Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION DEBATES ITS METHODS OF WORK WITH CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
10 August 1998
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/SC/98/9
10 August 1998
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this afternoon heard proposals for modifications to its methods of work.
Jacob Selebi, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, opened the debate by stating that five areas of the Subcommission's work needed attention. He warned the Subcommission that before adopting a resolution, it first had to determine whether it had proper expertise, and if there was any doubt, it should be very reluctant to express unsubstantiated views.
Mr. Selebi, who used to be the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva and as of July 1 was Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, said the credibility of the Subcommission was not enhanced when it sent casual expressions of thoughts based on inadequate deliberations and very thin expertise to the Commission for approval, as had happened when it proposed a study on scientific and technological developments. He and others also called for greater efforts by Subcommission experts to maintain their independence.
Several national delegations -- India, Turkey and China among them -- then went on to question the Subcommission's practice of considering human-rights situations in specific countries and to call for greater attention and allocation of resources to issues of development and economic, social and cultural rights.
A representative of the non-governmental organization (NGO) the Carter Centre pointed out, however, that a special rapporteur on Rwanda in 1993 had written a report that if acted on might have prevented the subsequent genocidal conflict. She contended that consideration of situations in specific countries was vital for promoting human rights. A representative of the NGO International
United Nations Information Service at Geneva Press Releases are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.unog.ch
Federation for Human Rights contended that the Subcommission's most important work in the past had been in creating and maintaining respect for human rights in specific countries, often by adopting resolutions on them.
Concluding the meeting, Chairman Selebi announced a series of private sessions for Tuesday at which specific proposals for Subcommission work methods would be discussed with national delegations and NGOs.
Addressing the afternoon meeting were representatives of Honduras, China, India, Korea, Turkey, Austria, the United States, Senegal, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Egypt, and Pakistan. The NGO Human Rights Internet also took the floor.
Subcommission expert Jose Bengoa and Mona Rishmawi, Chairperson of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups of the Special Procedures and Advisory Services Programme of the Commission on Human Rights also spoke.
Present during the meeting were the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and the Vice Presidents of the Commission on Human Rights, L. Gallegos Chiriboga, Iftekar A. Chowdhury, R. Hynes, R. Kuzniar,
The Subcommission will reconvene in public session at 10 a.m. tomorrow when it will take up debate on economic, social, and cultural rights.
Statements
JACOB SELEBI, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, who used to be the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva and as of July 1, was Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, noted that while the appearance of the Chairperson of the Commission before the Subcommission was a tradition of many years, it was particularly critical this year in the context of the Subcommission’s discussion of its working methods. The Commission on Human Rights had called on the Subcommission to devote sufficient time to the preparation of specific recommendations on its working methods for consideration by the Commission. The Commission had noted the Subcommission’s continued efforts to avoid duplication of the work of the Commission with regards to specific country situations, and expected more reform efforts this summer on other matters.
Mr. Selebi said the Commission had authorized the members of the Bureau to undertake a review of the mechanisms of the Commission with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of those mechanisms. The Subcommission was a prominent mechanism of the Commission, and should contribute to the review by making recommendations for improvements, and by clearly indicating how it made a unique contribution to the human rights field.
The Subcommission should utilize its public meetings for input from Governments and NGOs, and should in general try not to draft its resolutions in public, Mr. Selebi stated. Public meetings should be used for the adoption of resolutions. The draft programme of work should provide for more private meetings and fewer public meetings.
Resolution 1998/28 mentioned five areas of the work of the Subcommission that required attention, Mr. Selebi said. The Subcommission should: focus on its primary role as an advisory body of the Commission; focus strictly on questions relating to human rights in accordance with its mandate; pay particular attention to the selection of studies; improve the efficiency of its work with non-governmental organizations; and make efforts to increase the perception and reality of its independence.
The principal role of the Subcommission was to support its working groups; undertake studies that contributed to human rights bodies, and deal with country situations not under consideration by the Commission, Mr. Selebi went on to state. Before adopting a resolution, the Subcommission had to first determine whether it had proper expertise, and if there was any doubt, it should be very reluctant to express unsubstantiated views. The credibility of the Subcommission was not enhanced when it sent casual expressions of thoughts based on inadequate deliberations and very thin expertise, as for example on scientific and technological developments.
Mr. Selebi said the Subcommission also had to be very careful about recommending new studies to ensure that these actually met the needs of the Commission or other bodies. Of the five proposals for studies tendered by the Subcommission last year, the Commission had only approved one.
The Commission was overloaded with standard setting exercises, and therefore the Subcommission should be wary of proposing new standard setting unless the Commission had already made it clear that such new standards were requested, Mr. Selebi said. Subcommission studies should also seek new means for implementing and interpreting established human rights norms.
Without NGOs, the Subcommission, the Commission and other UN human rights bodies would lack the substance needed to make the implementation procedures function. The Subcommission should continue to develop a partnership with NGOs in which each side contributed its particular expertise. While public statements by NGOs were sometimes necessary, there might be other more effective ways of communicating, such as informal meetings.
Mr. Selebi said the Commission had encouraged the members of the Subcommission to "strictly adhere to the principles, impartiality and expertise". While experts were likely to have in-depth knowledge of conditions in their own country, defending the human rights record of their own countries could compromise experts' appearance of independence.
The Subcommission had much to offer to the human rights community as an advisory body to the Commission, Mr. Selebi said. Consequently, it had to consider how to find a proper role for itself and to avoid duplication.
JOSÉ BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said he saw trends at cross-purposes; there was a bureaucratic trend which seemed to suppress or reduce activities from a budgetary point of view; there was a second line of attack relating to unhappiness over the treatment given to certain countries by human-rights bodies; there was no doubt that among the suggestions, there were some that were dictated by powerful interests, and it was clear that some preferred that there be no consideration of countries in these fora, but only human-rights "themes"; and there were other trends designed to ensure the better protection of human rights, and he was decisively in favour of the last. It seemed to him that the core issue was how to open the system of human rights to broader participation and different actors in relevant arenas. It seemed to him that in the human-rights field, especially at the highest level, the matter of representation was confined to States. It was important to get other actors more effectively involved.
He wondered if election of Subcommission experts might come not only through the voting of States but from voting of non-governmental organizations; he wondered if the Subcommission might select which NGOS could come to its meetings -- currently the only NGOs that could participate were those certified by the Economic and Social Council, and yet the Subcommission's areas of discussion were different, and perhaps more local NGOs would benefit from attending.
Mr. Bengoa agreed that there should be better efficiency in the Subcommission's work, but that the important trend should be pinpointed and followed -- and that should be to open up the Subcommission and to make it more effective in promoting human rights.
JACOB SELEBI, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, said there had been a meeting in the morning with the members of the Subcommission. In requesting changes to the working methods of the Subcommission, the Commission was not driven by financial issues. No individuals and no structures were under attack, only inefficiency was under attack.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras) said that as coordinator of the Central American countries, Honduras wished to report that the group was concerned over enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of human-rights bodies; it was necessary to apply rules of procedure strictly, particularly concerning punctuality in beginning meetings and in enforcing speaking limits; substantive order of debate should be rationalized to keep to the topic under consideration, and NGOs could be organized to make group statements so as to avoid repetition and night meetings; time limits for distributing documents should be strictly complied with; some agenda items of the Subcommission should be taken up every two years, particularly the thematic issues, and more time should be given to economic, social, and cultural rights to provide them equal treatment with civil and political rights. Resolutions should aim at achieving consensus and transparent negotiation of resolutions should be strongly encouraged; to speed up voting, it might be helpful to set up an electronic voting system. Special rapporteurs and independent experts should be required to attend the debates of the relevant items under discussion.
WU JIANMIN (China) said the success of reform hinged on two clear points: that the purpose should be clearly to raise the efficiency of the Commission on Human Rights and to further promote and protect human rights; and that reform should aim to rectify the deficiencies of the Commission. The tendency to overemphasize civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social, and cultural rights should be redressed. Since 1992, the Commission had adopted 614 resolutions, and only 40 of these dealt with economic, social and cultural rights. There still existed confrontation in the United Nations field of human rights which divided countries into two groups: the accused and the judge. All the resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights had been directed at developing countries. The right approach was to highlight the common ground among countries and to carry out dialogue. The imbalance between the two categories of rights in the UN mechanism of human rights also found expression in the disproportion in the geographical distribution of the staff of the UN mechanism of human rights where there were alarmingly small numbers of staff from developing countries.
Responding to the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Jianmin said the meetings could be more focused on social, cultural and economic rights. He did not believe that the staffing imbalance could be resolved overnight, however there should be a step by step approach.
HERMANT DRISHAN SINGH (India) said perhaps the Commission on Human Rights should await the outcome of the Subcommission's discussions and conclusions before offering further guidance; India did not believe drastic measures, such as elimination of the Subcommission entirely or severely curtailing its function and role, would serve the cause of human rights; the panel's focus had gradually shifted to promotion and enjoyment of universal standards and their implementation everywhere; it should devote greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights, and to the right to development. Its main strength was as a think tank, and it was most useful in exploring thematic issues; India therefore strongly encouraged the Subcommission to review its practice of adopting country resolutions, which were essentially a political act best performed by inter-governmental bodies such as the Commission and General Assembly; such measures only politicized the work of the Subcommission and undermined its expert character
-- its focus should be on promoting dialogue and cooperation.
CHANG MAN-SOON (Republic of Korea) speaking as coordinator of the 34- member Asian Group, said the Group had submitted a paper on the review of the working mechanisms of the Subcommission. For the last several decades, mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights had contributed to the protection of human rights. However, there had also been an increase in violations of human rights. The Subcommission should focus on reviewing the functioning of special procedures. The review should be followed by a comprehensive review of the Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee of the General Assembly. The Asia Group preferred a narrow approach that focused on the special procedures. The review should begin to outline the contours of a plan of action. Several elements were important for the mechanisms of the Commission. These included constructive dialogue between the mechanisms of the Commission and States. Due regard had to be given to the social and cultural elements of each society. Interdependence of human rights had to serve as a guide for these efforts. All elements of human rights programmes should receive a balanced allocation of resources.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said it was vital that reforms be carried out transparently. A major problem was a "North-South" confrontation year after year; particularly, the work carried out in human-rights bodies with respect to international terrorism and contemporary forms of racism had fallen behind the expectations of the international community; it was imperative that confrontation be avoided and cooperation be achieved in these fields. The review of "country situations" should be reconsidered and necessary steps taken to avoid taking action against the countries concerned -- dialogue was much more effective; the 1503 complaints procedure had to be revised to protect countries against harassment from unfair allegations -- a verification system was necessary. The principle of non-discrimination should be incorporated into all human-rights work; rules of conduct for special rapporteurs should be reviewed and adjusted to have them refrain from political approaches and to ensure they respected domestic and Constitutional orders in the countries they dealt with. Finally, rules of NGO participation should be revised to safeguard against participation of extremist organizations which paid no respect to the United Nations Charter.
MR. STROHAL (Austria) speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, said the EU supported the process established by the Commission on Human Rights. Enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission had long been an objective of the EU. It was important to ensure the broadest possible input to the review process, and input had to come from various sides. In order to be effective, it was important to secure the choice of the best available individuals as well as to ensure adequate conditions for their work. Independent experts had to have recognized competence and qualifications in the field of human rights, and their independence and impartiality had to be respected by Governments. Coordination was another crucial element, as was the systematic, effective and prompt follow-up to the recommendations of the different mechanisms. Major reform was required of the so-called 1503 procedure to realize its potential for addressing human rights violations.
S. GUILLET, of International Federation of Human Rights, said it was regrettable that the most important part of the discussion on this issue had taken place in private; all aspects of the debate should be made public, as the matter was entitled to transparency; the independence and effectiveness of the Subcommission were more and more called into question, but the panel still had an important role to play, if its role would only be respected; in the past it had done important work and had helped to create and maintain respect for human rights in various countries, for instance, by adopting resolutions on situations in specific countries; it also had provided a framework for dialogue for parties to a conflict, such as in Guatemala. Certain experts, unfortunately, publicly defended their own countries, which brought their independence into question; there was also a misguided effort to end Subcommission consideration of specific-country situations, which would be a mistake. Experts should refrain from speaking about their own countries.
CRAIG KUEHL (United States of America) said that with regards to the perceived imbalance between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, the United States had made a statement at the Economic and Social Council on this subject that demonstrated the importance it attached to the latter. Figures that had been given by earlier speakers on the small numbers of resolutions on economic social and cultural rights were not necessarily correct. While it was not necessarily a good idea to establish any kind of quota, any concrete measures that would be taken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote economic, social and cultural rights would be encouraged. The rule of law required promotion in many countries, especially as it was not as well established in developing countries as it was in developed countries. Technical cooperation was a way to help countries improve the rule of law. The United States had recently made two financial pledges to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and hoped that they would be used for technical cooperation. Some suggestions in the Secretariat's paper appeared to be aimed at protecting States, however, it should be remembered that the rights of individuals were what had to be protected and promoted.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said any proposal for overhauling the system should be designed to enhance efficiency; effective prevention was the goal; the Subcommission was effective at thematic, situation, or case studies, and the 1503 procedure. Thematic issues were a matter of research; the 1503 procedure's underlying spirit was as a preventive procedure -- it was not a means of condemning anyone; the intent of specific case studies was for remedying situations of grave violations of human rights -- if anything, the Subcommission's role there should be strengthened. But it also was necessary to avoid politicization. Politicization was excusable in the Commission, whose members were States, but in the Subcommission, with its experts, it was not acceptable. The integrity of the experts could be called into question because of a stand taken or not taken on a specific issue; perhaps consideration of country situations should be in private -- currently, even if voting was secret, the experts were still under pressure and were expected to make public statements before voting. The 1503 procedure should be made the full responsibility of the Subcommission, thus reducing the Commission's workload.
RICHARD VAN RIJSSEN (Netherlands) said his country supported the statement on behalf of the European Union. The objective of the discussion that was being held should be remembered. If the process was to be successful, the scope should remain limited, and the mechanisms of the Commission should be the focus. Redressing the perceived imbalances between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other could only be achieved if the all the UN organs acted together. The Netherlands fully supported programmes of economic, social and cultural rights in other organs and bodies of the United Nations such as the World Health Organization. However, perhaps the perceived imbalance existed in the Subcommission because it was one of the places where civil and political rights were discussed.
DOMINIQUE PETTER (Switzerland) said the most important issue in the Subcommission was to ensure the independence of the experts; the proposal that experts not take the floor on situations involving their own countries was a good one; similarly, if a country decided not to invite a special rapporteur, it should be required to explain why; invitations on countries' own initiatives were to be encouraged; finally, papers of special rapporteurs should be available in time for study before they were discussed, and reports should be the sole property of the rapporteurs, meaning that no agencies or bodies should have the right to make any changes to them.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said reforms should not be rushed through just to get results. The proper means for arriving at the results had to be found. The criteria were many, but the most important were: that the reform of the mechanisms was a technical matter that should not be made political; a visit of a special rapporteur should not be imposed, but should be considered in favour of the State concerned; financial considerations should not govern the work in any way; promoting and fostering human rights was a fundamental task of the United Nations and had to be funded; a balance had to be struck between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights and the High Commissioner for Human Rights should take action on a practical level on this issue; practical steps had to be taken to ensure the right to development; and NGOs could not replace Governments and there had to be complementarity of roles between States and NGOs.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Subcommission needed to think about what areas, themes and issues deserved further expert examination; perhaps a focus on the "right to development" was too simplistic, but there were certainly issues of equity that deserved close attention -- social justice, globalization, and marginalization of entire countries and even continents, for example. The study of country-specific situations was complex; perhaps what the Subcommission should focus on was urgent or emergency situations, especially on themes on which it could offer useful advice; but in any case, a fair system was needed for deciding what countries were focused on; it did seem strange that such lopsided emphasis had been placed on the developing countries. The 1503 procedure might be simplified if the working group met twice a year, the first time to weed out obviously spurious claims. As for NGOs, something had to be done about Government-sponsored NGOs -- if this cancer spread, the credibility of the system would collapse. Perhaps experts and alternates should be from the same regions but not from the same countries, thus widening perspectives and country participation.
WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said his country fully supported the statement of the European Union. The process of consultation on the issue of the review of the mechanisms of the Commission was very important. It was necessary to concentrate on areas where progress would be possible in a short time frame. The goal was to strengthen the mechanisms and procedures of the Commission to further enhance the protection of human rights. The paper produced by the Office of the High Commissioner was a useful compliment to the discussions. With regards to the relationship between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, all human rights were important and no one set should be given more importance than the other. The Subcommission should regain its position as the think tank for the Commission on Human Rights. However, this had to be done in a practical way, and the more practical it was, the easier it would be to feed it into the Commission on Human Rights.
MONA RISHMAWI, Chairperson of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups of the Special Procedures and Advisory Services Programme of the Commission on Human Rights, said there was a need to improve cooperation with Member States; a need for follow-up of recommendations of special rapporteurs; and a need for improved support from the Secretariat at all levels. There was a serious lack of cooperation on the part of Member States, particularly with respect to approval of requests for country visits; the best way to understand a situation was through such visits. It was important that conclusions and recommendations in special rapporteurs' reports be transmitted to other relevant UN agencies or bodies and to the regional organizations; staff efficiency at the Centre for Human Rights should be increased, as on occasion reports were published on the day they were presented, even though they had been submitted within the scheduled deadlines. The group was concerned about the attack on the immunity of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy; and concerned about the case of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Roberto Garreton -- there was a growing trend towards undermining the mandates of the experts in the special procedures system.
LAUEIE WISEBERG of Human Rights Internet said that in June 1998, members of the Bureau had consulted with 250 NGOs from all over the world who had participated in the Vienna Plus Five International NGO Forum. The launch on 10 December 1996 by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of its website had been the first real progress in the regard of how new information technology could and should be used to strengthen the human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies. The Office of the High Commissioner should have adequate resources for the website, and it should be developed to become a more interactive site. Access to the optical disk system should be free for NGOs in consultative status with the United Nations. The Office of the High Commissioner had to establish a human rights documentation centre that should be based on modern information technology. The Intra-Net should also be developed, and all special rapporteurs and members of the treaty bodies should be electronically connected to the Office.
T. BYAU of the Carter Centre said the Centre had held a meeting earlier in the year bringing together special rapporteurs, NGOs, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the subject was how to improve the effectiveness of the human-rights mechanism; the focus was on specific situations in specific countries. In 1993, a special rapporteur had written an important and timely report on Rwanda, warning about a possible genocide in the country; he offered modest proposals and recommendations about such ingredients as the hate radio then operating there; if there had been an international response, perhaps one of the century's greatest tragedies might have been avoided. The system had worked up to that point -- the report was pertinent; it was with a lack of reaction that the breakdown began. The episode indicated that fact-finding should not be weakened but strengthened, and that allocation of resources was needed for specific situations that could worsen into major disasters; in addition, special rapporteurs lately were in fact visiting developed countries, despite criticism to the contrary -- four recently had visited the United States and had contributed to the dialogue on how to improve human rights in the country.
Correction
In press release HR/SC/98/5 of 5 August 1998, the second paragraph on page 5 should read as follows:
JANNETTE BAUMSTA AND LORENZA GOMEZ, of Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees (FEDEFAM), said disappearances continued to occur all over the world; they were a severe problem in some 20 countries: they used to occur mostly under authoritarian regimes, but they now occurred under all kinds of Governments, those most severely affected being Algeria, Sudan, Turkey, Colombia and Mexico. Severe difficulties with summary executions; often these acts targeted human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, and advocates for indigenous peoples. Guatemala still had serious human rights violations and should not have been spared international scrutiny so soon. The Subcommission should adopt necessary measures condemning human rights violations there. In Mexico, the situation in Chiapas had not improved; indigenous women were routinely raped by military and paramilitary bands; action must be taken to end such abuses.
HR/SC/98/9
10 August 1998
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this afternoon heard proposals for modifications to its methods of work.
Jacob Selebi, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, opened the debate by stating that five areas of the Subcommission's work needed attention. He warned the Subcommission that before adopting a resolution, it first had to determine whether it had proper expertise, and if there was any doubt, it should be very reluctant to express unsubstantiated views.
Mr. Selebi, who used to be the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva and as of July 1 was Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, said the credibility of the Subcommission was not enhanced when it sent casual expressions of thoughts based on inadequate deliberations and very thin expertise to the Commission for approval, as had happened when it proposed a study on scientific and technological developments. He and others also called for greater efforts by Subcommission experts to maintain their independence.
Several national delegations -- India, Turkey and China among them -- then went on to question the Subcommission's practice of considering human-rights situations in specific countries and to call for greater attention and allocation of resources to issues of development and economic, social and cultural rights.
A representative of the non-governmental organization (NGO) the Carter Centre pointed out, however, that a special rapporteur on Rwanda in 1993 had written a report that if acted on might have prevented the subsequent genocidal conflict. She contended that consideration of situations in specific countries was vital for promoting human rights. A representative of the NGO International
United Nations Information Service at Geneva Press Releases are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.unog.ch
Federation for Human Rights contended that the Subcommission's most important work in the past had been in creating and maintaining respect for human rights in specific countries, often by adopting resolutions on them.
Concluding the meeting, Chairman Selebi announced a series of private sessions for Tuesday at which specific proposals for Subcommission work methods would be discussed with national delegations and NGOs.
Addressing the afternoon meeting were representatives of Honduras, China, India, Korea, Turkey, Austria, the United States, Senegal, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Egypt, and Pakistan. The NGO Human Rights Internet also took the floor.
Subcommission expert Jose Bengoa and Mona Rishmawi, Chairperson of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups of the Special Procedures and Advisory Services Programme of the Commission on Human Rights also spoke.
Present during the meeting were the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and the Vice Presidents of the Commission on Human Rights, L. Gallegos Chiriboga, Iftekar A. Chowdhury, R. Hynes, R. Kuzniar,
The Subcommission will reconvene in public session at 10 a.m. tomorrow when it will take up debate on economic, social, and cultural rights.
Statements
JACOB SELEBI, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, who used to be the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva and as of July 1, was Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, noted that while the appearance of the Chairperson of the Commission before the Subcommission was a tradition of many years, it was particularly critical this year in the context of the Subcommission’s discussion of its working methods. The Commission on Human Rights had called on the Subcommission to devote sufficient time to the preparation of specific recommendations on its working methods for consideration by the Commission. The Commission had noted the Subcommission’s continued efforts to avoid duplication of the work of the Commission with regards to specific country situations, and expected more reform efforts this summer on other matters.
Mr. Selebi said the Commission had authorized the members of the Bureau to undertake a review of the mechanisms of the Commission with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of those mechanisms. The Subcommission was a prominent mechanism of the Commission, and should contribute to the review by making recommendations for improvements, and by clearly indicating how it made a unique contribution to the human rights field.
The Subcommission should utilize its public meetings for input from Governments and NGOs, and should in general try not to draft its resolutions in public, Mr. Selebi stated. Public meetings should be used for the adoption of resolutions. The draft programme of work should provide for more private meetings and fewer public meetings.
Resolution 1998/28 mentioned five areas of the work of the Subcommission that required attention, Mr. Selebi said. The Subcommission should: focus on its primary role as an advisory body of the Commission; focus strictly on questions relating to human rights in accordance with its mandate; pay particular attention to the selection of studies; improve the efficiency of its work with non-governmental organizations; and make efforts to increase the perception and reality of its independence.
The principal role of the Subcommission was to support its working groups; undertake studies that contributed to human rights bodies, and deal with country situations not under consideration by the Commission, Mr. Selebi went on to state. Before adopting a resolution, the Subcommission had to first determine whether it had proper expertise, and if there was any doubt, it should be very reluctant to express unsubstantiated views. The credibility of the Subcommission was not enhanced when it sent casual expressions of thoughts based on inadequate deliberations and very thin expertise, as for example on scientific and technological developments.
Mr. Selebi said the Subcommission also had to be very careful about recommending new studies to ensure that these actually met the needs of the Commission or other bodies. Of the five proposals for studies tendered by the Subcommission last year, the Commission had only approved one.
The Commission was overloaded with standard setting exercises, and therefore the Subcommission should be wary of proposing new standard setting unless the Commission had already made it clear that such new standards were requested, Mr. Selebi said. Subcommission studies should also seek new means for implementing and interpreting established human rights norms.
Without NGOs, the Subcommission, the Commission and other UN human rights bodies would lack the substance needed to make the implementation procedures function. The Subcommission should continue to develop a partnership with NGOs in which each side contributed its particular expertise. While public statements by NGOs were sometimes necessary, there might be other more effective ways of communicating, such as informal meetings.
Mr. Selebi said the Commission had encouraged the members of the Subcommission to "strictly adhere to the principles, impartiality and expertise". While experts were likely to have in-depth knowledge of conditions in their own country, defending the human rights record of their own countries could compromise experts' appearance of independence.
The Subcommission had much to offer to the human rights community as an advisory body to the Commission, Mr. Selebi said. Consequently, it had to consider how to find a proper role for itself and to avoid duplication.
JOSÉ BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said he saw trends at cross-purposes; there was a bureaucratic trend which seemed to suppress or reduce activities from a budgetary point of view; there was a second line of attack relating to unhappiness over the treatment given to certain countries by human-rights bodies; there was no doubt that among the suggestions, there were some that were dictated by powerful interests, and it was clear that some preferred that there be no consideration of countries in these fora, but only human-rights "themes"; and there were other trends designed to ensure the better protection of human rights, and he was decisively in favour of the last. It seemed to him that the core issue was how to open the system of human rights to broader participation and different actors in relevant arenas. It seemed to him that in the human-rights field, especially at the highest level, the matter of representation was confined to States. It was important to get other actors more effectively involved.
He wondered if election of Subcommission experts might come not only through the voting of States but from voting of non-governmental organizations; he wondered if the Subcommission might select which NGOS could come to its meetings -- currently the only NGOs that could participate were those certified by the Economic and Social Council, and yet the Subcommission's areas of discussion were different, and perhaps more local NGOs would benefit from attending.
Mr. Bengoa agreed that there should be better efficiency in the Subcommission's work, but that the important trend should be pinpointed and followed -- and that should be to open up the Subcommission and to make it more effective in promoting human rights.
JACOB SELEBI, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, said there had been a meeting in the morning with the members of the Subcommission. In requesting changes to the working methods of the Subcommission, the Commission was not driven by financial issues. No individuals and no structures were under attack, only inefficiency was under attack.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras) said that as coordinator of the Central American countries, Honduras wished to report that the group was concerned over enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of human-rights bodies; it was necessary to apply rules of procedure strictly, particularly concerning punctuality in beginning meetings and in enforcing speaking limits; substantive order of debate should be rationalized to keep to the topic under consideration, and NGOs could be organized to make group statements so as to avoid repetition and night meetings; time limits for distributing documents should be strictly complied with; some agenda items of the Subcommission should be taken up every two years, particularly the thematic issues, and more time should be given to economic, social, and cultural rights to provide them equal treatment with civil and political rights. Resolutions should aim at achieving consensus and transparent negotiation of resolutions should be strongly encouraged; to speed up voting, it might be helpful to set up an electronic voting system. Special rapporteurs and independent experts should be required to attend the debates of the relevant items under discussion.
WU JIANMIN (China) said the success of reform hinged on two clear points: that the purpose should be clearly to raise the efficiency of the Commission on Human Rights and to further promote and protect human rights; and that reform should aim to rectify the deficiencies of the Commission. The tendency to overemphasize civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social, and cultural rights should be redressed. Since 1992, the Commission had adopted 614 resolutions, and only 40 of these dealt with economic, social and cultural rights. There still existed confrontation in the United Nations field of human rights which divided countries into two groups: the accused and the judge. All the resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights had been directed at developing countries. The right approach was to highlight the common ground among countries and to carry out dialogue. The imbalance between the two categories of rights in the UN mechanism of human rights also found expression in the disproportion in the geographical distribution of the staff of the UN mechanism of human rights where there were alarmingly small numbers of staff from developing countries.
Responding to the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Jianmin said the meetings could be more focused on social, cultural and economic rights. He did not believe that the staffing imbalance could be resolved overnight, however there should be a step by step approach.
HERMANT DRISHAN SINGH (India) said perhaps the Commission on Human Rights should await the outcome of the Subcommission's discussions and conclusions before offering further guidance; India did not believe drastic measures, such as elimination of the Subcommission entirely or severely curtailing its function and role, would serve the cause of human rights; the panel's focus had gradually shifted to promotion and enjoyment of universal standards and their implementation everywhere; it should devote greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights, and to the right to development. Its main strength was as a think tank, and it was most useful in exploring thematic issues; India therefore strongly encouraged the Subcommission to review its practice of adopting country resolutions, which were essentially a political act best performed by inter-governmental bodies such as the Commission and General Assembly; such measures only politicized the work of the Subcommission and undermined its expert character
-- its focus should be on promoting dialogue and cooperation.
CHANG MAN-SOON (Republic of Korea) speaking as coordinator of the 34- member Asian Group, said the Group had submitted a paper on the review of the working mechanisms of the Subcommission. For the last several decades, mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights had contributed to the protection of human rights. However, there had also been an increase in violations of human rights. The Subcommission should focus on reviewing the functioning of special procedures. The review should be followed by a comprehensive review of the Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee of the General Assembly. The Asia Group preferred a narrow approach that focused on the special procedures. The review should begin to outline the contours of a plan of action. Several elements were important for the mechanisms of the Commission. These included constructive dialogue between the mechanisms of the Commission and States. Due regard had to be given to the social and cultural elements of each society. Interdependence of human rights had to serve as a guide for these efforts. All elements of human rights programmes should receive a balanced allocation of resources.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said it was vital that reforms be carried out transparently. A major problem was a "North-South" confrontation year after year; particularly, the work carried out in human-rights bodies with respect to international terrorism and contemporary forms of racism had fallen behind the expectations of the international community; it was imperative that confrontation be avoided and cooperation be achieved in these fields. The review of "country situations" should be reconsidered and necessary steps taken to avoid taking action against the countries concerned -- dialogue was much more effective; the 1503 complaints procedure had to be revised to protect countries against harassment from unfair allegations -- a verification system was necessary. The principle of non-discrimination should be incorporated into all human-rights work; rules of conduct for special rapporteurs should be reviewed and adjusted to have them refrain from political approaches and to ensure they respected domestic and Constitutional orders in the countries they dealt with. Finally, rules of NGO participation should be revised to safeguard against participation of extremist organizations which paid no respect to the United Nations Charter.
MR. STROHAL (Austria) speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, said the EU supported the process established by the Commission on Human Rights. Enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission had long been an objective of the EU. It was important to ensure the broadest possible input to the review process, and input had to come from various sides. In order to be effective, it was important to secure the choice of the best available individuals as well as to ensure adequate conditions for their work. Independent experts had to have recognized competence and qualifications in the field of human rights, and their independence and impartiality had to be respected by Governments. Coordination was another crucial element, as was the systematic, effective and prompt follow-up to the recommendations of the different mechanisms. Major reform was required of the so-called 1503 procedure to realize its potential for addressing human rights violations.
S. GUILLET, of International Federation of Human Rights, said it was regrettable that the most important part of the discussion on this issue had taken place in private; all aspects of the debate should be made public, as the matter was entitled to transparency; the independence and effectiveness of the Subcommission were more and more called into question, but the panel still had an important role to play, if its role would only be respected; in the past it had done important work and had helped to create and maintain respect for human rights in various countries, for instance, by adopting resolutions on situations in specific countries; it also had provided a framework for dialogue for parties to a conflict, such as in Guatemala. Certain experts, unfortunately, publicly defended their own countries, which brought their independence into question; there was also a misguided effort to end Subcommission consideration of specific-country situations, which would be a mistake. Experts should refrain from speaking about their own countries.
CRAIG KUEHL (United States of America) said that with regards to the perceived imbalance between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, the United States had made a statement at the Economic and Social Council on this subject that demonstrated the importance it attached to the latter. Figures that had been given by earlier speakers on the small numbers of resolutions on economic social and cultural rights were not necessarily correct. While it was not necessarily a good idea to establish any kind of quota, any concrete measures that would be taken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote economic, social and cultural rights would be encouraged. The rule of law required promotion in many countries, especially as it was not as well established in developing countries as it was in developed countries. Technical cooperation was a way to help countries improve the rule of law. The United States had recently made two financial pledges to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and hoped that they would be used for technical cooperation. Some suggestions in the Secretariat's paper appeared to be aimed at protecting States, however, it should be remembered that the rights of individuals were what had to be protected and promoted.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said any proposal for overhauling the system should be designed to enhance efficiency; effective prevention was the goal; the Subcommission was effective at thematic, situation, or case studies, and the 1503 procedure. Thematic issues were a matter of research; the 1503 procedure's underlying spirit was as a preventive procedure -- it was not a means of condemning anyone; the intent of specific case studies was for remedying situations of grave violations of human rights -- if anything, the Subcommission's role there should be strengthened. But it also was necessary to avoid politicization. Politicization was excusable in the Commission, whose members were States, but in the Subcommission, with its experts, it was not acceptable. The integrity of the experts could be called into question because of a stand taken or not taken on a specific issue; perhaps consideration of country situations should be in private -- currently, even if voting was secret, the experts were still under pressure and were expected to make public statements before voting. The 1503 procedure should be made the full responsibility of the Subcommission, thus reducing the Commission's workload.
RICHARD VAN RIJSSEN (Netherlands) said his country supported the statement on behalf of the European Union. The objective of the discussion that was being held should be remembered. If the process was to be successful, the scope should remain limited, and the mechanisms of the Commission should be the focus. Redressing the perceived imbalances between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other could only be achieved if the all the UN organs acted together. The Netherlands fully supported programmes of economic, social and cultural rights in other organs and bodies of the United Nations such as the World Health Organization. However, perhaps the perceived imbalance existed in the Subcommission because it was one of the places where civil and political rights were discussed.
DOMINIQUE PETTER (Switzerland) said the most important issue in the Subcommission was to ensure the independence of the experts; the proposal that experts not take the floor on situations involving their own countries was a good one; similarly, if a country decided not to invite a special rapporteur, it should be required to explain why; invitations on countries' own initiatives were to be encouraged; finally, papers of special rapporteurs should be available in time for study before they were discussed, and reports should be the sole property of the rapporteurs, meaning that no agencies or bodies should have the right to make any changes to them.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said reforms should not be rushed through just to get results. The proper means for arriving at the results had to be found. The criteria were many, but the most important were: that the reform of the mechanisms was a technical matter that should not be made political; a visit of a special rapporteur should not be imposed, but should be considered in favour of the State concerned; financial considerations should not govern the work in any way; promoting and fostering human rights was a fundamental task of the United Nations and had to be funded; a balance had to be struck between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights and the High Commissioner for Human Rights should take action on a practical level on this issue; practical steps had to be taken to ensure the right to development; and NGOs could not replace Governments and there had to be complementarity of roles between States and NGOs.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Subcommission needed to think about what areas, themes and issues deserved further expert examination; perhaps a focus on the "right to development" was too simplistic, but there were certainly issues of equity that deserved close attention -- social justice, globalization, and marginalization of entire countries and even continents, for example. The study of country-specific situations was complex; perhaps what the Subcommission should focus on was urgent or emergency situations, especially on themes on which it could offer useful advice; but in any case, a fair system was needed for deciding what countries were focused on; it did seem strange that such lopsided emphasis had been placed on the developing countries. The 1503 procedure might be simplified if the working group met twice a year, the first time to weed out obviously spurious claims. As for NGOs, something had to be done about Government-sponsored NGOs -- if this cancer spread, the credibility of the system would collapse. Perhaps experts and alternates should be from the same regions but not from the same countries, thus widening perspectives and country participation.
WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said his country fully supported the statement of the European Union. The process of consultation on the issue of the review of the mechanisms of the Commission was very important. It was necessary to concentrate on areas where progress would be possible in a short time frame. The goal was to strengthen the mechanisms and procedures of the Commission to further enhance the protection of human rights. The paper produced by the Office of the High Commissioner was a useful compliment to the discussions. With regards to the relationship between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, all human rights were important and no one set should be given more importance than the other. The Subcommission should regain its position as the think tank for the Commission on Human Rights. However, this had to be done in a practical way, and the more practical it was, the easier it would be to feed it into the Commission on Human Rights.
MONA RISHMAWI, Chairperson of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups of the Special Procedures and Advisory Services Programme of the Commission on Human Rights, said there was a need to improve cooperation with Member States; a need for follow-up of recommendations of special rapporteurs; and a need for improved support from the Secretariat at all levels. There was a serious lack of cooperation on the part of Member States, particularly with respect to approval of requests for country visits; the best way to understand a situation was through such visits. It was important that conclusions and recommendations in special rapporteurs' reports be transmitted to other relevant UN agencies or bodies and to the regional organizations; staff efficiency at the Centre for Human Rights should be increased, as on occasion reports were published on the day they were presented, even though they had been submitted within the scheduled deadlines. The group was concerned about the attack on the immunity of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy; and concerned about the case of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Roberto Garreton -- there was a growing trend towards undermining the mandates of the experts in the special procedures system.
LAUEIE WISEBERG of Human Rights Internet said that in June 1998, members of the Bureau had consulted with 250 NGOs from all over the world who had participated in the Vienna Plus Five International NGO Forum. The launch on 10 December 1996 by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of its website had been the first real progress in the regard of how new information technology could and should be used to strengthen the human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies. The Office of the High Commissioner should have adequate resources for the website, and it should be developed to become a more interactive site. Access to the optical disk system should be free for NGOs in consultative status with the United Nations. The Office of the High Commissioner had to establish a human rights documentation centre that should be based on modern information technology. The Intra-Net should also be developed, and all special rapporteurs and members of the treaty bodies should be electronically connected to the Office.
T. BYAU of the Carter Centre said the Centre had held a meeting earlier in the year bringing together special rapporteurs, NGOs, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the subject was how to improve the effectiveness of the human-rights mechanism; the focus was on specific situations in specific countries. In 1993, a special rapporteur had written an important and timely report on Rwanda, warning about a possible genocide in the country; he offered modest proposals and recommendations about such ingredients as the hate radio then operating there; if there had been an international response, perhaps one of the century's greatest tragedies might have been avoided. The system had worked up to that point -- the report was pertinent; it was with a lack of reaction that the breakdown began. The episode indicated that fact-finding should not be weakened but strengthened, and that allocation of resources was needed for specific situations that could worsen into major disasters; in addition, special rapporteurs lately were in fact visiting developed countries, despite criticism to the contrary -- four recently had visited the United States and had contributed to the dialogue on how to improve human rights in the country.
Correction
In press release HR/SC/98/5 of 5 August 1998, the second paragraph on page 5 should read as follows:
JANNETTE BAUMSTA AND LORENZA GOMEZ, of Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees (FEDEFAM), said disappearances continued to occur all over the world; they were a severe problem in some 20 countries: they used to occur mostly under authoritarian regimes, but they now occurred under all kinds of Governments, those most severely affected being Algeria, Sudan, Turkey, Colombia and Mexico. Severe difficulties with summary executions; often these acts targeted human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, and advocates for indigenous peoples. Guatemala still had serious human rights violations and should not have been spared international scrutiny so soon. The Subcommission should adopt necessary measures condemning human rights violations there. In Mexico, the situation in Chiapas had not improved; indigenous women were routinely raped by military and paramilitary bands; action must be taken to end such abuses.