in their missions. The creation of the Council was a clear signal from the international community on its determination to promote the human rights of the United Nations system. The review of the special procedures would also strengthen the system and enhance the work of the Council. The review should further increase the coherence of the system in dealing with thematic issues and would identify areas of concern, through the elimination of duplication.
ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) said the review process should first focus on the special procedures of the Commission. The 1503 procedure should be reviewed. The review should begin with those procedures whose mandate was due to expire in one year. The special procedures could be clustered so as to be included within the agenda of the Council. To prepare the agenda, primary sources should be used, the General Assembly resolution, and the work done by the Commission over the last 60 years, and an agenda drawn up in consultation and in a non-selective manner. Agenda item 9 of the Commission on Human Rights in its current format should be eliminated, as it was the source for the credibility crisis which destroyed the Commission.
MICHELLE AREVALO-CARPENTER, of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with Union de l'action feminine, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, World Young Women's Christian Association, Pax Romana, International Federation of University women, world federation of United Nations Associations, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development) said that the League would like to collaborate with the Council to: consider constructively the participation of non-governmental organizations throughout the process leading to the establishment of a universal periodic review, as well as in the review of mechanisms and mandates; address the difficulties faced by grass-roots non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-Geneva-based NGOs in participating in the Council’s sessions, as well as in consultations taking place in between sessions; explore ways to import mechanisms for NGO participation used in other forums of the United Nations to be used in addition to the already established mechanisms; build on their diversity and maintain a healthy dialogue; and establish formal arrangements for interaction between special procedures mandate holders and civil society.
MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues) said that there was no set formula for rationalizing the special procedures system. Any process should keep in mind that special procedures played many roles including providing independent information on violations of human rights, monitoring ongoing crises and formulating concrete recommendations based on independent expert advice, affording protection and remedies to victims, and addressing non-compliance. In pursing the review, the Council should look at issues of substance and not merely at numbers.
ALBERTO SALDAMANDO, of International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with Indigenous World Association, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action) said it was clear that the many issues faced by the Council with regard to its organization required a great deal of discussion and expert advice before final decisions could be made regarding specific mandates and human rights mechanisms. The extension of the mandate of the special procedures was supported fully, particularly the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous issues, and the re-establishment of the agenda item on indigenous issues within the Council’s agenda. The Council should not prematurely end those deliberative mechanisms which had served the Commission well and the promotion and protection of human rights for the last 60 years.
ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said that an in-depth review of all the mandates and mechanisms was necessary if the Council was to have renewed and effective mechanisms. For that reason, the International League supported the establishment of an open-ended working group capable of holding open and transparent exchanges on that question. It was necessary that the Council avoid the demons of selectivity and politicization that had tarnished the image of the Commission, but it also had to ensure that the rationalization of those mandates was not a pretext to do away with mechanisms that were not to the liking of some parties. The Council could not start its new mandate in a vacuum, leaving victims open to human rights protection gaps. For that reason the International League supported the extension of the mandates and mechanisms of the Commission, including the Sub-Commission, until the Council had completed its review.
ERIC SOTTAS, of World Organization against Torture, drew the Council’s attention to the erosion of certain fundamental norms with regard to the prohibition of torture and the essential guarantee to reinforce mechanisms through the provision of authority to the mandate holders from falling into policies of national selectivity of States. The 1993 World Summit of Vienna had adopted a declaration affirming the universality of human rights, thus rejecting the reference of culture by some States to justify the practice of torture and human degradation. The Convention against Torture had clearly prohibited the practice of torture, particularly in the absence of diplomatic guarantees for persons extradited to a country where torture was believed to be practiced.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said if the Council kept sight of the objective of maintaining a system of special procedures, it would have valuable guidance both for how the review process was carried out and for the eventual results. The review should be more than a piecemeal consideration of individual mandates. It should determine first what it expected of its system of special procedures, and only then would it be possible to assess the place of existing mandates in that system. Maintaining a system of special procedures was about more than eliminating overlaps and filling gaps: it was about enhancing the special procedures as an institution. Improvement and rationalisation of the special procedures was not a mere accounting exercise, it should give the Council a stronger and more effective system in the interest of better protection of rights-holders, including victims of human rights violations.
LAZARO PARY, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said that universal review of mandates and procedures should be prompted by the major challenges of the globalized world, where they saw excessive human rights violations in far too many countries. The purpose of the review was to ensure democracy in human rights bodies and to throw open the doors to victims of human rights violations. Today the Palais des Nations was increasingly closing its doors and becoming a kind of bunker that non-governmental organizations and victims of human rights violations were increasingly having difficulty in accessing. The review should bear in mind objectivity, transparency and independence. In the view of Tupaj Amaru, that mandate should be entrusted to independent experts, rather than a working group.
WILLIE LITTLECHILD, of International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (in a joint statement with International Indian Treaty Council; Indigenous World Association; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; Sami Council; Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples and Asociacion Kunas Unidos por Napguana) said that the organization recognized the considerable advances which were achieved at the Commission in focusing world attention on indigenous issues and helping the indigenous peoples bring to light the wide range of human rights violations carried out against them around the world. The establishment of the Council was a vital opportunity to continue to move forward in that process and to make it more effective.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/HRC/06/21 of 27 June, 2006, the statement by the World Federation of United Nations Associations should read as follows:
BRUNA MOLINA FAIDUTTI, of World Federation of United Nations Associations, said that the question of enforced disappearances was first brought to the attention of the United Nations by the Special Rapporteur on Chile in the 1980s. Now, the Human Rights Council had before it for consideration a draft convention on enforced disappearances. Tribute had to be paid to the non-governmental organizations, experts and Member States who had worked tirelessly on that text. The Convention, once approved, would fill a legal gap in the legal instruments for the promotion and protection of human rights of the United Nations system. The establishment of a committee of experts would help in prevention and would assist in monitoring the implementation of the Convention. The Convention also reaffirmed the principles of restitution to the family of origin and contemplated the provision of reparations for the families of the disappeared.
* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record
HRHRC06024E