HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS
OF WORKING GROUPS ON INSTITUTION-BUILDING
PROCESS OF THE COUNCIL
15 March 2007
Human Rights Council
MIDDAY MEETING HRC/07/10
15 March 2007
The Human Rights Council in a midday meeting today discussed the reports of the Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Report and on its Special Procedures, including the country and thematic mandate holders, the Expert Advice Body and the Complaints Mechanism, among others, all part of the process to build the institutions of the Council.
Mohammed Loulichki, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, said a number of issues remained on which there were still different views, such as whether the review would be conducted solely in the Council plenary or in Working Groups; what the role of the State under review in decision-making on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review should be; what the role of other stakeholders in the review process, including non-governmental organizations and human rights institutions, should be; and finally concerning the role of experts in the review process and the nature of their participation.
Tomas Husak, Facilitator of the Working Group on Special Procedures, said convergence on a number of essential aspects had been reached, including a call to improve the harmonisation and transparency of Special Procedures’ working methods. The future discussion should focus on three major areas: selection of mandate holders; accountability, including that of mandate holders and Governments; and the scope of thematic and country focus. The Working Group was also expected to comment on the draft Working Manual of Special Procedures.
Mousa Burayzat, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Expert Advice Mechanism, said there were areas of convergence, areas of difference, and areas where further consultations were needed, as there was a little difference. One significant area where progress had been achieved was the issue of the selection process, and a possible consensus around a two-phased approach had been reached. Real negotiations on a specific text had yet to begin, and it appeared that Members were not yet ready to commit themselves to specific stances on various topics that were still under discussion.
Blaise Godet, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Complaints Mechanism, said reform of the mechanism should ensure that it was impartial, objective, effective, victim-oriented, and timely. The current procedure of two Working Groups should be the basis of work. The accountability of actors involved in the mechanism should be improved, with precise reasons given for the non-acceptance or suspension of a case. The matter of the timing remained open, and it was not possible to say how frequently the Council’s examinations would take place. The principle of participation of the complainant and the State had been largely agreed upon, and almost all delegations agreed that the mechanism should be transparent.
Carlos Ramiro Martinez, Facilitator for the Working Group on the agenda, said the goal of the draft agenda was to seek a balance between all rights – economic, social and cultural, as well as political and civil rights; and also to strike a balance between the various positions in the Council, including those of developing and developed nations. All of the items on the agenda were important, but some would clearly need further clarifications. The Facilitator did not think it would be a good idea to take a vote for the elimination of some themes or sub-themes.
Enrique Manalo, Facilitator of the Working Group on methods of work and rules of procedure, said there had been open-ended meetings on the agenda, annual programme of work, and procedural business, and informal consultations on proposals convened by sponsors. In the three meetings of the Working Group, he noted that the two different proposals tabled were not far distant from one another and he aimed now to marry them together, seeking to reflect the general direction of discussions.
Speakers raised a number of issues, including that the Universal Periodic Review should apply the same standards to all countries and be based on the abundance of information available within the United Nations system, and that the Council should also be able to take a strong stand in cases of non-cooperation and not accept a veto from the country under review. Concerning the Expert Advice Body, some speakers believed that it should have a standing nature, the number of experts that had been in the Sub-Commission should be retained, and the principle of equitable geographical composition should be adhered to. There were calls for the Council to ensure that the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories remained on the agenda, while others rejected this. And there were suggestions that a fair and operational Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures be introduced, with disagreement expressed on its scope.
Addressing the Council on the reports of its institution-building Working Groups were Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Sri Lanka (on behalf of the Asian Group), Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, Morocco, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Denmark, Turkey, Thailand, Nicaragua, United States, Israel and Iran.
The following non-governmental organizations also made statements: International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, Pax Romana, UNESCO Centre Basque Country, International Federation for Human Rights, Juridical Commission for the Autodevelopment of First Andean People, International Service for Human Rights and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development.
The Council is meeting today non-stop from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. At 3 p.m., the Council immediately resumed to start its discussion on reports by the Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Secretary-General.
Presentation of Reports by Working Groups on Institution-Building of the Council
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI, Facilitator and Vice-President of the Working Group to develop the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, said that the Working Group had before it a non-paper that was structured according to six elements for discussion. It built upon the emerging elements of convergence that had been previously listed in the preliminary conclusions and outlined, wherever possible, compromise proposals, while identifying a limited number of specific issues requiring further discussions and consideration. The non-paper also presented three concrete options on possible modalities for the Universal Periodic Review, which were based on all such proposals previously put forward by all stakeholders.
The Working Group had concluded its work on 15 February 2007 after five productive meetings, Ambassador Loulichki said. Since the conclusion of the Working Group, he had fully reflected on the discussions and had engaged into bilateral discussions with representatives of different groups and with individual interested countries to consider various issues in more detail and to explore possible areas of compromise. Concerning changes and revisions, highlight was put on two options: on periodicity and on the process and modalities of review. The Council was now at a critical stage of its work as the one-year deadline by which the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should be established was looming.
It was the moment in which all the members had to individually and collectively advance their discussions and to focus not just on building elements of convergence but on agreement. However, a number of issues remained on which there were still different views, such as whether the review would be conducted solely in the Council plenary or in Working Groups; what the role of the State under review in decision-making on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review should be; what the role of other stakeholders in the review process, including non-governmental organizations and human rights institutions should be; and finally concerning the role of experts in the review process and the nature of their participation.
TOMAS HUSAK, Facilitator of the Working Group on the review of Special Procedures, said the Working Group had held two rounds of consultations, discussing the variety of issues ranging from selection of mandate holders, strengthening the coherence of the system, to improved coordination and enhanced accountability of mandate holders. The dialogue on the scope and functioning of individual Special Procedures had been entered into on the basis of the matrix skilfully prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. During the process, some initial misunderstandings and differences in positions had been overcome, and agreement had been reached that the Special Procedures were a unique human rights instrument of monitoring and remedying identified shortcomings. Their independence and expertise was instrumental to improving the enjoyment as well as the protection and promotion of human rights.
Convergence on a number of essential aspects had been reached, including a call to improve the harmonisation and transparency of Special Procedures’ working methods. The future discussion should focus on three major areas: selection of mandate holders; accountability, including that of mandate holders and Governments; and the scope of thematic and country focus. The Working Group was also expected to comment on the draft Working Manual of Special Procedures. Regarding the selection of mandates, there was a prospect for compromise between the appointment and election through improved pre-screening, to be followed by an appointment, with eventual endorsement by the Council. The concept of accountability was two-fold: accountability of mandate holders to their peers and the Governments to protect and promote human rights.
Regardless of the nature of mandates, cooperation with and by Governments had been highlighted as crucial to the effectiveness of the Special Procedures. A lack of cooperation could undermine a particular mandate. A system of Special Procedures that grew up spontaneously should be streamlined through safeguarding equal attention to all human rights, as they were universal, interdependent and indivisible. At the same time, there was growing demand for equal and efficient support to all mandate holders. The Working Group had set on identifying the substantive and protection gaps and overlaps, with the aim of improving individual mandates.
MOUSA BURAYZAT, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Expert Advice Mechanism, said fourteen points had been identified, and these elements had been submitted to Representatives of the Member States of the Council, who had discussed them extensively. This process was further elaborated, and some options or choices were identified for each constituent element. As a result of long and exhaustive bilateral and collective formal and informal meetings, the Facilitator was able to present a paper, and consequently discussions were focussed on the document with the fourteen constituent elements. These included the name as well as the role of the mechanism. As a result of the discussion and direct consultation, the report that was submitted during the third session of the Council held the views and positions of the various groups within the Group.
There were areas of convergence, areas of difference, and areas where further consultations were needed, as there was a little difference. Delegations had had further discussions in a friendly and constructive manner. One significant area where progress had been achieved was the issue of the selection process, and a possible consensus around a two-phased approach had been reached. A further paper had been prepared, and almost 80 delegations had responded to this, endorsing a significant section of the paper, although some found it too bold, and others found it too weak on a small yet significant range of issues. Further compromise had been suggested.
Real negotiations on a specific text had yet to begin, and it appeared that Members were not yet ready to commit themselves to specific stances on various topics that were still under discussion. In the circumstances, another compromise document could be prepared, or a document taking stock of the different options could be prepared - and the latter was the course taken by the Facilitator. There were some fundamental issues that had been put to the delegations, and tangible progress had been achieved. However, consensus on the fundamental issues remained to be achieved. Encouraged by the positive reception of the original paper, the Facilitator invited the delegations to consider the latest paper that had just been distributed at this session.
BLAISE GODET, Facilitator for the Working Group on the Complaints Mechanism, said a new non-paper had been restructured, highlighting areas in need of further debate and attempting to take into account the views of delegations. Reform of the mechanism should ensure that it was impartial, objective, effective, victim-oriented and timely. It concerned all human rights, all fundamental liberties, all countries and all circumstances. All complaints over human rights violations and basic freedoms would be admissible unless they filled one of the inadmissibility criteria.
The current procedure of two Working Groups should be the basis of work. The system of designation of experts of the first Working Group could either continue in its present form (permanent experts), or adopt a “roster” system with the President of the Human Rights Council appointing the experts of the first Working Group. The issue remained open. There was consensus on the current system for the Second Working Group. The accountability of actors involved in the mechanism should be improved, with precise reasons given for the non-acceptance or suspension of a case. The matter of the timing remained open, and it was not possible to say how frequently the Council’s examinations would take place. The report however, contained some proposals on this matter aimed at making the mechanism efficient and victim-oriented.
The principle of participation of the complainant and the State had been largely agreed upon, and almost all delegations agreed that the mechanisms should be transparent, with the complainant and the State having access to the same information, and ensuring feedback to the complainant on the progress of a case. Regarding measures open to the Council, these should include any measure judged appropriate, and the report provides a non-exhaustive list (essentially those in resolution 2000/3).
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ, Facilitator for the Working Group on the agenda, said, at the outset, that the proposals being circulated now contained the main priorities of countries, but they were not building an agenda of one country or one group, rather for the whole Human Rights Council. The Working Group had met in January 2007, and on the second day of that meeting they had distributed a very approximate version of the draft before the Council now. The agenda for the Council should meet a number of objectives, including follow-up to the former Commission and complying with General Assembly resolution 50/261, establishing the Human Rights Council.
The goal of the draft was to orient deliberation by providing a text as a basis to work from; to seek a balance between all rights – economic, social and cultural, as well as political and civil rights; and also to strike a balance between the various positions in the Council, including those of developing and developed nations. The Working Group had had to attempt to address the concerns of all members. It was not an exhaustive list, and could be changed as the Council itself evolved. All of the items on the agenda were important, but some would clearly need further clarifications. The Facilitator did not think it would be a good idea to take a vote for the elimination of some themes or sub-themes.
The draft contained a list of principles, which they had looked at in the January meeting. Among the items contained in the draft were the right to development as well as a proposal focused on the protection and promotion of human rights. There was also an item that addressed human rights bodies and mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review, and the issue of Palestine. The agenda closed with a number of conferences and summits on a number of topics, including capacity-building and technical assistance. In conclusion, the Facilitator stressed that this was a first draft and, as it had taken into account the concerns of all members, it would not necessarily be in accordance with the specific concerns of individual countries or groups.
ENRIQUE MANALO, Facilitator of the Working Group on methods of work and rules of procedure, noted the positive and constructive atmosphere in last year’s discussions. The scope of working methods was quite broad and intersected with issues in other working groups. Methods should be impartial, objective and fair, and based on clarity, predictability and inclusiveness. They should not be seen as exhaustive. Methods should be reviewed and updated periodically. The aim was to lay down a framework of options and methods. Discussions had focussed on institutional methods, such as the different types of meetings that could be convened and their objectives. There had been open- ended meetings on the agenda, the annual programme of work, and procedural business, and informal consultations on proposals convened by sponsors.
Recommendations on the working culture or ethics of the Council included such things as early notification of proposals and early submission of resolutions. Different ways of working documents were suggested. Further work was needed here. Some issues remained to be clarified - timing, the relationship with the General Assembly and others. He hoped to finalise best practices and methods based on the realisation that there would be revision over time, and proposed working on new rules of procedure based on existing Assembly rules.
In the three meetings of the Working Group, he noted that the two different proposals tabled were not far distant from one another and aimed now to marry them together, seeking to reflect the general direction of discussions. There had been much open support for the recommendations. More dialogue was needed to arrive at common understanding. He was optimistic on agreement but the spirit of compromise and understanding of the earlier meeting should continue.
Statements on the Reports of the Working Groups on the Institution-Building Process of the Council
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said resolution 60/251 clearly stated the common commitment to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring the effective enjoyment by all of human rights. The Council should be able to shoulder its comprehensive mandate to address the full range of human rights questions. There was therefore a need to equip the Council with all necessary tools and mechanisms, and at the end of the day, the result should be a credible and effective institution.
Experts were an essential part of the machinery. There was a need to ensure that the Council would be supported in its deliberations by experts of the highest qualification and independence. Non-governmental organizations as well as national human rights institutions could provide valuable insight. They could also be helpful partners for implementation and follow-up. The Universal Periodic Review should apply the same standards to all countries and be based on the abundance of information available within the United Nations system. The European Union favoured a tailor-made outcome that led to realistic and tangible improvements on the ground. Effective cooperation with the country concerned would be needed to assure such an outcome, and it should also be able to take a strong stand in cases of non-cooperation and not accept a veto from the country under review.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that she would make only preliminary remarks on the papers submitted by the Facilitators, as they had only been received last night. On the Expert Advice mechanism, it should have a standing nature; the number of experts that had been in the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should be retained; and the principle of equitable geographical composition should be adhered to. The OIC would like clarification on the term "implementation oriented think tank" which had been used in the paper. The Expert Advice Body should be elected by the Council and should only examine issues at its request. Clarification was also requested on the mention that informal links with non-governmental organizations was to be encouraged.
On the agenda, the OIC requested that the "question of human rights violations in Palestine and other occupied Palestinian territories" should be included as an item. On rules of procedure, it was agreed that the Bureau should be elected on the basis of equitable geographic representation. On the Complaints Procedure, the OIC agreed that there should be no overlap between the Special Procedures and the work of the treaty bodies. Also, confidentiality had to remain the fundamental characteristic of the Complaint Procedure. On the review of mandates, the paper on Special Procedures required detailed discussion, including on areas that the Facilitator appeared to feel had already been agreed upon. Finally, the mandate of the Special Procedure on the situation of human rights in Palestine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories had to be retained until the end of the occupation.
SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Facilitators should try to narrow down differences and find a consensual outcome. The agenda and methods of work of the Council should be well-structured, in a balanced and equal manner. The Asian Group also recommended transparent and fair methods of work in order to ensure genuine dialogue. The future rules of procedure could be drawn up on the basis of the provisions of the rules of procedure established for the Committees of the General Assembly.
The Palestinian people had a right to achieve their national rights, particularly their right to self-determination. The Universal Periodic Review should be a cooperative mechanism through an interactive dialogue process, and should seek incremental improvement in the human rights situation of all sovereign States by enhancing their capacities to promote and protect human rights. The social and cultural specificities, the universality of human rights as well as the level of development should be taken into consideration throughout the deliberations. The Special Procedures system should be comprehensively reviewed in order to avoid politicisation and enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Expert Advisory Body should be composed of impartial, independent, specialised and highly-qualified experts.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA LABRADOR (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that from the very beginning, Non-Aligned countries had been fully engaged in the process of the institutional building of the Human Rights Council. The Movement had been active and constructively participating in the work of the Working Group. The Non-Aligned Movement proposed an agenda with concrete items to allow predictability and transparency, which was at the same time general enough to guarantee flexibility in the work of the Human Rights Council. For the Non-Aligned Movement, the consideration of all economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, the promotion and protection of rights of all peoples, the realization of the right to development which was an inalienable right, and the struggle against racism, racial discrimination xenophobia and related intolerance should be, among others, an integral part of a well-structured agenda of the Human Rights Council.
The Non-Aligned Movement also submitted a written contribution on rules for special sessions of the Human Rights Council, aiming at complementing the general framework established in paragraph 10 of the General-Assembly resolution on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251, he said. The Non-Aligned Movement also attached special importance to the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and a contribution had also been submitted in this regard. The Universal Periodic Review was an important tool that could contribute to promote an approach of cooperation and genuine dialogue and to end the practices of political manipulation and double standards. The Universal Periodic Review should be an intergovernmental process, conducted in Human Rights Council plenary meetings, and based on an interactive dialogue involving all Member States of the United Nations, with the full participation of the Government attached.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) reiterated the importance of concluding the process of institution-building by 18 June 2007. On the Universal Periodic Review, extensive discussion on that mechanism, both in the framework of formal and informal meetings, had led India to believe that it might not be possible to develop a mechanism as ambitious as the Universal Periodic Review with all its final details spelled out in one go. Effort at this stage should focus on developing modalities for the first cycle of the Review. Those modalities could be assessed upon completion of that cycle, which should coincide with the five-year review of the Council. With regard to the Special Procedures, extensive discussion had been held on improving working methods, but they had yet to seriously engage in the process of rationalization. That discussion could be postponed no longer.
On the Complaints Mechanism, India said there was already a broad degree of consensus that it should be modelled along the lines of the existing 1503 procedure. However, India wished to see the following improvements in that system: admissibility criteria should be applied in full before complaints were forwarded to States; Paris Principles national human rights institutions should be involved in the process; and the processing time for complaints should be reduced. As for the Expert Advice mechanism, the new body should address the lack of flexibility that had affected its predecessor.
LA YIFAN (China) said it was regretted that such an important session of the Council concerning the institutional building process, the central task for the first year of the Council, had to be arranged during lunchtime. The process was still an open one. On the review of the Special Procedures, the report should be substantiated with certain points: the election of mandate holders was perhaps not the best way, but it was far better than appointment. Since the way the Council handled country-specific issues had a direct bearing on the development of the Council, in order to avoid the abuse of country-specific resolutions, there should be a specific procedure, and it should only be entered into as a last resort.
On accountability, this was a basic element of the Special Procedures, and their work should not only be accountable to the Coordination Committee and its peers, but also to the Council as the creating body. It was also necessary to introduce a fair operational Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures. The treaty bodies and the future Universal Periodic Review would regularly monitor the behaviour of Member States. On the Expert Advisory Group, these should be elected and nominated by the parent body, namely the Council. Its work should not overlap that of the Council with regards to country issues. On the Complaints Body, it should be made more effective, but different countries had different legal systems, and it was unrealistic to use a one-size-fits-all form. The confidentiality of the procedure should continue. On the Universal Periodic Review, this should proceed in a spirit of construction and dialogue, with the participation of civil society. On the agenda and rules of work, the job should be finished in the first year, and a more structured agenda would provide more practicality and certainty for the future work of the Council.
HARKRISTUTI HARKRISNOWO (Indonesia) said that Indonesia believed that the role of the Working Groups of the Council had become more important at this stage in ensuring the completion of the institutional building process within the one-year time frame. Indonesia called upon all the stakeholders to do their best to help it discharge its mandates and to complete these huge tasks by 2007. Indonesia profoundly hoped that the upcoming session of the Council would be mainly devoted to the completion of the important institution building process as mandated by the founding General-Assembly resolution. Indonesia also associated itself with the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Asian Group.
Indonesia wanted to comment on a number of selective aspects in a general manner, such as its concern with the difference in the pace between the work of the various Working Groups, in particular between the one on Universal Periodic Review and on the Review of Mandates. Indonesia also noted with satisfaction that the speed of the Universal Periodic Review was currently sufficient to finalise its work before the deadline. However, the Working Group on Review of Mandates did not enjoy the same pace as that of the Universal Periodic Review. Indonesia suggested that all mandates created by the late Commission should be reviewed and rationalized in the final phase. The delegation wanted to know the view of the Facilitator concerning the direct election of mandate holders by the Council, which was proposed by many delegations. The Council should also strengthen and spearhead its efforts to conclude the discussions on the draft agenda and the methods of work of the Council.
MOHAMED ZIN AMRAN (Malaysia) said that Malaysia associated itself with the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Asian Group with regard to the papers submitted by the Facilitators. Malaysia felt that the draft agenda submitted could advance the Council's work. A well-structured agenda should be adopted by the second year of the Council's work. Malaysia associated itself with the inclusion of items listed in the statements by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Malaysia stressed that the Universal Periodic Review was an intergovernmental process; other stakeholders could participate as observers. The review should take into consideration the specific situation of the States concerned, should be undertaken on the basis of a five-year cycle, and should take place during the plenary of the Council. The Review should operate as a cooperative mechanism. On the Special Procedures, mandate holders should be elected by the Human Rights Council, on the basis of nominations by Member States, and on the principles of equitable geographic representation and equal representation of various legal and cultural bodies. Regarding the Complaint Procedure, Malaysia underscored that the most effective domestic remedy was the court system.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Facilitators were to be thanked for their efforts. It was good that progress was being made, and it was hoped the work would conclude by 18 June. The Facilitators’ work would help to make progress in this regard. With regard to the Universal Periodic Review, it was important that references to international humanitarian law were appropriate, and Switzerland would be making a proposal in this regard during the informal meetings next week.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said concerning the Universal Periodic Review, Brazil favoured a high participation of all stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations. Brazil supported the participation of independent expert advice in the preparatory phase and the final stage for practical reasons. The participation of independent experts was also important to reduce the political climate that was inherent of any interstate dialogue. The outcome of the exams should be widely available and should be published.
Brazil supported the review of mandates to overcome overlapping and gaps among the existing mandates of the Special Procedures. Brazil supported as well the idea of a periodic overview conducted by an Expert Advice Body. The President of the Council should select five experts based on a roster. In this way, the independence of experts could be preserved. The existence of a consistent and proven negative record of a country should be the basis of a country’s consideration. Concerning the Expert Advice Body, it should continue to function as the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection did. With regard to the agenda, Brazil supported an agenda divided in part on political rights, one on vulnerable groups and the third one concerning procedural aspects.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), commenting on the papers presented by the six Facilitators, said that, on the agenda, Japan could support the proposals in the Facilitator's paper, but flexibility should be given more weight. Japan strongly supported a "basket" agenda item that could include more issues of concern. On the Universal Periodic Review, the review should contain a mechanism to address protracted gross violations occurring during the five-year intervals between reviews. With regard to the Special Procedures, the country-specific mandates were among the indispensable needs of the Council, and Japan supported the Facilitator’s recommendations on that issue. However, Japan wished to stress the importance of impartiality and a lack of double standards in the carrying out of those country-specific mandates. Appointment of Special Procedures should be by the President of the Human Rights Council, but, in the spirit of cooperation, Japan was open to the possibility of a hybrid model.
On the Complaints Mechanism, the paper reflected progress made in discussions, but the new proposals required further study. On the Expert Advice Body, Japan felt that a smaller number of experts than the Sub-Commission would be adequate to cover the needs of the Council.
DRISS ISBAYENE (Morocco) said the examination and rationalisation of the Special Procedures should end with the reinforcement of the current system and also fill certain gaps that sometimes had a negative impact on the implementation of mandates and on the interaction and cooperation with the Member States. Mandate holders should be chosen on the basis, among others, of their competence, expertise, impartiality, objectivity and integrity. Election was the best way of choosing mandate holders.
It was vital to ensure balance between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Cooperation and international solidarity were among the founding principles of the United Nations, and the Special Procedures system should reflect this important aspect. The methods of work and of interaction of mandate holders with the Council should be harmonised. The Code of Conduct should enrich the role of the Special Procedures, reinforce the implementation of the tasks given them, and enhance the principles of objectivity, impartiality and total independence. The complaints mechanism should be based on the mandate, without any overlap with other procedures. It should also be confidential in nature. There should be two steps in the complaints mechanism. Members of the Expert Advisory Group should be elected. The issue of Palestine and other Occupied Territories should be on the agenda.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said with regards to the Universal Periodic Review, it would be preferable to have one sentence covering the entire document, saying something along the lines of “with regards to technical assistance, it would be provided with the agreement of the State concerned”. It was not always possible to have the consent of the State under review, but it should be reviewed with or without the consent. Periodicity should be between three and four years, which was already a significant concession. Generally, the review should be started with a strong preparatory stage and a follow-up, and should not just be a three-hour exercise.
Geographical representation was not applied in other fora that were similar to the Universal Periodic Review. Experts should participate in the consideration and in the outcome with the recommendations to be put forward to States. It was only an independent evaluation which would prove the utility of the Universal Periodic Review.
MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan would continue to actively contribute to the discussions in the various Working Groups. On the Universal Periodic Review, Azerbaijan welcomed the proposal made by the Facilitator, since it was clear that human rights needed to be respected and protected both in times of peace and armed conflicts. On principles and objectives, Azerbaijan agreed with the view that all relevant stakeholders should be able to participate and also support the compromise suggestion in this segment of the paper. Universality was one of the cornerstones of the whole concept. On the process and modalities of review, Azerbaijan agreed with the idea of standard general guidelines to be adopted by the Council. Countries under review should be encouraged to prepare their report but in the meantime other sources, like compilations from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, should be part of the documentation on the basis of which the Universal Periodic Review would be carried out.
It was crucial to give a better chance to a non-confrontational and cooperative spirit of the Universal Periodic Review to ensure the credibility and reliability of the information used in this process. Azerbaijan could go along with the main thrust of the compromise proposal on the preparation of the outcome document in relation to selection of a rapporteur. Azerbaijan also agreed with the compromise proposal on decision-making. The State reviewed should report to the Council on the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review outcome as well as in the compromise suggestion on cases of non-cooperation by States with the Universal Periodic Review.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that General Assembly resolution 60/251 provided the Council with the necessary guidelines and time frame for concluding the work of institution-building in the Council. From the year-long debates in the Working Groups, they already knew what the positions of different countries were. It was high time that they reconciled those positions. They had been saying all along that the Universal Periodic Review would be a significant addition to the tools of the Council. It was generally agreed that the Universal Periodic Review should review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments; and it should be a cooperative mechanism based on dialogue. If they stuck to that broad objective, they would be able to have a credible, effective and manageable review system. With regard to the Special Procedures, mandate holders should abide by a set "code of conduct" with a view to maintaining their objectivity and integrity. The appointment of mandate holders should be through elections in the Council from among pre-screened candidates. Election would help minimize politicisation and strengthen the legitimacy of the mandate holder.
The agenda for the Council should be simple and functional, and should respect the balance between economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other. The 1503 procedure would be improved if the admissibility criteria could be strictly applied before forwarding a communication to a Member State. On an Expert Advice Mechanism, Bangladesh was of the view that the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which had made a significant contribution in understanding varied and complex human rights issues, should be retained.
ANGELA MARIA CHAVEZ BIETTI (Guatemala) said Guatemala was pleased to see that the common ground on the various issues was spreading and that the Council was going to be in full working capacity by June 2007. Guatemala wanted to address a number of issues. A major interest was that the Council met its goal to promote and protect human rights without distinction all over the world.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA LABRADOR (Cuba) said that Cuba was grateful for the documents and presentations. Unfortunately because of late distribution it had not been possible to go through each document in detail, but attention was called to the fact that there were some areas where concrete and specific issues were outlined, and others where there were many details still to address. Efforts should focus on agreeing on basic modalities, methods for complaint, review of the mandates - basic issues that need to be agreed on before 18 June to comply with the mandate. Details could be left for subsequent discussions in Working Groups or other fora. Cuba maintained the position it had expressed in the Working Groups, and expressed willingness to continue.
JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO (Mexico) said that, in general terms, Mexico believed that to have a credible human rights system, they should apply the principle of dialogue and cooperation, but they also should not refrain from looking at grave human rights situations when States refused to cooperate. On the Universal Periodic Review, the Council should not prejudge the measures adopted for the review process, that was, options had to be available in the mechanism to deal with each case. The Council could designate an expert for the review procedure, and periodicity of the review should be three years with three working groups, but Mexico could agree to a maximum of a four-year interval. Recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review should be gradual in their approach, and emphasize cooperation to build capacity; grave situations in the State under review could be analysed with greater specificity.
Mexico said it was also important to maintain the Special Procedures. With regard to a procedure for confidential complaints, it was important to keep in mind that it was geared to determining systematic and grave violations of human rights and thus it was necessary to avoid duplication with the work of other mechanisms in that field. Mexico took a stance for communications and procedures working groups made up of independent experts. There should also be clear timelines for complaints, so that the victim would have certainty.
KIM VINTHEN (Denmark) said the task of the Facilitators would become increasingly demanding as the June deadline for the completion of the Council’s institution-building process approached. One should move from merely expressing barren criticism of human rights problems to a spirit of genuine cooperation. Cooperation should be a hallmark for the Council, not only within the Council but also between the Council and the countries concerned.
The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review would serve as an important tool to deal with human rights problems. Also Special Procedures could serve to identify human rights problems and to develop recommendations for technical assistance remedies for the Council to act upon in cooperation with the countries concerned. In order to improve what was not perfect, the Council should be able to extend a helping hand to troubled countries. Offers of technical assistance should play a central role.
AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said Turkey was ready to cooperate in fulfilling the forthcoming tasks. There was still important work to be done. Only through genuine dialogue could reform be made. There should be a transformation of the working culture from confrontation to cooperation. Misperceptions should be a thing of the past and new communications channels encouraged. The Universal Periodic Review would be a novelty to working methods. The Council should strive to have a universal system, and a dynamic, evolving process. There should be monitoring by stakeholders with a view to review if needed. The Special Procedures mechanism was an important part of the system and Turkey agreed that cooperation between States and the Special Procedures was at the core of enhancing the system. Independent expert advice should broaden and deepen the debates on specific human rights issues, provide guidance, and avoid duplication within the human rights mechanism. There should be coordination between experts and treaty bodies and Special Procedures as mandated by Council. The Complaints Procedure should be effective and timely, moving away from political considerations and focusing on the true willingness of the country concerned to address the situation at hand. Decisions should be based on sound legal and factual grounds.
LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said that, with regard to the Universal Periodic Review, they needed to think deeply how it could effectively eliminate mistrust, politicisation, selectivity and double standards. The Universal Periodic Review was an intergovernmental interactive dialogue process that should build confidence and promote cooperation among all States. A requirement that Member States of the Council should be the first to be examined under the Universal Periodic Review would enhance the international community's confidence in the non-politicisation and non-selectivity of that mechanism. On the review of Special Procedures mandates, a code of conduct for the mandate holders could be relevant and useful if it was not too specific but provided general guidelines and avoided duplication with the existing Working Manual, while respecting the independence of mandate holders.
On the Expert Advice Body, that body should maintain the unique characteristics of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as a venue for interactive dialogue that included civil society. With respect to the agenda and the programme of work, the agenda should take into account all sets of human rights, whether they be civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. Thailand also felt that there should only be one high-level segment of the Council each year.
ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua) said that the Council was at a crucial stage in building the institution and that it should respect the principles of indivisibility, universality, non-selectivity, and interdependence of all human rights. Poverty and hunger in the world should be eradicated by the Council and issues like the creation of jobs and education should be promoted, all of which concerned fundamental rights. Nicaragua protected and promoted all fundamental freedoms. The agenda must also include the situation of human rights of the Palestinian people. Establishing the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was a priority because it should be a tool to promote cooperation and must help to promote institutional capacity of the country under review. The unique historical situation of a country should be taken into consideration when it was under examination.
KRISTEN MCGEENEY (United States) thanked the Facilitators for their work. The position of the United States on most of the issues was well known and the United States would comment in detail at informal informal meetings later in the month, and again at the April Working Group sessions. The United States had shown willingness to consider creative options and looked forward to continuing discussions in the spirit of cooperation and dialogue
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that, since the creation of the new Human Rights Council, in each and every discussion or consultation, all delegations had spoken about non-selectivity as a mandatory characteristic of the Council. They had also repeatedly addressed the necessity of the Council to deal with each country, situation or agenda item in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. To Israel's dismay, they saw that the working paper by the Facilitator on the agenda and programme of work displayed just the opposite spirit. One of the primary reasons behind the demise of the old Commission had been the repeated singling out of one country, the infamous "article 8". And what did they see today? They saw mention again of the exact same article 8, as if 60 years of one-sidedness and politicisation of the Commission were not enough to learn the lesson that their body could never gain legitimacy if its procedures were illegitimate. It was shameful that because of tit-for-tat deals and behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the Council would forever bear the results of the "race to the bottom", the collective efforts to establish the lowest common denominator in human rights.
FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran), said that Iran associated itself with the statements of the Non Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Iran was taking note of the progress reports and the conclusions of all the Working Groups. These reports as well as the new draft provided a clear framework for the Council’s next stage of consultations, which would hopefully lead to tangible results. Iran was convinced that the best approach to the timely fulfilment of the task entrusted upon the Council and avoiding the circumstances which may prevail if the mandate was not accomplished prior to 18 June, was to ensure that the remaining time would be utilized in the most efficient manner towards the completion of the Council’s mandate as was underlined by the Member States at the time of the adoption of the establishment resolution 60/25.
Iran firmly believed that the Council and its mechanisms, particularly the Universal Periodic Review and the Complaint Procedure, should be able to address the violations of human rights by all countries, having implications within and outside of national borders. Iran commended the positive achievements of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. However, it was somehow concerned over the slow pace of progress with regard to the process leading to the review of mandates. In the interest of predictability, accountability and transparency, a structured agenda should be in place when the Council began its second session year.
MATHIEU CRETTENAND, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, speaking in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Europe-Third World Centre and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said this was an opportunity for the Council to refocus. New energy could be injected. Experts should have a maximum of two consecutive mandates, and there should be transparency in working methods. On the review of mandates, it was said that violations of economic, social and cultural rights were those that provoked more suffering and evaluation of these should be strengthened. Codes of conduct for Special Procedures should not reduce mandate holders’ room for maneuvering. It was important to avoid any lack of credibility. Independent experts should participate in the Universal Periodic Review and there should be a global approach in geographical and institutional terms. The League reasserted the importance of the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations.
BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, in a joint statement, said that in order to make appropriate decisions, it was important that the Council heard a variety of voices. It was therefore important that the contribution of non-governmental organizations should be maintained and enhanced with regard to institution building. The Sub-Commission had been a leader in the field of non-governmental organization participation in general. In particular, the Sub-Commission Working Groups on minorities, indigenous peoples and on contemporary forms of slavery had provided a forum for non-governmental organization participation. While the system of the Economic and Social Council was important, those working groups of the Sub-Commission showed the need to have forums for certain specific groups, and Pax Romana called on the Council to ensure the continuation of such flexible entities within any new advice body of the Council.
CARLOS VILLAN DURAN, of UNESCO Centre Basque Country, said that one of the important functions that the Council should play was to make recommendations to the General Assembly in order to improve human rights worldwide. The functions of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should be kept. Faced by the proliferation of wars and the banalisation of torture, among other things, the UNESCO Centre Basque Country had undertaken a to work on a private codification text. The human right to peace was being presented now internationally together with civic societies. Such projects may appear to be idealistic but they faced up to the global crisis in the world in the past few years.
SIMILA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights, said that this was an increased opportunity for interaction. Mandates should be enforced by increased cooperation with States. States that failed to cooperate with Special Procedures should face sanctions. There should be a balancing of the two categories of human rights. Action oriented reviews and outcomes should stress recommendations. The Universal Periodic Review should not be isolated and should be based on implementing recommendations.
TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for the Autodevelopment of First Andean People, said that, under the old Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Working Group on indigenous people had spoken out for 20 years against the extinction of indigenous peoples. That Working Group had continued to function under the direction of the Council, with an extended mandate to receive the reports of the Special Rapporteur on this theme and to resolve problems in this area. That Working Group had to be strengthened both qualitatively and quantitatively. It should be composed of six independent experts and six experts representing indigenous populations. The Juridical Commission called for States Members to protect the rights of indigenous peoples more effectively.
GODH SWEENEY, of International Service for Human Rights, said that a distance still had to be travelled concerning the building of the Council’s institutions. The non-papers raised questions that only the Council could address. Special Procedures should inform the Council periodically. The system of Expert Advice should provide assistance to the Council. The Council needed to ensure that each part of the institution building process was put together with the others.
ANSELMO LEE, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, raised three concerns: the role of Asian Governments, the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures and the participation of national and regional non-governmental organizations in developing Asian and other countries. He emphasized the need for transparency in the participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society groups and others, and called on periodic consultations at national and regional level on State obligations. On Special Procedures, country mandates must be maintained and Codes of Conduct developed, including timely responses to communications.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
MIDDAY MEETING HRC/07/10
15 March 2007
The Human Rights Council in a midday meeting today discussed the reports of the Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Report and on its Special Procedures, including the country and thematic mandate holders, the Expert Advice Body and the Complaints Mechanism, among others, all part of the process to build the institutions of the Council.
Mohammed Loulichki, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, said a number of issues remained on which there were still different views, such as whether the review would be conducted solely in the Council plenary or in Working Groups; what the role of the State under review in decision-making on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review should be; what the role of other stakeholders in the review process, including non-governmental organizations and human rights institutions, should be; and finally concerning the role of experts in the review process and the nature of their participation.
Tomas Husak, Facilitator of the Working Group on Special Procedures, said convergence on a number of essential aspects had been reached, including a call to improve the harmonisation and transparency of Special Procedures’ working methods. The future discussion should focus on three major areas: selection of mandate holders; accountability, including that of mandate holders and Governments; and the scope of thematic and country focus. The Working Group was also expected to comment on the draft Working Manual of Special Procedures.
Mousa Burayzat, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Expert Advice Mechanism, said there were areas of convergence, areas of difference, and areas where further consultations were needed, as there was a little difference. One significant area where progress had been achieved was the issue of the selection process, and a possible consensus around a two-phased approach had been reached. Real negotiations on a specific text had yet to begin, and it appeared that Members were not yet ready to commit themselves to specific stances on various topics that were still under discussion.
Blaise Godet, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Complaints Mechanism, said reform of the mechanism should ensure that it was impartial, objective, effective, victim-oriented, and timely. The current procedure of two Working Groups should be the basis of work. The accountability of actors involved in the mechanism should be improved, with precise reasons given for the non-acceptance or suspension of a case. The matter of the timing remained open, and it was not possible to say how frequently the Council’s examinations would take place. The principle of participation of the complainant and the State had been largely agreed upon, and almost all delegations agreed that the mechanism should be transparent.
Carlos Ramiro Martinez, Facilitator for the Working Group on the agenda, said the goal of the draft agenda was to seek a balance between all rights – economic, social and cultural, as well as political and civil rights; and also to strike a balance between the various positions in the Council, including those of developing and developed nations. All of the items on the agenda were important, but some would clearly need further clarifications. The Facilitator did not think it would be a good idea to take a vote for the elimination of some themes or sub-themes.
Enrique Manalo, Facilitator of the Working Group on methods of work and rules of procedure, said there had been open-ended meetings on the agenda, annual programme of work, and procedural business, and informal consultations on proposals convened by sponsors. In the three meetings of the Working Group, he noted that the two different proposals tabled were not far distant from one another and he aimed now to marry them together, seeking to reflect the general direction of discussions.
Speakers raised a number of issues, including that the Universal Periodic Review should apply the same standards to all countries and be based on the abundance of information available within the United Nations system, and that the Council should also be able to take a strong stand in cases of non-cooperation and not accept a veto from the country under review. Concerning the Expert Advice Body, some speakers believed that it should have a standing nature, the number of experts that had been in the Sub-Commission should be retained, and the principle of equitable geographical composition should be adhered to. There were calls for the Council to ensure that the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories remained on the agenda, while others rejected this. And there were suggestions that a fair and operational Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures be introduced, with disagreement expressed on its scope.
Addressing the Council on the reports of its institution-building Working Groups were Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Sri Lanka (on behalf of the Asian Group), Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, Morocco, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Denmark, Turkey, Thailand, Nicaragua, United States, Israel and Iran.
The following non-governmental organizations also made statements: International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, Pax Romana, UNESCO Centre Basque Country, International Federation for Human Rights, Juridical Commission for the Autodevelopment of First Andean People, International Service for Human Rights and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development.
The Council is meeting today non-stop from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. At 3 p.m., the Council immediately resumed to start its discussion on reports by the Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Secretary-General.
Presentation of Reports by Working Groups on Institution-Building of the Council
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI, Facilitator and Vice-President of the Working Group to develop the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, said that the Working Group had before it a non-paper that was structured according to six elements for discussion. It built upon the emerging elements of convergence that had been previously listed in the preliminary conclusions and outlined, wherever possible, compromise proposals, while identifying a limited number of specific issues requiring further discussions and consideration. The non-paper also presented three concrete options on possible modalities for the Universal Periodic Review, which were based on all such proposals previously put forward by all stakeholders.
The Working Group had concluded its work on 15 February 2007 after five productive meetings, Ambassador Loulichki said. Since the conclusion of the Working Group, he had fully reflected on the discussions and had engaged into bilateral discussions with representatives of different groups and with individual interested countries to consider various issues in more detail and to explore possible areas of compromise. Concerning changes and revisions, highlight was put on two options: on periodicity and on the process and modalities of review. The Council was now at a critical stage of its work as the one-year deadline by which the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should be established was looming.
It was the moment in which all the members had to individually and collectively advance their discussions and to focus not just on building elements of convergence but on agreement. However, a number of issues remained on which there were still different views, such as whether the review would be conducted solely in the Council plenary or in Working Groups; what the role of the State under review in decision-making on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review should be; what the role of other stakeholders in the review process, including non-governmental organizations and human rights institutions should be; and finally concerning the role of experts in the review process and the nature of their participation.
TOMAS HUSAK, Facilitator of the Working Group on the review of Special Procedures, said the Working Group had held two rounds of consultations, discussing the variety of issues ranging from selection of mandate holders, strengthening the coherence of the system, to improved coordination and enhanced accountability of mandate holders. The dialogue on the scope and functioning of individual Special Procedures had been entered into on the basis of the matrix skilfully prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. During the process, some initial misunderstandings and differences in positions had been overcome, and agreement had been reached that the Special Procedures were a unique human rights instrument of monitoring and remedying identified shortcomings. Their independence and expertise was instrumental to improving the enjoyment as well as the protection and promotion of human rights.
Convergence on a number of essential aspects had been reached, including a call to improve the harmonisation and transparency of Special Procedures’ working methods. The future discussion should focus on three major areas: selection of mandate holders; accountability, including that of mandate holders and Governments; and the scope of thematic and country focus. The Working Group was also expected to comment on the draft Working Manual of Special Procedures. Regarding the selection of mandates, there was a prospect for compromise between the appointment and election through improved pre-screening, to be followed by an appointment, with eventual endorsement by the Council. The concept of accountability was two-fold: accountability of mandate holders to their peers and the Governments to protect and promote human rights.
Regardless of the nature of mandates, cooperation with and by Governments had been highlighted as crucial to the effectiveness of the Special Procedures. A lack of cooperation could undermine a particular mandate. A system of Special Procedures that grew up spontaneously should be streamlined through safeguarding equal attention to all human rights, as they were universal, interdependent and indivisible. At the same time, there was growing demand for equal and efficient support to all mandate holders. The Working Group had set on identifying the substantive and protection gaps and overlaps, with the aim of improving individual mandates.
MOUSA BURAYZAT, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Expert Advice Mechanism, said fourteen points had been identified, and these elements had been submitted to Representatives of the Member States of the Council, who had discussed them extensively. This process was further elaborated, and some options or choices were identified for each constituent element. As a result of long and exhaustive bilateral and collective formal and informal meetings, the Facilitator was able to present a paper, and consequently discussions were focussed on the document with the fourteen constituent elements. These included the name as well as the role of the mechanism. As a result of the discussion and direct consultation, the report that was submitted during the third session of the Council held the views and positions of the various groups within the Group.
There were areas of convergence, areas of difference, and areas where further consultations were needed, as there was a little difference. Delegations had had further discussions in a friendly and constructive manner. One significant area where progress had been achieved was the issue of the selection process, and a possible consensus around a two-phased approach had been reached. A further paper had been prepared, and almost 80 delegations had responded to this, endorsing a significant section of the paper, although some found it too bold, and others found it too weak on a small yet significant range of issues. Further compromise had been suggested.
Real negotiations on a specific text had yet to begin, and it appeared that Members were not yet ready to commit themselves to specific stances on various topics that were still under discussion. In the circumstances, another compromise document could be prepared, or a document taking stock of the different options could be prepared - and the latter was the course taken by the Facilitator. There were some fundamental issues that had been put to the delegations, and tangible progress had been achieved. However, consensus on the fundamental issues remained to be achieved. Encouraged by the positive reception of the original paper, the Facilitator invited the delegations to consider the latest paper that had just been distributed at this session.
BLAISE GODET, Facilitator for the Working Group on the Complaints Mechanism, said a new non-paper had been restructured, highlighting areas in need of further debate and attempting to take into account the views of delegations. Reform of the mechanism should ensure that it was impartial, objective, effective, victim-oriented and timely. It concerned all human rights, all fundamental liberties, all countries and all circumstances. All complaints over human rights violations and basic freedoms would be admissible unless they filled one of the inadmissibility criteria.
The current procedure of two Working Groups should be the basis of work. The system of designation of experts of the first Working Group could either continue in its present form (permanent experts), or adopt a “roster” system with the President of the Human Rights Council appointing the experts of the first Working Group. The issue remained open. There was consensus on the current system for the Second Working Group. The accountability of actors involved in the mechanism should be improved, with precise reasons given for the non-acceptance or suspension of a case. The matter of the timing remained open, and it was not possible to say how frequently the Council’s examinations would take place. The report however, contained some proposals on this matter aimed at making the mechanism efficient and victim-oriented.
The principle of participation of the complainant and the State had been largely agreed upon, and almost all delegations agreed that the mechanisms should be transparent, with the complainant and the State having access to the same information, and ensuring feedback to the complainant on the progress of a case. Regarding measures open to the Council, these should include any measure judged appropriate, and the report provides a non-exhaustive list (essentially those in resolution 2000/3).
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ, Facilitator for the Working Group on the agenda, said, at the outset, that the proposals being circulated now contained the main priorities of countries, but they were not building an agenda of one country or one group, rather for the whole Human Rights Council. The Working Group had met in January 2007, and on the second day of that meeting they had distributed a very approximate version of the draft before the Council now. The agenda for the Council should meet a number of objectives, including follow-up to the former Commission and complying with General Assembly resolution 50/261, establishing the Human Rights Council.
The goal of the draft was to orient deliberation by providing a text as a basis to work from; to seek a balance between all rights – economic, social and cultural, as well as political and civil rights; and also to strike a balance between the various positions in the Council, including those of developing and developed nations. The Working Group had had to attempt to address the concerns of all members. It was not an exhaustive list, and could be changed as the Council itself evolved. All of the items on the agenda were important, but some would clearly need further clarifications. The Facilitator did not think it would be a good idea to take a vote for the elimination of some themes or sub-themes.
The draft contained a list of principles, which they had looked at in the January meeting. Among the items contained in the draft were the right to development as well as a proposal focused on the protection and promotion of human rights. There was also an item that addressed human rights bodies and mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review, and the issue of Palestine. The agenda closed with a number of conferences and summits on a number of topics, including capacity-building and technical assistance. In conclusion, the Facilitator stressed that this was a first draft and, as it had taken into account the concerns of all members, it would not necessarily be in accordance with the specific concerns of individual countries or groups.
ENRIQUE MANALO, Facilitator of the Working Group on methods of work and rules of procedure, noted the positive and constructive atmosphere in last year’s discussions. The scope of working methods was quite broad and intersected with issues in other working groups. Methods should be impartial, objective and fair, and based on clarity, predictability and inclusiveness. They should not be seen as exhaustive. Methods should be reviewed and updated periodically. The aim was to lay down a framework of options and methods. Discussions had focussed on institutional methods, such as the different types of meetings that could be convened and their objectives. There had been open- ended meetings on the agenda, the annual programme of work, and procedural business, and informal consultations on proposals convened by sponsors.
Recommendations on the working culture or ethics of the Council included such things as early notification of proposals and early submission of resolutions. Different ways of working documents were suggested. Further work was needed here. Some issues remained to be clarified - timing, the relationship with the General Assembly and others. He hoped to finalise best practices and methods based on the realisation that there would be revision over time, and proposed working on new rules of procedure based on existing Assembly rules.
In the three meetings of the Working Group, he noted that the two different proposals tabled were not far distant from one another and aimed now to marry them together, seeking to reflect the general direction of discussions. There had been much open support for the recommendations. More dialogue was needed to arrive at common understanding. He was optimistic on agreement but the spirit of compromise and understanding of the earlier meeting should continue.
Statements on the Reports of the Working Groups on the Institution-Building Process of the Council
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said resolution 60/251 clearly stated the common commitment to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring the effective enjoyment by all of human rights. The Council should be able to shoulder its comprehensive mandate to address the full range of human rights questions. There was therefore a need to equip the Council with all necessary tools and mechanisms, and at the end of the day, the result should be a credible and effective institution.
Experts were an essential part of the machinery. There was a need to ensure that the Council would be supported in its deliberations by experts of the highest qualification and independence. Non-governmental organizations as well as national human rights institutions could provide valuable insight. They could also be helpful partners for implementation and follow-up. The Universal Periodic Review should apply the same standards to all countries and be based on the abundance of information available within the United Nations system. The European Union favoured a tailor-made outcome that led to realistic and tangible improvements on the ground. Effective cooperation with the country concerned would be needed to assure such an outcome, and it should also be able to take a strong stand in cases of non-cooperation and not accept a veto from the country under review.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that she would make only preliminary remarks on the papers submitted by the Facilitators, as they had only been received last night. On the Expert Advice mechanism, it should have a standing nature; the number of experts that had been in the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should be retained; and the principle of equitable geographical composition should be adhered to. The OIC would like clarification on the term "implementation oriented think tank" which had been used in the paper. The Expert Advice Body should be elected by the Council and should only examine issues at its request. Clarification was also requested on the mention that informal links with non-governmental organizations was to be encouraged.
On the agenda, the OIC requested that the "question of human rights violations in Palestine and other occupied Palestinian territories" should be included as an item. On rules of procedure, it was agreed that the Bureau should be elected on the basis of equitable geographic representation. On the Complaints Procedure, the OIC agreed that there should be no overlap between the Special Procedures and the work of the treaty bodies. Also, confidentiality had to remain the fundamental characteristic of the Complaint Procedure. On the review of mandates, the paper on Special Procedures required detailed discussion, including on areas that the Facilitator appeared to feel had already been agreed upon. Finally, the mandate of the Special Procedure on the situation of human rights in Palestine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories had to be retained until the end of the occupation.
SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Facilitators should try to narrow down differences and find a consensual outcome. The agenda and methods of work of the Council should be well-structured, in a balanced and equal manner. The Asian Group also recommended transparent and fair methods of work in order to ensure genuine dialogue. The future rules of procedure could be drawn up on the basis of the provisions of the rules of procedure established for the Committees of the General Assembly.
The Palestinian people had a right to achieve their national rights, particularly their right to self-determination. The Universal Periodic Review should be a cooperative mechanism through an interactive dialogue process, and should seek incremental improvement in the human rights situation of all sovereign States by enhancing their capacities to promote and protect human rights. The social and cultural specificities, the universality of human rights as well as the level of development should be taken into consideration throughout the deliberations. The Special Procedures system should be comprehensively reviewed in order to avoid politicisation and enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Expert Advisory Body should be composed of impartial, independent, specialised and highly-qualified experts.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA LABRADOR (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that from the very beginning, Non-Aligned countries had been fully engaged in the process of the institutional building of the Human Rights Council. The Movement had been active and constructively participating in the work of the Working Group. The Non-Aligned Movement proposed an agenda with concrete items to allow predictability and transparency, which was at the same time general enough to guarantee flexibility in the work of the Human Rights Council. For the Non-Aligned Movement, the consideration of all economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, the promotion and protection of rights of all peoples, the realization of the right to development which was an inalienable right, and the struggle against racism, racial discrimination xenophobia and related intolerance should be, among others, an integral part of a well-structured agenda of the Human Rights Council.
The Non-Aligned Movement also submitted a written contribution on rules for special sessions of the Human Rights Council, aiming at complementing the general framework established in paragraph 10 of the General-Assembly resolution on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251, he said. The Non-Aligned Movement also attached special importance to the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and a contribution had also been submitted in this regard. The Universal Periodic Review was an important tool that could contribute to promote an approach of cooperation and genuine dialogue and to end the practices of political manipulation and double standards. The Universal Periodic Review should be an intergovernmental process, conducted in Human Rights Council plenary meetings, and based on an interactive dialogue involving all Member States of the United Nations, with the full participation of the Government attached.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) reiterated the importance of concluding the process of institution-building by 18 June 2007. On the Universal Periodic Review, extensive discussion on that mechanism, both in the framework of formal and informal meetings, had led India to believe that it might not be possible to develop a mechanism as ambitious as the Universal Periodic Review with all its final details spelled out in one go. Effort at this stage should focus on developing modalities for the first cycle of the Review. Those modalities could be assessed upon completion of that cycle, which should coincide with the five-year review of the Council. With regard to the Special Procedures, extensive discussion had been held on improving working methods, but they had yet to seriously engage in the process of rationalization. That discussion could be postponed no longer.
On the Complaints Mechanism, India said there was already a broad degree of consensus that it should be modelled along the lines of the existing 1503 procedure. However, India wished to see the following improvements in that system: admissibility criteria should be applied in full before complaints were forwarded to States; Paris Principles national human rights institutions should be involved in the process; and the processing time for complaints should be reduced. As for the Expert Advice mechanism, the new body should address the lack of flexibility that had affected its predecessor.
LA YIFAN (China) said it was regretted that such an important session of the Council concerning the institutional building process, the central task for the first year of the Council, had to be arranged during lunchtime. The process was still an open one. On the review of the Special Procedures, the report should be substantiated with certain points: the election of mandate holders was perhaps not the best way, but it was far better than appointment. Since the way the Council handled country-specific issues had a direct bearing on the development of the Council, in order to avoid the abuse of country-specific resolutions, there should be a specific procedure, and it should only be entered into as a last resort.
On accountability, this was a basic element of the Special Procedures, and their work should not only be accountable to the Coordination Committee and its peers, but also to the Council as the creating body. It was also necessary to introduce a fair operational Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures. The treaty bodies and the future Universal Periodic Review would regularly monitor the behaviour of Member States. On the Expert Advisory Group, these should be elected and nominated by the parent body, namely the Council. Its work should not overlap that of the Council with regards to country issues. On the Complaints Body, it should be made more effective, but different countries had different legal systems, and it was unrealistic to use a one-size-fits-all form. The confidentiality of the procedure should continue. On the Universal Periodic Review, this should proceed in a spirit of construction and dialogue, with the participation of civil society. On the agenda and rules of work, the job should be finished in the first year, and a more structured agenda would provide more practicality and certainty for the future work of the Council.
HARKRISTUTI HARKRISNOWO (Indonesia) said that Indonesia believed that the role of the Working Groups of the Council had become more important at this stage in ensuring the completion of the institutional building process within the one-year time frame. Indonesia called upon all the stakeholders to do their best to help it discharge its mandates and to complete these huge tasks by 2007. Indonesia profoundly hoped that the upcoming session of the Council would be mainly devoted to the completion of the important institution building process as mandated by the founding General-Assembly resolution. Indonesia also associated itself with the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Asian Group.
Indonesia wanted to comment on a number of selective aspects in a general manner, such as its concern with the difference in the pace between the work of the various Working Groups, in particular between the one on Universal Periodic Review and on the Review of Mandates. Indonesia also noted with satisfaction that the speed of the Universal Periodic Review was currently sufficient to finalise its work before the deadline. However, the Working Group on Review of Mandates did not enjoy the same pace as that of the Universal Periodic Review. Indonesia suggested that all mandates created by the late Commission should be reviewed and rationalized in the final phase. The delegation wanted to know the view of the Facilitator concerning the direct election of mandate holders by the Council, which was proposed by many delegations. The Council should also strengthen and spearhead its efforts to conclude the discussions on the draft agenda and the methods of work of the Council.
MOHAMED ZIN AMRAN (Malaysia) said that Malaysia associated itself with the statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Asian Group with regard to the papers submitted by the Facilitators. Malaysia felt that the draft agenda submitted could advance the Council's work. A well-structured agenda should be adopted by the second year of the Council's work. Malaysia associated itself with the inclusion of items listed in the statements by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Malaysia stressed that the Universal Periodic Review was an intergovernmental process; other stakeholders could participate as observers. The review should take into consideration the specific situation of the States concerned, should be undertaken on the basis of a five-year cycle, and should take place during the plenary of the Council. The Review should operate as a cooperative mechanism. On the Special Procedures, mandate holders should be elected by the Human Rights Council, on the basis of nominations by Member States, and on the principles of equitable geographic representation and equal representation of various legal and cultural bodies. Regarding the Complaint Procedure, Malaysia underscored that the most effective domestic remedy was the court system.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Facilitators were to be thanked for their efforts. It was good that progress was being made, and it was hoped the work would conclude by 18 June. The Facilitators’ work would help to make progress in this regard. With regard to the Universal Periodic Review, it was important that references to international humanitarian law were appropriate, and Switzerland would be making a proposal in this regard during the informal meetings next week.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said concerning the Universal Periodic Review, Brazil favoured a high participation of all stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations. Brazil supported the participation of independent expert advice in the preparatory phase and the final stage for practical reasons. The participation of independent experts was also important to reduce the political climate that was inherent of any interstate dialogue. The outcome of the exams should be widely available and should be published.
Brazil supported the review of mandates to overcome overlapping and gaps among the existing mandates of the Special Procedures. Brazil supported as well the idea of a periodic overview conducted by an Expert Advice Body. The President of the Council should select five experts based on a roster. In this way, the independence of experts could be preserved. The existence of a consistent and proven negative record of a country should be the basis of a country’s consideration. Concerning the Expert Advice Body, it should continue to function as the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection did. With regard to the agenda, Brazil supported an agenda divided in part on political rights, one on vulnerable groups and the third one concerning procedural aspects.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), commenting on the papers presented by the six Facilitators, said that, on the agenda, Japan could support the proposals in the Facilitator's paper, but flexibility should be given more weight. Japan strongly supported a "basket" agenda item that could include more issues of concern. On the Universal Periodic Review, the review should contain a mechanism to address protracted gross violations occurring during the five-year intervals between reviews. With regard to the Special Procedures, the country-specific mandates were among the indispensable needs of the Council, and Japan supported the Facilitator’s recommendations on that issue. However, Japan wished to stress the importance of impartiality and a lack of double standards in the carrying out of those country-specific mandates. Appointment of Special Procedures should be by the President of the Human Rights Council, but, in the spirit of cooperation, Japan was open to the possibility of a hybrid model.
On the Complaints Mechanism, the paper reflected progress made in discussions, but the new proposals required further study. On the Expert Advice Body, Japan felt that a smaller number of experts than the Sub-Commission would be adequate to cover the needs of the Council.
DRISS ISBAYENE (Morocco) said the examination and rationalisation of the Special Procedures should end with the reinforcement of the current system and also fill certain gaps that sometimes had a negative impact on the implementation of mandates and on the interaction and cooperation with the Member States. Mandate holders should be chosen on the basis, among others, of their competence, expertise, impartiality, objectivity and integrity. Election was the best way of choosing mandate holders.
It was vital to ensure balance between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Cooperation and international solidarity were among the founding principles of the United Nations, and the Special Procedures system should reflect this important aspect. The methods of work and of interaction of mandate holders with the Council should be harmonised. The Code of Conduct should enrich the role of the Special Procedures, reinforce the implementation of the tasks given them, and enhance the principles of objectivity, impartiality and total independence. The complaints mechanism should be based on the mandate, without any overlap with other procedures. It should also be confidential in nature. There should be two steps in the complaints mechanism. Members of the Expert Advisory Group should be elected. The issue of Palestine and other Occupied Territories should be on the agenda.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said with regards to the Universal Periodic Review, it would be preferable to have one sentence covering the entire document, saying something along the lines of “with regards to technical assistance, it would be provided with the agreement of the State concerned”. It was not always possible to have the consent of the State under review, but it should be reviewed with or without the consent. Periodicity should be between three and four years, which was already a significant concession. Generally, the review should be started with a strong preparatory stage and a follow-up, and should not just be a three-hour exercise.
Geographical representation was not applied in other fora that were similar to the Universal Periodic Review. Experts should participate in the consideration and in the outcome with the recommendations to be put forward to States. It was only an independent evaluation which would prove the utility of the Universal Periodic Review.
MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan would continue to actively contribute to the discussions in the various Working Groups. On the Universal Periodic Review, Azerbaijan welcomed the proposal made by the Facilitator, since it was clear that human rights needed to be respected and protected both in times of peace and armed conflicts. On principles and objectives, Azerbaijan agreed with the view that all relevant stakeholders should be able to participate and also support the compromise suggestion in this segment of the paper. Universality was one of the cornerstones of the whole concept. On the process and modalities of review, Azerbaijan agreed with the idea of standard general guidelines to be adopted by the Council. Countries under review should be encouraged to prepare their report but in the meantime other sources, like compilations from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, should be part of the documentation on the basis of which the Universal Periodic Review would be carried out.
It was crucial to give a better chance to a non-confrontational and cooperative spirit of the Universal Periodic Review to ensure the credibility and reliability of the information used in this process. Azerbaijan could go along with the main thrust of the compromise proposal on the preparation of the outcome document in relation to selection of a rapporteur. Azerbaijan also agreed with the compromise proposal on decision-making. The State reviewed should report to the Council on the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review outcome as well as in the compromise suggestion on cases of non-cooperation by States with the Universal Periodic Review.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that General Assembly resolution 60/251 provided the Council with the necessary guidelines and time frame for concluding the work of institution-building in the Council. From the year-long debates in the Working Groups, they already knew what the positions of different countries were. It was high time that they reconciled those positions. They had been saying all along that the Universal Periodic Review would be a significant addition to the tools of the Council. It was generally agreed that the Universal Periodic Review should review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments; and it should be a cooperative mechanism based on dialogue. If they stuck to that broad objective, they would be able to have a credible, effective and manageable review system. With regard to the Special Procedures, mandate holders should abide by a set "code of conduct" with a view to maintaining their objectivity and integrity. The appointment of mandate holders should be through elections in the Council from among pre-screened candidates. Election would help minimize politicisation and strengthen the legitimacy of the mandate holder.
The agenda for the Council should be simple and functional, and should respect the balance between economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other. The 1503 procedure would be improved if the admissibility criteria could be strictly applied before forwarding a communication to a Member State. On an Expert Advice Mechanism, Bangladesh was of the view that the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which had made a significant contribution in understanding varied and complex human rights issues, should be retained.
ANGELA MARIA CHAVEZ BIETTI (Guatemala) said Guatemala was pleased to see that the common ground on the various issues was spreading and that the Council was going to be in full working capacity by June 2007. Guatemala wanted to address a number of issues. A major interest was that the Council met its goal to promote and protect human rights without distinction all over the world.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA LABRADOR (Cuba) said that Cuba was grateful for the documents and presentations. Unfortunately because of late distribution it had not been possible to go through each document in detail, but attention was called to the fact that there were some areas where concrete and specific issues were outlined, and others where there were many details still to address. Efforts should focus on agreeing on basic modalities, methods for complaint, review of the mandates - basic issues that need to be agreed on before 18 June to comply with the mandate. Details could be left for subsequent discussions in Working Groups or other fora. Cuba maintained the position it had expressed in the Working Groups, and expressed willingness to continue.
JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO (Mexico) said that, in general terms, Mexico believed that to have a credible human rights system, they should apply the principle of dialogue and cooperation, but they also should not refrain from looking at grave human rights situations when States refused to cooperate. On the Universal Periodic Review, the Council should not prejudge the measures adopted for the review process, that was, options had to be available in the mechanism to deal with each case. The Council could designate an expert for the review procedure, and periodicity of the review should be three years with three working groups, but Mexico could agree to a maximum of a four-year interval. Recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review should be gradual in their approach, and emphasize cooperation to build capacity; grave situations in the State under review could be analysed with greater specificity.
Mexico said it was also important to maintain the Special Procedures. With regard to a procedure for confidential complaints, it was important to keep in mind that it was geared to determining systematic and grave violations of human rights and thus it was necessary to avoid duplication with the work of other mechanisms in that field. Mexico took a stance for communications and procedures working groups made up of independent experts. There should also be clear timelines for complaints, so that the victim would have certainty.
KIM VINTHEN (Denmark) said the task of the Facilitators would become increasingly demanding as the June deadline for the completion of the Council’s institution-building process approached. One should move from merely expressing barren criticism of human rights problems to a spirit of genuine cooperation. Cooperation should be a hallmark for the Council, not only within the Council but also between the Council and the countries concerned.
The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review would serve as an important tool to deal with human rights problems. Also Special Procedures could serve to identify human rights problems and to develop recommendations for technical assistance remedies for the Council to act upon in cooperation with the countries concerned. In order to improve what was not perfect, the Council should be able to extend a helping hand to troubled countries. Offers of technical assistance should play a central role.
AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said Turkey was ready to cooperate in fulfilling the forthcoming tasks. There was still important work to be done. Only through genuine dialogue could reform be made. There should be a transformation of the working culture from confrontation to cooperation. Misperceptions should be a thing of the past and new communications channels encouraged. The Universal Periodic Review would be a novelty to working methods. The Council should strive to have a universal system, and a dynamic, evolving process. There should be monitoring by stakeholders with a view to review if needed. The Special Procedures mechanism was an important part of the system and Turkey agreed that cooperation between States and the Special Procedures was at the core of enhancing the system. Independent expert advice should broaden and deepen the debates on specific human rights issues, provide guidance, and avoid duplication within the human rights mechanism. There should be coordination between experts and treaty bodies and Special Procedures as mandated by Council. The Complaints Procedure should be effective and timely, moving away from political considerations and focusing on the true willingness of the country concerned to address the situation at hand. Decisions should be based on sound legal and factual grounds.
LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said that, with regard to the Universal Periodic Review, they needed to think deeply how it could effectively eliminate mistrust, politicisation, selectivity and double standards. The Universal Periodic Review was an intergovernmental interactive dialogue process that should build confidence and promote cooperation among all States. A requirement that Member States of the Council should be the first to be examined under the Universal Periodic Review would enhance the international community's confidence in the non-politicisation and non-selectivity of that mechanism. On the review of Special Procedures mandates, a code of conduct for the mandate holders could be relevant and useful if it was not too specific but provided general guidelines and avoided duplication with the existing Working Manual, while respecting the independence of mandate holders.
On the Expert Advice Body, that body should maintain the unique characteristics of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as a venue for interactive dialogue that included civil society. With respect to the agenda and the programme of work, the agenda should take into account all sets of human rights, whether they be civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. Thailand also felt that there should only be one high-level segment of the Council each year.
ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua) said that the Council was at a crucial stage in building the institution and that it should respect the principles of indivisibility, universality, non-selectivity, and interdependence of all human rights. Poverty and hunger in the world should be eradicated by the Council and issues like the creation of jobs and education should be promoted, all of which concerned fundamental rights. Nicaragua protected and promoted all fundamental freedoms. The agenda must also include the situation of human rights of the Palestinian people. Establishing the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was a priority because it should be a tool to promote cooperation and must help to promote institutional capacity of the country under review. The unique historical situation of a country should be taken into consideration when it was under examination.
KRISTEN MCGEENEY (United States) thanked the Facilitators for their work. The position of the United States on most of the issues was well known and the United States would comment in detail at informal informal meetings later in the month, and again at the April Working Group sessions. The United States had shown willingness to consider creative options and looked forward to continuing discussions in the spirit of cooperation and dialogue
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that, since the creation of the new Human Rights Council, in each and every discussion or consultation, all delegations had spoken about non-selectivity as a mandatory characteristic of the Council. They had also repeatedly addressed the necessity of the Council to deal with each country, situation or agenda item in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. To Israel's dismay, they saw that the working paper by the Facilitator on the agenda and programme of work displayed just the opposite spirit. One of the primary reasons behind the demise of the old Commission had been the repeated singling out of one country, the infamous "article 8". And what did they see today? They saw mention again of the exact same article 8, as if 60 years of one-sidedness and politicisation of the Commission were not enough to learn the lesson that their body could never gain legitimacy if its procedures were illegitimate. It was shameful that because of tit-for-tat deals and behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the Council would forever bear the results of the "race to the bottom", the collective efforts to establish the lowest common denominator in human rights.
FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran), said that Iran associated itself with the statements of the Non Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Iran was taking note of the progress reports and the conclusions of all the Working Groups. These reports as well as the new draft provided a clear framework for the Council’s next stage of consultations, which would hopefully lead to tangible results. Iran was convinced that the best approach to the timely fulfilment of the task entrusted upon the Council and avoiding the circumstances which may prevail if the mandate was not accomplished prior to 18 June, was to ensure that the remaining time would be utilized in the most efficient manner towards the completion of the Council’s mandate as was underlined by the Member States at the time of the adoption of the establishment resolution 60/25.
Iran firmly believed that the Council and its mechanisms, particularly the Universal Periodic Review and the Complaint Procedure, should be able to address the violations of human rights by all countries, having implications within and outside of national borders. Iran commended the positive achievements of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. However, it was somehow concerned over the slow pace of progress with regard to the process leading to the review of mandates. In the interest of predictability, accountability and transparency, a structured agenda should be in place when the Council began its second session year.
MATHIEU CRETTENAND, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, speaking in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Europe-Third World Centre and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said this was an opportunity for the Council to refocus. New energy could be injected. Experts should have a maximum of two consecutive mandates, and there should be transparency in working methods. On the review of mandates, it was said that violations of economic, social and cultural rights were those that provoked more suffering and evaluation of these should be strengthened. Codes of conduct for Special Procedures should not reduce mandate holders’ room for maneuvering. It was important to avoid any lack of credibility. Independent experts should participate in the Universal Periodic Review and there should be a global approach in geographical and institutional terms. The League reasserted the importance of the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations.
BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, in a joint statement, said that in order to make appropriate decisions, it was important that the Council heard a variety of voices. It was therefore important that the contribution of non-governmental organizations should be maintained and enhanced with regard to institution building. The Sub-Commission had been a leader in the field of non-governmental organization participation in general. In particular, the Sub-Commission Working Groups on minorities, indigenous peoples and on contemporary forms of slavery had provided a forum for non-governmental organization participation. While the system of the Economic and Social Council was important, those working groups of the Sub-Commission showed the need to have forums for certain specific groups, and Pax Romana called on the Council to ensure the continuation of such flexible entities within any new advice body of the Council.
CARLOS VILLAN DURAN, of UNESCO Centre Basque Country, said that one of the important functions that the Council should play was to make recommendations to the General Assembly in order to improve human rights worldwide. The functions of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should be kept. Faced by the proliferation of wars and the banalisation of torture, among other things, the UNESCO Centre Basque Country had undertaken a to work on a private codification text. The human right to peace was being presented now internationally together with civic societies. Such projects may appear to be idealistic but they faced up to the global crisis in the world in the past few years.
SIMILA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights, said that this was an increased opportunity for interaction. Mandates should be enforced by increased cooperation with States. States that failed to cooperate with Special Procedures should face sanctions. There should be a balancing of the two categories of human rights. Action oriented reviews and outcomes should stress recommendations. The Universal Periodic Review should not be isolated and should be based on implementing recommendations.
TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for the Autodevelopment of First Andean People, said that, under the old Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Working Group on indigenous people had spoken out for 20 years against the extinction of indigenous peoples. That Working Group had continued to function under the direction of the Council, with an extended mandate to receive the reports of the Special Rapporteur on this theme and to resolve problems in this area. That Working Group had to be strengthened both qualitatively and quantitatively. It should be composed of six independent experts and six experts representing indigenous populations. The Juridical Commission called for States Members to protect the rights of indigenous peoples more effectively.
GODH SWEENEY, of International Service for Human Rights, said that a distance still had to be travelled concerning the building of the Council’s institutions. The non-papers raised questions that only the Council could address. Special Procedures should inform the Council periodically. The system of Expert Advice should provide assistance to the Council. The Council needed to ensure that each part of the institution building process was put together with the others.
ANSELMO LEE, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, raised three concerns: the role of Asian Governments, the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures and the participation of national and regional non-governmental organizations in developing Asian and other countries. He emphasized the need for transparency in the participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society groups and others, and called on periodic consultations at national and regional level on State obligations. On Special Procedures, country mandates must be maintained and Codes of Conduct developed, including timely responses to communications.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record