Informal note on the press briefing by the Chairman of the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Ambassador Jakob Selebi (South Africa)

23 March 1998


In his introduction, Amb. Selebi said he hoped this session of the Commission would make a difference in the promotion and protection of human rights. Although it was too early to assess progress, a number of steps were already underway in areas of concern. In the coming six weeks, the Commission would adopt a Declaration of human rights defenders, seeking to defend those working for the protection of human rights. It would examine the relation between the Commission on the Status of Women and the Human Rights Commission. In the coming week, the Chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women would make a statement and would initiate a discussion on how to integrate the status of women in its agenda.

Amb. Selebi said he would issue an explanatory note on how he envisaged the review of the mechanisms of the Commission. At this point there was a general acceptance of the need to review the mechanisms of the Commission; to see how they could be made more effective; how the Commission could avoid duplication. The real difference, however, was to be measured by the respect of human rights by Governments, to ensure that their own people enjoy these rights. At the end of the meeting in six weeks he hoped the Commission would be able to say that it had made a difference in certain areas. He expressed the hope that the media would keep abreast with developments so as to share these achievement.

An area of importance, was the reform of the agenda, Mr. Selebi continued. The agenda should be an agenda more relevant to our times. One area of special importance, in this reform, was how to deal with the gender issue.

In order to improve the work of the Commission, Mr. Selebi said certain steps were already taken, such as starting meetings on time and observing strict time limits for speakers. Although the Commission received a high number of dignitaries, it was still on schedule; this was a real improvement and was a first step towards making a difference.

Asked whether the Chairman was trying to move away from country procedures towards the direction of thematic and collaborative ones, Mr. Selebi said the answer was "No." However, he would like to deal with both questions on an equal footing. It was important to deal with country specific resolutions and debates, and one should not diminish that role. As a result thematic questions of importance, such as racism and torture, needed to be elevated but there was no intention to diminish the importance of special procedures on countries.

Noting that Israel and the Occupied Territories were still taking a whole week of the Commission's time, a correspondent asked whether it was not time to treat it as other countries under the same agenda item? Mr. Selebi said that as things stood, it was virtually impossible to consider the situation in Israel under a separate agenda item. There was going to be a difficulty, as the peace process had actually stopped and it would be difficult to get the countries of that region to agree to the removal of agenda item 4. The journalist added that the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Halinen, wanted to have his mandate broadened, so that he could include all human rights abuses in the territories and not only those committed by Israel. Mr. Selebi said he would support any movement by the members of the Commission in that direction, however, it was not something that he could determine on his own. The Commission should look at human rights violations where ever they occurred, and by whomever they were committed.

Wasn't it shocking that Western Europe, the United States and others had given up any attempts to bring a resolution against China, one journalist asked, and was this not evidence that the principle of the no action motion was being allowed to exercise a strangle hold on the Commission's work. Mr. Selebi said he could not speak on behalf of the European Union and others. Their representatives had said they did not want to jeopardize the current dialogue with China with a proposal for a resolution. Mr. Selebi said that if this dialogue was unsuccessful, he would be sorry this had taken place. The journalist further asked whether they would consider eliminating the no action motion as an instrument of the Commission's work. Mr. Selebi said he personally and his country were not favourable to this procedure. However, tt would require a huge campaign to change the rules of procedures. If it was in his power to revise the rules of procedures he would have done so.

Will the reform of the agenda include the over-politicization of the Commission? one journalist asked. Mr. Selebi said "human rights were politics". This was unavoidable. However, when reforming the agenda, he said it was necessary to ensure the agenda itself corresponded to daily life. The Commission considered issues that were clearly political and territorial. For example, countries had failed to take a clear political decision at the time of the problems in Eastern Zaire, now Congo, where there was a necessity to separate refugees from militants involved in the genocide. They substituted taking a political decision by sending a human rights mechanism in that place. "This was a recipe for failure". One needed something stronger than a rapporteur to deal with this. The review would look at such issues and see where the Commission could make a difference; could it solve problems where there were obvious territorial and political questions, not only human rights issues. Human rights were violated as a consequence of serious political misunderstandings. The objective would be to say the Commission could achieve this , but it could not do that because it was beyond its mandate.

Asked about the practice and what measures could be taken if the governments did not respond to the Commission in a manner that makes a difference, Mr. Selebi said that governments did not like being put on the spotlight in the Commission. The fact that so many ministers came to address the Commission meant that the Commission did do something that the governments wanted to respond. That was the reason why they were so many rights of reply. There are a few governments that did not respect the mechanism of the Commission. The chairman said it was his duty , while reviewing the mechanism of the Commission, to obtain commitments by the governments to respect those mechanism they had put in place. The more we could put pressure and push governments to accept the mechanism, the more we would make the difference, Mr Selebi added.

Asked whether he intended to give a "more activist role" to the Commission, the Chairman said the Commission should not be seen as an event that takes place for six weeks. A review had to be done between this session and next session of the Commission. There was no other way of promoting human rights either than being activist about it. He said he agreed with the High Commissioner that saw her role as that of an activist.

Noting that some countries like China and Mexico for example, were using legality in order to cover impunity for violations of human rights , a journalist asked how far the Commission could go in its activist role. Mr. Selebi said the struggle to protect human rights was not easy. The Secretary General of the United Nations in his reforms had shown the courage to be engaged in the struggle. In South Africa there was a nation-wide struggle to promote human rights. He would do the same as Chairman of the Commission by saying to the governments why they had not respected their commitments. NGOs had a very big contribution to make in this struggle and the Commission would work very closely to them.

The main aim of the review, Mr. Selebi added, was to make sure that the mechanisms of the Commission were effective and that they generate the respect that they must generate. It would involve the review of the bodies that report to the Commission such as the Sub- Commission, the working groups, the special procedures. It would be undertaken by two coordinators, members of the Bureau. They would have the task of conducting informal consultations between now and 1999. They would consult with governments, NGOs as well as the High Commissioner in order to make sure that everyone, including the media, had the opportunity to say in which direction the mechanism should be improved. They would carry this task for a year and would present the results of their consultations to the next session of the Commission. At the end of that session, no governments could say these mechanisms were done by someone, somewhere without their involvement, Mr. Selebi continued.

The reform of the agenda would be discussed at this session in plenary. It would be adopted as next year agenda. As one example, the issue of gender was not dealt with in an organised manner under the present agenda. Therefore, it had to be included under a specific agenda item. Concerning the Declaration on the Human rights defenders , the Commission must not only adopt the Declaration, it had to add to its agenda an item on how countries observe these rights of defenders, he said.

A journalist asked how did the Commission relate these new reforms to former reforms adopted by the World Conference in Vienna. Mr. Said he believed in renewal. Reforms were needed because there was a need for renewal. One of the areas of reform was to make sure that there was cooperation all around, not only for six weeks, but outside the days of the Commission. One could never tire of trying to make sure that there was more cooperation in order to achieve the goals of the protection of human rights , Mr. Selebi concluded.