HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXCHANGES VIEWS WITH REPRESENTATIVES
OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES, SUB-COMMISSION AND TREATY BODIES
23 June 2006
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
23 June 2006
Council Adopts Programme of Work
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, the Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies.
Speakers wondered if the “breath of fresh air” that several felt the Council represented would be extended to the special procedures, and how they would be affected. While many felt that the special procedures were a fundamental, essential element of the human rights system, and greater dialogue with them in the Council was welcomed, one speaker said that problems such as politicisation, selectivity and double standards, which underlay the former Commission, could be linked to a large extent to the Special Rapporteurs, who he said were also contaminated.
A speaker noted that Member States had an historic opportunity to achieve greater coherence between the different components of the United Nations human rights system. In that regard, several speakers welcomed the adoption of the draft harmonized reporting guidelines for the United Nations human rights treaty bodies by the Inter-Committee Meeting. Several speakers welcomed the input of the special procedures into the new universal periodic review to be held by the Council, but wondered how the Council could strike the right balance in that regard, and not duplicate or undermine the work of the special procedures.
Vitit Muntarbhorn, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said the special procedures gave a voice to the voiceless victims of abuses, and their reports provided a starting point for discussion on the concrete measures that Governments needed to take to put a stop to human rights violations, and to ensure that human rights were protected in the future. Their independence from external political or other influences was the crucial element that enabled them to fulfil their functions with true impartiality.
Ibrahim Salama, Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that the new Human Rights Council needed advisory services from other bodies in order to succeed in its work. On its side, the Sub-Commission had been focusing on changes to be adopted by its members. It had even thought to change its name to the “Human Rights Advisory Committee”. The method of choosing the independent members of the Sub-Commission should also be given some thought; States should not freely choose themselves the members of the Sub-Commission. The Member States should also debate the issue of qualitative selection of the members.
Christine Chanet, Chairperson of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that the treaty bodies welcomed the potential that the universal periodic review would have to provide a framework for a broader and a different kind of scrutiny than that available in the context of the human rights treaty body system. Treaty bodies were also of the view that the objective and reliable information that formed the basis of that review should include the findings and recommendations that were reflected in their concluding observations. While there had been some opportunity for treaty body chairpersons to interact with the Commission on Human Rights, those modalities for interaction had been relatively undeveloped. It was the treaty bodies hope that occasions such as today would be a regular feature of the Council, so that they could reflect on their complementary roles in their mutual quest to ensure comprehensive protection of the rights of all.
Taking part in the debate this afternoon were the representatives of Cuba, Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, Canada, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Chile, Finland, Japan, Argentina, the Philippines, Pakistan, Switzerland, Mexico, Senegal, Brazil and the Republic of Korea.
Also speaking were the representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Human Rights Watch, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, International Federation of University Women, and International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia-Pacific.
At the end of the meeting the Council adopted the programme of work for its current session.
In order to have a productive meeting on Monday, 26 June, at which pressing human rights questions were to be considered, and on the basis of consultations, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the President of the Council, proposed, and the Council agreed, that it would consider specific issues, among others, the human rights situation in the occupied territories, including Palestine; support for the Abuja Peace Agreement; backing efforts for the strengthening of the promotion and protection of human rights; avoiding incitement to hatred and violence through the promotion of tolerance and dialogue; and an interactive discussion on the human rights of migrants in the context of the high-level dialogue to take place at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
The next plenary session of the Council will begin on Monday, 26 June, at 9 a.m. when discussion on the above mentioned issues will start.
Introductory Statements
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said the establishment of the new Council was a window of opportunity to reinvigorate efforts to promote and protect the global human rights system. Special procedures gave a voice to the voiceless victims of abuses, and their reports provided a starting point for discussion on the concrete measures that Governments needed to take to put a stop to human rights violations, and to ensure that human rights were protected in the future. Over the years, that voice had brought credibility and integrity to the human rights machinery, providing daily protection to victims of human rights violations in all parts of the world, and working with Member States to make human rights protection more effective.
Their independence of the special procedures from external political or other influences was the crucial element which enabled them to fulfil their functions with true impartiality. To retain this unique quality, it was important that potential mandate-holders were in no way perceived to be partisan. General Assembly resolution 60/251 on the Human Rights Council that had called for the maintenance of a system of special procedures was welcomed, and they wished to be actively involved with the process of review, which should lead, among others, to the strengthening of the special procedures system, and to a greater synergy between the latter and the rest of the United Nations system for the protection of human rights. The Council should recognise the essential role of the special procedures in strengthening human rights protection by taking certain steps. The special procedures stood ready to take up the challenge to respond to increased expectations for the benefit of all who continued to look upon them for effective protection of their rights.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the 57th Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that the new Human Rights Council needed advisory services from other bodies in order to succeed in its work. On its side, the Sub-Commission had been focusing on changes to be adopted by its members. It had even thought to change its name to the “Human Rights Advisory Committee”. The method of choosing the independent members of the Sub-Commission should also be given some thought; States should not freely choose themselves the members of the Sub-Commission. The Member States should also debate the issue of qualitative selection of the members. The Sub-Commission had also prepared studies to be taken up by States during any future session. The working groups relating to the Sub-Commission should meet earlier than the Sub-Commission to prepare their work and in order to provide them with ample time. That way, the meeting period of two-weeks would be enough for the Sub-Commission to accomplish its work instead of three at present. The Social Forum, which was established by the Sub-Commission, gave an opportunity to the most vulnerable to express their views and it should be preserved. The assessments made by the Sub-Commission would also be an ingredient to the work of the Human Rights Council.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that each of the Chairpersons of the seven human rights treaty bodies recognized that the creation of the Council provided, as the High Commissioner had said, a historic opportunity to improve the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms of people around the world. They were conscious that the Council provided a new avenue through which ratification and implementation of human rights treaties could be promoted. General Assembly resolution 60/251 had provided the Human Rights Council with a broad mandate, including to promote human rights education; to provide technical assistance; to serve as a forum for human rights dialogue; and to promote implementation of human rights obligations undertaken by States. As the independent expert bodies overseeing implementation by States of their obligations under human rights treaties, the treaty bodies had information and experience vital to those functions.
Ms. Chanet said that the treaty bodies welcomed the potential that the universal periodic review would have to provide a framework for a broader and a different kind of scrutiny than that available in the context of the human rights treaty body system. Treaty bodies were also of the view that the objective and reliable information that formed the basis of that review should include the findings and recommendations which were reflected in their concluding observations. The treaty bodies had been very interested in the voluntary pledges that States had submitted with their candidatures to the Council. They had asked that those be included in their sessional files, so that the commitments in the pledges related to ratification, reporting and implementation could be discussed. The meeting this afternoon was particularly welcome, as a signal that the treaty bodies would be able to develop a specific relationship with the Council. While there had been some opportunity for treaty body chairpersons to interact with the Commission on Human Rights, those modalities for interaction had been relatively undeveloped. It was the treaty bodies hope that occasions such as today would be a regularly feature of the Council, so that they could reflect on their complementary roles in their mutual quest to ensure comprehensive protection of the rights of all. All knew that the treaty bodies had been discussing the High Commissioner’s idea of a unified standing treaty body and her concept paper on the subject. The treaty bodies welcomed her vision and leadership and, while they had many questions, they were inspired to work harder to ensure that the treaty body system was as effective as possible, while at the same time ensuring that it was accessible, visible and non-duplicative.
Interactive Dialogue
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that with regards to the statement of the Chairperson of the Special Procedures, it could not be ignored that problems such as politicisation, selectivity and double standards, which underlay the former Commission, could be linked to a large extent to the Special Rapporteurs per country, who were also contaminated. Was this new Council a breath of fresh air with regards to the continuity of the past, he asked, as, keeping the system as it was implied having to be aware of its imperfections, and there had been many procedures and resolutions adopted unfairly. How would paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 be implemented, and was the idea to retain what had been in existence before, he asked.
With regards to the statement of the Vice-Chair of the Sub-Commission, he should take note that almost all agreed on the need to extend the special procedures, but a different sort of logic was being applied to the Sub-Commission. Cuba, as a member of the Council, believed that the Sub-Commission should be meeting in August, and be part of the review process.
ELISABETH ELLISON-KRAMER (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that at this historic juncture, Member States had an historic opportunity to achieve greater coherence between the different components of the United Nations human rights system. The European Union would contribute actively to the review process of mandates as per General Assembly resolution 60/251, in order to strengthen the effectiveness of human rights protection under the Human Rights Council. The European Union reiterated the importance which it attached to the system of special procedures, and welcomed the view of the Special Rapporteurs on their future work and collaboration with the Human Rights Council. The European Union emphasized the importance of the independence and expertise of the special procedures mandate holders and expressed its satisfaction that an increasing number of Governments had developed a working relationship with them, including by expressing general acceptance of requests to visits from special procedures. The European Union called on all States to do likewise.
The European Union attached the greatest importance to the work of the treaty monitoring bodies. By scrutinizing implementation and providing expert advice, treaty monitoring bodies played a crucial role in promoting the effective implementation of States’ human rights obligations. A particular element the European Union wished to highlight regarding the universal periodic review was that that the General Assembly resolution required that the system of periodic review did not duplicate or overlap with the work of the treaty bodies. The European Union attached great importance to ensuring that the system developed for the universal periodic review drew upon the recommendations of the treaty bodies and the special procedures. The European Union would welcome any thoughts and insights that the Chairs might have on how they could strike the right balance in that regard, while not duplicating or undermining their work.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the notion of independence of the special procedures should be understood as being independent from States, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their independence from any influence by States and NGOs should be guaranteed so that they could accomplish their work freely. The length of their mandates should also be kept as it was.
HENRI PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) said the three presentations had been very useful, and the issues raised were of paramount importance for the efficiency of the new Council. The special procedures were among the most important tools for the promotion and protection of human rights. To be effective, they should have the full and total cooperation of States, and this was true in particular of the Member States of the Council, who had the special duty to cooperate with the special procedures. What did the Chairs think of the idea of publishing a report every so often as to the results of the requests for visits from States? How did the special procedures strengthen their ability to coordinate visits by the Special Rapporteurs?
Canada gave the views of the treaties bodies due consideration. It was an opportunity to continue the reform of the United Nations human rights system, and this would ensure better implementation by States of their treaty body obligations. The potential for synergy could be found in the concluding observations of the treaty bodies, which should be channelled to the universal periodic review. What efforts had been made to clarify and standardise the participation of non-governmental organizations in the treaty bodies?
GRIGORI LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said that in the Russian Federation’s view, one of the most important objectives for strengthening the human rights sector of the United Nations was the clear reform of the human rights bodies. They had seen that in the report of the High Commissioner and in the concept paper on the treaty bodies. He asked for the assessment of the Chairs on those ideas, as well as that of the Treaty Bodies Chair on the establishment of a unified treaty body system, and the merging of the various treaty bodies.
With regard to the universal periodic review, the Russian Federation was convinced that this review would become one of the fundamental elements of the new Council. In that connection, he would like to hear from the Chairs their views on how the treaty bodies would work in complement to that new system. Finally, a proposal had been made some time ago to develop a code of conduct for the special procedures. The authors of that initiative believed that such a code would enhance their prestige, credibility and transparency. What did the special procedures think of establishing such a code?
MOCHAMAD S. HIDAYAT (Indonesia) said Indonesia fully supported the special procedures, which were meaningful tools to help promoting and protecting human rights and preventing violations. It was a mere coincidence that the special procedures should be reformed to make them a more solid system of reinforcing the human rights in the effort to promote and protect. In the past, there had been lack of codes of ethics for the special procedures, while now the Council was committed to elaborate one. The special procedures comprised of independent experts with whom Indonesia had cooperated with in the past.
PATRICIO UTRERAS (Chile) said Chile, with its retrieval of democracy and strengthening of human rights, had played a role in the work of the special procedures, which had played an important role with the development of human rights in Latin and South America. The special procedures should continue this role in various areas of the world. The creation of the Council clearly indicated the will of the international community to strengthen the human rights system within the United Nations, making it work more effectively as a true system. One key issue was review and possibly rationalisation of the system. Chile considered it was necessary to preserve the main characteristic of the system, namely, independence, however, the consistency of the system on both thematic and formal issues should be improved and rationalised. It was clear that what was required first was to build the motivation for rationalisation.
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said that, starting with the question of whether the new Council represented a fresh start – “was it new wine in an old bottle, or old wine in a new bottle?” – this was a fresh opportunity, but one that would capitalize on the achievements of the past. Many participants had recognized the positive features that had existed in the Commission on Human Rights in the past, including the special procedures. They would build on the value added from the past, while strengthening those mechanisms. One key value added of the special procedures was the ability to listen to the voices of the victims on the ground. The role of the special procedures should be normative on the one hand, but also preventative on the other.
In the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council, the word cooperation appeared frequently. He liked to think that included cooperation with the special procedures. Another word was dialogue, and that should surely mean dialogue among all key stakeholders. Regarding the universal periodic review, the special procedures had already addressed that issue in their earlier statement. They had consulted substantively on that issue. They did recognize the need for constructive change, and they had already looked at the issue very concretely in their own setting, as well as with regard to the work that took place in the Council. In the future, areas of concern for special procedures were early warning and making special procedures central to the process of the universal periodic review, as well as the treaty bodies.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the 57th Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said the Sub-Commission was the only UN body that had a general mandate and it was attempting to inject all aspects of human rights in its work. States should give their confidence in the effort of reform within the Sub-Commission. A method of coherent means of work should be introduced in the Sub-Commission, and the States should benefit from its expertise.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of Treaty-Body Chairpersons, said only one Committee had so far taken a position on the unified treaty body system, and the others had not yet had a chance to do so as they were not standing bodies, and therefore could not take a stance. On participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in treaty bodies, this varied considerably from one Committee to the other, but it was clear that a treaty body had a mandate to be independent of NGOs, just as they were from States and the mass media. All sources of information were cross-checked and verified.
On duplication, the fear of this was a fear of the Council with respect to procedure that did not yet exist. It was a problem which would no longer be so once the universal periodic review had been implemented. The Council would manage to get a very objective view, as all the information of the treaty bodies would be available. There would be no duplication, but there would be a wealth of information, and the Council would have to search through that. Diversity of sources was not the same as duplication.
SATU SUIKKARI (Finland) said that Finland welcomed the dialogue with the three Chairs. Finland fully aligned itself with the statement made earlier by the representative of Austria on behalf of the European Union. She had one question, which related to the extremely important role that the special procedures would play in the Council. One point that had been made was that the special procedures would be more involved with the work of the treaty bodies, and she wondered if the Chair of the special procedures could elaborate on that.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that Japan recognized the special tasks of the special procedures mechanisms. In order to strengthen the special procedures, it was necessary to reform them in order to make them effective, transparent, impartial and universal.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said in connection with the presentation by the Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee, there were a whole series of criteria with which Argentina agreed. An open invitation for the special procedures should lie at the heart of the functioning of the Council. The mandate holders should remain independent, and have increased funding from the Office. It was important to have an updated roster in order to have a greater wealth of experience and greater resources. The special procedures had helped to raise the awareness of issues that could not be considered through inter-governmental bodies. In this review exercise, the mandate holders for special procedures should be involved because they could make a contribution and be very active players throughout the reform process. The priorities were to be set by the Council itself, however, the considerations going on in the Sub-Commission should not be halted, and that body should express itself as to the ways and means of the universal periodic review. The specificities of the Committees should not be forgotten.
NOEL SERVIGON (Philippines) said that yesterday he had attended a similar dialogue with the Chairperson of the Meeting of Treaty Bodies Chairpersons and he had found that forum to be very useful in enlightening States parties of the views of their treaty bodies. He hoped that yesterday’s informal meeting and this afternoon’s exchange of views would be continued in a regular manner. The human rights mechanism had indeed evolved into a widely encompassing system of international instruments providing for a complex network of expert bodies, with their own procedures. In that regard, the recent adoption by the Inter-Committee Technical Working Group of the harmonized guidelines on reporting under the international human rights treaties, including guidelines on a common core document and treaty-specific documents, was very much welcomed by his delegation. He suggested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights come up with technical assistance activities, such as orientation meetings, training or workshops that would help States parties in preparing reports to treaty bodies.
MANSOOR AHMAD KHAN (Pakistan) said the Special Rapporteurs were contributing in the promotion and protection of human rights. Their role was also very important in that area. The General Assembly resolution on the establishment of the Council had recommended that the Council could establish its own special procedures. The assessment of the Special Rapporteurs of the universal periodic review process was also worth knowing. What were the criteria, which the Sub-Commission proposed, in selecting experts as members of that body? On the treaty bodies, there had been an agreement that they should be reformed. However, there had been large-scale concern on the unified reporting system of the treaty bodies. What difference should the Council make concerning the information emanating from treaty bodies and special procedures?
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said in 2002 Switzerland had issued an open standing invitation to all special procedures, demonstrating the importance that Switzerland gave to the mechanisms of the former Commission. Switzerland aimed to strengthen all the competent former procedures, and in particular supported the recommendation allowing them to interact directly and efficiently with the Council, especially through the conduct of an interactive dialogue. The Council needed to create a mechanism for follow-up with Member States and the special procedures, and one way for doing this would be by involving the latter with the universal periodic review. This would better ensure implementation of recommendations both from the Council and the treaty bodies by the Member States. The High Commissioner should make available to the special procedures all the necessary human and financial resources they required to carry out their important work.
ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA NISHIZAKI (Mexico) said that Mexico welcomed this afternoon’s interactive dialogue with the Chairs of the special procedures, the human rights treaty bodies, and the Sub-Commission. In that regard, she noted that the fundamental principles of impartiality, cooperation and dialogue should be applied across the board to all the bodies of the United Nations human rights system. Among the new reforms in the Council, the principle of non-re-election was an important one.
BASSINE NIANG (Senegal) said that the transition from the Commission to the Council should take into consideration the essential tools of the Commission, such as the special procedures. The new mind-set should be based on dialogue and cooperation.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the special procedures, the Sub-Commission and the treaty bodies were essential bodies of the human rights system, and it was because of this that they should be rationalised. There was little interaction between the special procedures and the delegations, and there should be periodic meetings between the coordinating committee of the special procedures and the regional groups, as this way they would have a better knowledge of the work of the special procedures. The number of special procedures had increased, and this was in a way positive, however there were Special Rapporteurs on issues that did not have a real importance in the context of human rights today, so a number of these should be re-examined in an effort to eliminate those that were somewhat irrelevant.
On the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, it had played a pioneering role as a think-tank on human rights issues. The indefinite renewal of the mandate of the members of the Sub-Commission should be re-examined and an effort towards oxygenation and renovation made. On treaty bodies, the merits and virtues of the efforts to rationalise these were recognised, and it was a commendable effort. First, it was in the right direction, as it promoted more synergy among the bodies, and second, they should be rationalised and reduced, but never at the expense of the important capital of knowledge, experience and know-how that they had brought to the Commission.
PARK YOUNG-HYO (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea would confine its comments to the issue of treaty body reform. The Republic of Korea welcomed the efforts of the treaty bodies working group to unify the process of reporting. The harmonization and streamlining of the working methods of the treaty bodies should also be done by sharing best practices. The Republic of Korea suggested that an inter-committee technical working group be established to look into the possibility of setting up a unified standing treaty body.
PATRICIA SCANELLA, of Human Rights Watch, speaking in ajoint statement with Human Rights Watch; International Service for Human Rights; Amnesty International; and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the non-governmental organizations urged States to ensure that the review of the special procedures would focus on strengthening the system. The establishment of the Council provided a new channel through which the ratification and implementation of the international human rights treaties could be promoted. The Council should draw on treaty bodies’ information in the performance of its tasks, as the treaty bodies were the expert bodies charged with considering States’ implementation of their obligations under the international human rights treaties. That would be particularly important for the proposed universal periodic review. The review should take account of analysis of the priority concerns in a reviewed State as distilled from the findings and recommendations of the treaty bodies.
PATRICK MUTZENBERG, of World Organization Against Torture, speaking in ajoint statement with World Organization Against Torture; Association for the Prevention of Torture; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said on the relationship between the Council and the treaty bodies, it seemed that the establishment of the Council had opened up a new era. The expertise of the treaty bodies was very useful. More specifically, in the universal periodic review, which would consider the compliance of States with their commitments, the treaty bodies would have a particularly important role to play. It would be possible to review the situation in States which had not yet ratified certain treaties. The universal periodic review should in addition make it possible to assess the level of cooperation by States parties with the treaty bodies. The Human Rights Council, if it were to be credible, would have to remind States that the failure to submit periodic reports was a failure to live up to their obligations. The role of the Council could also be very relevant with regards to follow-up.
PENNY L. PARKER, of Minnesota Advocates of Human Rights, said that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights served a valuable role as an independent expert body in the United Nations human rights system. The Minnesota Advocates strongly urged the Council to keep the Sub-Commission, or an expert body substantially like it. The Minnesota Advocates believed that any fair-minded review of the overall mechanisms of the Sub-Commission would see a clear role for a professional group of independent experts who could collaborate collegially, interact with non-governmental organizations, and provide valuable inputs into the system. Clearly, improvements could be made to the existing selection process and operational modalities of the Sub-Commission. Any body that replaced the Sub-Commission should be expert, independent, geographically representative and able to deal with a broad mandate of relevant human rights issues. But, most importantly, any such body should repeat and build on the Sub-Commission’s unparalleled success of opening doors, listening to, and offering meaningful participation for all interested stakeholders in the human rights world.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, said that the absence of mainstreaming the gender perspective as a process in a systematic manner at the Commission was an important lacuna in bringing coherence to the work of the special procedures. It often confused women’s specific rights and gender equality. Women’s rights continued to be looked at and couched in welfare concepts and of women as victims rather than looking at the differential impact and discriminatory practices that disadvantaged women in achieving equality with men. They ignored women as also being actors and catalysts of change, notably in peace and rights to development.
ANARUDHA RAO, of International Women’s Rights Watch (Asia Pacific), urged the Council to integrate gender equality into its work. Ensuring the human rights of women was vital to respecting human rights universally. It had been widely recognized that women experienced multiple forms of discrimination. Gender mainstreaming in all aspects of the UN human rights work had been talked about, but not enough had been done to truly internalise and therefore implement that policy. The Council was also encouraged to adopt a human rights approach to gender equality using the principles of and standards set by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Council was further urged to adopt a consistent and holistic approach to human rights promotion, protection and monitoring.
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said that the special procedures were very open to ideas, and knew there was always room for improvement. The delegation that had suggested interaction with the regional groups was thanked, and that would be concretised and would be maximised in the future. The need for concrete, meaningful and adequate access for the Coordinating Committee to the Council was also emphasised. It was essential for the Council to ensure that there was no protection gap in human rights, especially under the United Nations, and in the spirit of the resolution which had established the Council, this was emphasised further. On the universal periodic review, the special procedures emphasised the need for this to focus on the recommendations and findings of the independent bodies in the review process. The measure of cooperation by States with the review would also be assessed. On the review of the mandates themselves, they were open to discourse. The need for the mechanisms concerned to be independent had been highlighted, but there were other issues that required to be underlined, such as the need for accessible processes and mechanisms for those who were affected by human rights violations, and this was offered by the special procedures.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the Fifty-seventh Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that he felt that the interactive dialogue had been very, very productive. He found it both useful and suggestive to consider Argentina’s suggestion that the Sub-Commission look not just to the previous body, but that it looked to the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council and other human rights documents in considering how to set up a successor.
In response to a question from Pakistan, objectivity and independence were more objectives than criterion for candidates for the new Sub-Commission, Mr. Salama felt. It was up to the Council to strike the balance between micromanaging and highly selective standards for those candidates. With regard to the comments from the Minnesota Advocates, he felt that the Sub-Commission had had an inherently different dynamic with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and one that was more conducive to cooperation and interaction than the Commission itself. Concerning whether NGOs should come to the Sub-Commission this year, as it was to consider procedural and institutional questions, that was an open question. But he thought that NGOs had something to gain in terms of procedural and institutional thinking. But they could not pretend that it was business as usual. They had to come to try and open up and widen the scope of NGOs and ameliorate their role in the future.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that she had attempted to link the work of the treaty bodies and the Council. The concluding observations and recommendations would provide new impetus to the work of the Council. The recommendations of those treaty bodies should be respected and implemented by States. The treaty bodies covered a wide range of human rights in the reporting State. In its future work, the Council could use the recommendations of the treaty bodies, particularly while setting standards.
* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record
HRHRC06016E
AFTERNOON
23 June 2006
Council Adopts Programme of Work
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, the Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies.
Speakers wondered if the “breath of fresh air” that several felt the Council represented would be extended to the special procedures, and how they would be affected. While many felt that the special procedures were a fundamental, essential element of the human rights system, and greater dialogue with them in the Council was welcomed, one speaker said that problems such as politicisation, selectivity and double standards, which underlay the former Commission, could be linked to a large extent to the Special Rapporteurs, who he said were also contaminated.
A speaker noted that Member States had an historic opportunity to achieve greater coherence between the different components of the United Nations human rights system. In that regard, several speakers welcomed the adoption of the draft harmonized reporting guidelines for the United Nations human rights treaty bodies by the Inter-Committee Meeting. Several speakers welcomed the input of the special procedures into the new universal periodic review to be held by the Council, but wondered how the Council could strike the right balance in that regard, and not duplicate or undermine the work of the special procedures.
Vitit Muntarbhorn, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said the special procedures gave a voice to the voiceless victims of abuses, and their reports provided a starting point for discussion on the concrete measures that Governments needed to take to put a stop to human rights violations, and to ensure that human rights were protected in the future. Their independence from external political or other influences was the crucial element that enabled them to fulfil their functions with true impartiality.
Ibrahim Salama, Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that the new Human Rights Council needed advisory services from other bodies in order to succeed in its work. On its side, the Sub-Commission had been focusing on changes to be adopted by its members. It had even thought to change its name to the “Human Rights Advisory Committee”. The method of choosing the independent members of the Sub-Commission should also be given some thought; States should not freely choose themselves the members of the Sub-Commission. The Member States should also debate the issue of qualitative selection of the members.
Christine Chanet, Chairperson of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that the treaty bodies welcomed the potential that the universal periodic review would have to provide a framework for a broader and a different kind of scrutiny than that available in the context of the human rights treaty body system. Treaty bodies were also of the view that the objective and reliable information that formed the basis of that review should include the findings and recommendations that were reflected in their concluding observations. While there had been some opportunity for treaty body chairpersons to interact with the Commission on Human Rights, those modalities for interaction had been relatively undeveloped. It was the treaty bodies hope that occasions such as today would be a regular feature of the Council, so that they could reflect on their complementary roles in their mutual quest to ensure comprehensive protection of the rights of all.
Taking part in the debate this afternoon were the representatives of Cuba, Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, Canada, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Chile, Finland, Japan, Argentina, the Philippines, Pakistan, Switzerland, Mexico, Senegal, Brazil and the Republic of Korea.
Also speaking were the representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Human Rights Watch, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, International Federation of University Women, and International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia-Pacific.
At the end of the meeting the Council adopted the programme of work for its current session.
In order to have a productive meeting on Monday, 26 June, at which pressing human rights questions were to be considered, and on the basis of consultations, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the President of the Council, proposed, and the Council agreed, that it would consider specific issues, among others, the human rights situation in the occupied territories, including Palestine; support for the Abuja Peace Agreement; backing efforts for the strengthening of the promotion and protection of human rights; avoiding incitement to hatred and violence through the promotion of tolerance and dialogue; and an interactive discussion on the human rights of migrants in the context of the high-level dialogue to take place at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
The next plenary session of the Council will begin on Monday, 26 June, at 9 a.m. when discussion on the above mentioned issues will start.
Introductory Statements
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said the establishment of the new Council was a window of opportunity to reinvigorate efforts to promote and protect the global human rights system. Special procedures gave a voice to the voiceless victims of abuses, and their reports provided a starting point for discussion on the concrete measures that Governments needed to take to put a stop to human rights violations, and to ensure that human rights were protected in the future. Over the years, that voice had brought credibility and integrity to the human rights machinery, providing daily protection to victims of human rights violations in all parts of the world, and working with Member States to make human rights protection more effective.
Their independence of the special procedures from external political or other influences was the crucial element which enabled them to fulfil their functions with true impartiality. To retain this unique quality, it was important that potential mandate-holders were in no way perceived to be partisan. General Assembly resolution 60/251 on the Human Rights Council that had called for the maintenance of a system of special procedures was welcomed, and they wished to be actively involved with the process of review, which should lead, among others, to the strengthening of the special procedures system, and to a greater synergy between the latter and the rest of the United Nations system for the protection of human rights. The Council should recognise the essential role of the special procedures in strengthening human rights protection by taking certain steps. The special procedures stood ready to take up the challenge to respond to increased expectations for the benefit of all who continued to look upon them for effective protection of their rights.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the 57th Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that the new Human Rights Council needed advisory services from other bodies in order to succeed in its work. On its side, the Sub-Commission had been focusing on changes to be adopted by its members. It had even thought to change its name to the “Human Rights Advisory Committee”. The method of choosing the independent members of the Sub-Commission should also be given some thought; States should not freely choose themselves the members of the Sub-Commission. The Member States should also debate the issue of qualitative selection of the members. The Sub-Commission had also prepared studies to be taken up by States during any future session. The working groups relating to the Sub-Commission should meet earlier than the Sub-Commission to prepare their work and in order to provide them with ample time. That way, the meeting period of two-weeks would be enough for the Sub-Commission to accomplish its work instead of three at present. The Social Forum, which was established by the Sub-Commission, gave an opportunity to the most vulnerable to express their views and it should be preserved. The assessments made by the Sub-Commission would also be an ingredient to the work of the Human Rights Council.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that each of the Chairpersons of the seven human rights treaty bodies recognized that the creation of the Council provided, as the High Commissioner had said, a historic opportunity to improve the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms of people around the world. They were conscious that the Council provided a new avenue through which ratification and implementation of human rights treaties could be promoted. General Assembly resolution 60/251 had provided the Human Rights Council with a broad mandate, including to promote human rights education; to provide technical assistance; to serve as a forum for human rights dialogue; and to promote implementation of human rights obligations undertaken by States. As the independent expert bodies overseeing implementation by States of their obligations under human rights treaties, the treaty bodies had information and experience vital to those functions.
Ms. Chanet said that the treaty bodies welcomed the potential that the universal periodic review would have to provide a framework for a broader and a different kind of scrutiny than that available in the context of the human rights treaty body system. Treaty bodies were also of the view that the objective and reliable information that formed the basis of that review should include the findings and recommendations which were reflected in their concluding observations. The treaty bodies had been very interested in the voluntary pledges that States had submitted with their candidatures to the Council. They had asked that those be included in their sessional files, so that the commitments in the pledges related to ratification, reporting and implementation could be discussed. The meeting this afternoon was particularly welcome, as a signal that the treaty bodies would be able to develop a specific relationship with the Council. While there had been some opportunity for treaty body chairpersons to interact with the Commission on Human Rights, those modalities for interaction had been relatively undeveloped. It was the treaty bodies hope that occasions such as today would be a regularly feature of the Council, so that they could reflect on their complementary roles in their mutual quest to ensure comprehensive protection of the rights of all. All knew that the treaty bodies had been discussing the High Commissioner’s idea of a unified standing treaty body and her concept paper on the subject. The treaty bodies welcomed her vision and leadership and, while they had many questions, they were inspired to work harder to ensure that the treaty body system was as effective as possible, while at the same time ensuring that it was accessible, visible and non-duplicative.
Interactive Dialogue
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that with regards to the statement of the Chairperson of the Special Procedures, it could not be ignored that problems such as politicisation, selectivity and double standards, which underlay the former Commission, could be linked to a large extent to the Special Rapporteurs per country, who were also contaminated. Was this new Council a breath of fresh air with regards to the continuity of the past, he asked, as, keeping the system as it was implied having to be aware of its imperfections, and there had been many procedures and resolutions adopted unfairly. How would paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 be implemented, and was the idea to retain what had been in existence before, he asked.
With regards to the statement of the Vice-Chair of the Sub-Commission, he should take note that almost all agreed on the need to extend the special procedures, but a different sort of logic was being applied to the Sub-Commission. Cuba, as a member of the Council, believed that the Sub-Commission should be meeting in August, and be part of the review process.
ELISABETH ELLISON-KRAMER (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that at this historic juncture, Member States had an historic opportunity to achieve greater coherence between the different components of the United Nations human rights system. The European Union would contribute actively to the review process of mandates as per General Assembly resolution 60/251, in order to strengthen the effectiveness of human rights protection under the Human Rights Council. The European Union reiterated the importance which it attached to the system of special procedures, and welcomed the view of the Special Rapporteurs on their future work and collaboration with the Human Rights Council. The European Union emphasized the importance of the independence and expertise of the special procedures mandate holders and expressed its satisfaction that an increasing number of Governments had developed a working relationship with them, including by expressing general acceptance of requests to visits from special procedures. The European Union called on all States to do likewise.
The European Union attached the greatest importance to the work of the treaty monitoring bodies. By scrutinizing implementation and providing expert advice, treaty monitoring bodies played a crucial role in promoting the effective implementation of States’ human rights obligations. A particular element the European Union wished to highlight regarding the universal periodic review was that that the General Assembly resolution required that the system of periodic review did not duplicate or overlap with the work of the treaty bodies. The European Union attached great importance to ensuring that the system developed for the universal periodic review drew upon the recommendations of the treaty bodies and the special procedures. The European Union would welcome any thoughts and insights that the Chairs might have on how they could strike the right balance in that regard, while not duplicating or undermining their work.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the notion of independence of the special procedures should be understood as being independent from States, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their independence from any influence by States and NGOs should be guaranteed so that they could accomplish their work freely. The length of their mandates should also be kept as it was.
HENRI PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) said the three presentations had been very useful, and the issues raised were of paramount importance for the efficiency of the new Council. The special procedures were among the most important tools for the promotion and protection of human rights. To be effective, they should have the full and total cooperation of States, and this was true in particular of the Member States of the Council, who had the special duty to cooperate with the special procedures. What did the Chairs think of the idea of publishing a report every so often as to the results of the requests for visits from States? How did the special procedures strengthen their ability to coordinate visits by the Special Rapporteurs?
Canada gave the views of the treaties bodies due consideration. It was an opportunity to continue the reform of the United Nations human rights system, and this would ensure better implementation by States of their treaty body obligations. The potential for synergy could be found in the concluding observations of the treaty bodies, which should be channelled to the universal periodic review. What efforts had been made to clarify and standardise the participation of non-governmental organizations in the treaty bodies?
GRIGORI LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said that in the Russian Federation’s view, one of the most important objectives for strengthening the human rights sector of the United Nations was the clear reform of the human rights bodies. They had seen that in the report of the High Commissioner and in the concept paper on the treaty bodies. He asked for the assessment of the Chairs on those ideas, as well as that of the Treaty Bodies Chair on the establishment of a unified treaty body system, and the merging of the various treaty bodies.
With regard to the universal periodic review, the Russian Federation was convinced that this review would become one of the fundamental elements of the new Council. In that connection, he would like to hear from the Chairs their views on how the treaty bodies would work in complement to that new system. Finally, a proposal had been made some time ago to develop a code of conduct for the special procedures. The authors of that initiative believed that such a code would enhance their prestige, credibility and transparency. What did the special procedures think of establishing such a code?
MOCHAMAD S. HIDAYAT (Indonesia) said Indonesia fully supported the special procedures, which were meaningful tools to help promoting and protecting human rights and preventing violations. It was a mere coincidence that the special procedures should be reformed to make them a more solid system of reinforcing the human rights in the effort to promote and protect. In the past, there had been lack of codes of ethics for the special procedures, while now the Council was committed to elaborate one. The special procedures comprised of independent experts with whom Indonesia had cooperated with in the past.
PATRICIO UTRERAS (Chile) said Chile, with its retrieval of democracy and strengthening of human rights, had played a role in the work of the special procedures, which had played an important role with the development of human rights in Latin and South America. The special procedures should continue this role in various areas of the world. The creation of the Council clearly indicated the will of the international community to strengthen the human rights system within the United Nations, making it work more effectively as a true system. One key issue was review and possibly rationalisation of the system. Chile considered it was necessary to preserve the main characteristic of the system, namely, independence, however, the consistency of the system on both thematic and formal issues should be improved and rationalised. It was clear that what was required first was to build the motivation for rationalisation.
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said that, starting with the question of whether the new Council represented a fresh start – “was it new wine in an old bottle, or old wine in a new bottle?” – this was a fresh opportunity, but one that would capitalize on the achievements of the past. Many participants had recognized the positive features that had existed in the Commission on Human Rights in the past, including the special procedures. They would build on the value added from the past, while strengthening those mechanisms. One key value added of the special procedures was the ability to listen to the voices of the victims on the ground. The role of the special procedures should be normative on the one hand, but also preventative on the other.
In the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council, the word cooperation appeared frequently. He liked to think that included cooperation with the special procedures. Another word was dialogue, and that should surely mean dialogue among all key stakeholders. Regarding the universal periodic review, the special procedures had already addressed that issue in their earlier statement. They had consulted substantively on that issue. They did recognize the need for constructive change, and they had already looked at the issue very concretely in their own setting, as well as with regard to the work that took place in the Council. In the future, areas of concern for special procedures were early warning and making special procedures central to the process of the universal periodic review, as well as the treaty bodies.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the 57th Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said the Sub-Commission was the only UN body that had a general mandate and it was attempting to inject all aspects of human rights in its work. States should give their confidence in the effort of reform within the Sub-Commission. A method of coherent means of work should be introduced in the Sub-Commission, and the States should benefit from its expertise.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of Treaty-Body Chairpersons, said only one Committee had so far taken a position on the unified treaty body system, and the others had not yet had a chance to do so as they were not standing bodies, and therefore could not take a stance. On participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in treaty bodies, this varied considerably from one Committee to the other, but it was clear that a treaty body had a mandate to be independent of NGOs, just as they were from States and the mass media. All sources of information were cross-checked and verified.
On duplication, the fear of this was a fear of the Council with respect to procedure that did not yet exist. It was a problem which would no longer be so once the universal periodic review had been implemented. The Council would manage to get a very objective view, as all the information of the treaty bodies would be available. There would be no duplication, but there would be a wealth of information, and the Council would have to search through that. Diversity of sources was not the same as duplication.
SATU SUIKKARI (Finland) said that Finland welcomed the dialogue with the three Chairs. Finland fully aligned itself with the statement made earlier by the representative of Austria on behalf of the European Union. She had one question, which related to the extremely important role that the special procedures would play in the Council. One point that had been made was that the special procedures would be more involved with the work of the treaty bodies, and she wondered if the Chair of the special procedures could elaborate on that.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that Japan recognized the special tasks of the special procedures mechanisms. In order to strengthen the special procedures, it was necessary to reform them in order to make them effective, transparent, impartial and universal.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said in connection with the presentation by the Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee, there were a whole series of criteria with which Argentina agreed. An open invitation for the special procedures should lie at the heart of the functioning of the Council. The mandate holders should remain independent, and have increased funding from the Office. It was important to have an updated roster in order to have a greater wealth of experience and greater resources. The special procedures had helped to raise the awareness of issues that could not be considered through inter-governmental bodies. In this review exercise, the mandate holders for special procedures should be involved because they could make a contribution and be very active players throughout the reform process. The priorities were to be set by the Council itself, however, the considerations going on in the Sub-Commission should not be halted, and that body should express itself as to the ways and means of the universal periodic review. The specificities of the Committees should not be forgotten.
NOEL SERVIGON (Philippines) said that yesterday he had attended a similar dialogue with the Chairperson of the Meeting of Treaty Bodies Chairpersons and he had found that forum to be very useful in enlightening States parties of the views of their treaty bodies. He hoped that yesterday’s informal meeting and this afternoon’s exchange of views would be continued in a regular manner. The human rights mechanism had indeed evolved into a widely encompassing system of international instruments providing for a complex network of expert bodies, with their own procedures. In that regard, the recent adoption by the Inter-Committee Technical Working Group of the harmonized guidelines on reporting under the international human rights treaties, including guidelines on a common core document and treaty-specific documents, was very much welcomed by his delegation. He suggested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights come up with technical assistance activities, such as orientation meetings, training or workshops that would help States parties in preparing reports to treaty bodies.
MANSOOR AHMAD KHAN (Pakistan) said the Special Rapporteurs were contributing in the promotion and protection of human rights. Their role was also very important in that area. The General Assembly resolution on the establishment of the Council had recommended that the Council could establish its own special procedures. The assessment of the Special Rapporteurs of the universal periodic review process was also worth knowing. What were the criteria, which the Sub-Commission proposed, in selecting experts as members of that body? On the treaty bodies, there had been an agreement that they should be reformed. However, there had been large-scale concern on the unified reporting system of the treaty bodies. What difference should the Council make concerning the information emanating from treaty bodies and special procedures?
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said in 2002 Switzerland had issued an open standing invitation to all special procedures, demonstrating the importance that Switzerland gave to the mechanisms of the former Commission. Switzerland aimed to strengthen all the competent former procedures, and in particular supported the recommendation allowing them to interact directly and efficiently with the Council, especially through the conduct of an interactive dialogue. The Council needed to create a mechanism for follow-up with Member States and the special procedures, and one way for doing this would be by involving the latter with the universal periodic review. This would better ensure implementation of recommendations both from the Council and the treaty bodies by the Member States. The High Commissioner should make available to the special procedures all the necessary human and financial resources they required to carry out their important work.
ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA NISHIZAKI (Mexico) said that Mexico welcomed this afternoon’s interactive dialogue with the Chairs of the special procedures, the human rights treaty bodies, and the Sub-Commission. In that regard, she noted that the fundamental principles of impartiality, cooperation and dialogue should be applied across the board to all the bodies of the United Nations human rights system. Among the new reforms in the Council, the principle of non-re-election was an important one.
BASSINE NIANG (Senegal) said that the transition from the Commission to the Council should take into consideration the essential tools of the Commission, such as the special procedures. The new mind-set should be based on dialogue and cooperation.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the special procedures, the Sub-Commission and the treaty bodies were essential bodies of the human rights system, and it was because of this that they should be rationalised. There was little interaction between the special procedures and the delegations, and there should be periodic meetings between the coordinating committee of the special procedures and the regional groups, as this way they would have a better knowledge of the work of the special procedures. The number of special procedures had increased, and this was in a way positive, however there were Special Rapporteurs on issues that did not have a real importance in the context of human rights today, so a number of these should be re-examined in an effort to eliminate those that were somewhat irrelevant.
On the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, it had played a pioneering role as a think-tank on human rights issues. The indefinite renewal of the mandate of the members of the Sub-Commission should be re-examined and an effort towards oxygenation and renovation made. On treaty bodies, the merits and virtues of the efforts to rationalise these were recognised, and it was a commendable effort. First, it was in the right direction, as it promoted more synergy among the bodies, and second, they should be rationalised and reduced, but never at the expense of the important capital of knowledge, experience and know-how that they had brought to the Commission.
PARK YOUNG-HYO (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea would confine its comments to the issue of treaty body reform. The Republic of Korea welcomed the efforts of the treaty bodies working group to unify the process of reporting. The harmonization and streamlining of the working methods of the treaty bodies should also be done by sharing best practices. The Republic of Korea suggested that an inter-committee technical working group be established to look into the possibility of setting up a unified standing treaty body.
PATRICIA SCANELLA, of Human Rights Watch, speaking in ajoint statement with Human Rights Watch; International Service for Human Rights; Amnesty International; and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the non-governmental organizations urged States to ensure that the review of the special procedures would focus on strengthening the system. The establishment of the Council provided a new channel through which the ratification and implementation of the international human rights treaties could be promoted. The Council should draw on treaty bodies’ information in the performance of its tasks, as the treaty bodies were the expert bodies charged with considering States’ implementation of their obligations under the international human rights treaties. That would be particularly important for the proposed universal periodic review. The review should take account of analysis of the priority concerns in a reviewed State as distilled from the findings and recommendations of the treaty bodies.
PATRICK MUTZENBERG, of World Organization Against Torture, speaking in ajoint statement with World Organization Against Torture; Association for the Prevention of Torture; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said on the relationship between the Council and the treaty bodies, it seemed that the establishment of the Council had opened up a new era. The expertise of the treaty bodies was very useful. More specifically, in the universal periodic review, which would consider the compliance of States with their commitments, the treaty bodies would have a particularly important role to play. It would be possible to review the situation in States which had not yet ratified certain treaties. The universal periodic review should in addition make it possible to assess the level of cooperation by States parties with the treaty bodies. The Human Rights Council, if it were to be credible, would have to remind States that the failure to submit periodic reports was a failure to live up to their obligations. The role of the Council could also be very relevant with regards to follow-up.
PENNY L. PARKER, of Minnesota Advocates of Human Rights, said that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights served a valuable role as an independent expert body in the United Nations human rights system. The Minnesota Advocates strongly urged the Council to keep the Sub-Commission, or an expert body substantially like it. The Minnesota Advocates believed that any fair-minded review of the overall mechanisms of the Sub-Commission would see a clear role for a professional group of independent experts who could collaborate collegially, interact with non-governmental organizations, and provide valuable inputs into the system. Clearly, improvements could be made to the existing selection process and operational modalities of the Sub-Commission. Any body that replaced the Sub-Commission should be expert, independent, geographically representative and able to deal with a broad mandate of relevant human rights issues. But, most importantly, any such body should repeat and build on the Sub-Commission’s unparalleled success of opening doors, listening to, and offering meaningful participation for all interested stakeholders in the human rights world.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, said that the absence of mainstreaming the gender perspective as a process in a systematic manner at the Commission was an important lacuna in bringing coherence to the work of the special procedures. It often confused women’s specific rights and gender equality. Women’s rights continued to be looked at and couched in welfare concepts and of women as victims rather than looking at the differential impact and discriminatory practices that disadvantaged women in achieving equality with men. They ignored women as also being actors and catalysts of change, notably in peace and rights to development.
ANARUDHA RAO, of International Women’s Rights Watch (Asia Pacific), urged the Council to integrate gender equality into its work. Ensuring the human rights of women was vital to respecting human rights universally. It had been widely recognized that women experienced multiple forms of discrimination. Gender mainstreaming in all aspects of the UN human rights work had been talked about, but not enough had been done to truly internalise and therefore implement that policy. The Council was also encouraged to adopt a human rights approach to gender equality using the principles of and standards set by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Council was further urged to adopt a consistent and holistic approach to human rights promotion, protection and monitoring.
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of Special Procedures, said that the special procedures were very open to ideas, and knew there was always room for improvement. The delegation that had suggested interaction with the regional groups was thanked, and that would be concretised and would be maximised in the future. The need for concrete, meaningful and adequate access for the Coordinating Committee to the Council was also emphasised. It was essential for the Council to ensure that there was no protection gap in human rights, especially under the United Nations, and in the spirit of the resolution which had established the Council, this was emphasised further. On the universal periodic review, the special procedures emphasised the need for this to focus on the recommendations and findings of the independent bodies in the review process. The measure of cooperation by States with the review would also be assessed. On the review of the mandates themselves, they were open to discourse. The need for the mechanisms concerned to be independent had been highlighted, but there were other issues that required to be underlined, such as the need for accessible processes and mechanisms for those who were affected by human rights violations, and this was offered by the special procedures.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Vice-Chairperson of the Fifty-seventh Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that he felt that the interactive dialogue had been very, very productive. He found it both useful and suggestive to consider Argentina’s suggestion that the Sub-Commission look not just to the previous body, but that it looked to the General Assembly resolution establishing the Council and other human rights documents in considering how to set up a successor.
In response to a question from Pakistan, objectivity and independence were more objectives than criterion for candidates for the new Sub-Commission, Mr. Salama felt. It was up to the Council to strike the balance between micromanaging and highly selective standards for those candidates. With regard to the comments from the Minnesota Advocates, he felt that the Sub-Commission had had an inherently different dynamic with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and one that was more conducive to cooperation and interaction than the Commission itself. Concerning whether NGOs should come to the Sub-Commission this year, as it was to consider procedural and institutional questions, that was an open question. But he thought that NGOs had something to gain in terms of procedural and institutional thinking. But they could not pretend that it was business as usual. They had to come to try and open up and widen the scope of NGOs and ameliorate their role in the future.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, said that she had attempted to link the work of the treaty bodies and the Council. The concluding observations and recommendations would provide new impetus to the work of the Council. The recommendations of those treaty bodies should be respected and implemented by States. The treaty bodies covered a wide range of human rights in the reporting State. In its future work, the Council could use the recommendations of the treaty bodies, particularly while setting standards.
* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record
HRHRC06016E