Keynote speech by Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye,Director, Human Rights Council and Treaties Division at the Seminar “Ways to Ensure an EffectiveUN Human Rights Council”

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. It is my great pleasure and honour to participate on behalf of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in this seminar on “Ways to Ensure an Effective UN Human Rights Council.” High Commissioner Navi Pillay has asked me to convey her best wishes for the success of this important meeting.

2. I would like to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea and the British Embassy to the Republic of Korea for organizing this important and timely meeting. As you may probably know, a host of meetings have being been organized in different regions of the world in anticipation of the review of the HRC in 2011.  Hence, I believe this Seoul seminar will certainly contribute to the current brainstorming/reflection aimed at strengthening the Human Rights Council.    

3. In what shall follow, I would like not only to underscore the achievements of the Human Rights Council but also to identify those areas where improvements may be meaningful and will lead to genuine progress.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

4. With the adoption of the founding resolution 60/251 in March 2006, the Human Rights Council was strengthened through a renewed composition, a higher status, a strong involvement in standard-setting activities, increased meeting time and an easier threshold in terms of calling for meetings to deal with emergencies.  Hence it is now recognized that the Council could play a more effective role in the protection and promotion of human rights than the former Commission on Human Rights.

5. In the area of standard-setting, I would like to recall that all core human rights treaties have emerged as a result of negotiations conducted in the former Commission and presently the Council with one of the most recent examples being the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly last year.

6. The Council has shown some remarkable signs of flexibility in terms of considering urgent matters through the convening of special sessions and adjusting to new demands through the organization of panel discussions. We have also noticed that increased time and space is being given to Special Procedures particularly thematic ones.  The interactions with the High Commissioner for Human Rights have also expanded and become better structured with regular updates by her, well-defined questions and comments by delegations and numerous opportunities for the High Commissioner and her Office to introduce reports and comments on key aspects of the Council’s work.  

7. Thus far, the Council has held a number of panel discussions as well as 10 special sessions on human rights situations in several countries and two thematic ones, in addition to its three regular sessions. And six panels will be held during the next session of the Council in March 2010. As a matter of fact, such increased number of panels and other forms of debates are welcome developments as this indicates an enhanced responsiveness of the Council to human rights issues.

8. Furthermore, the Council plays a key role in ensuring accountability for human rights violations with the establishment of fact-finding missions or commissions of inquiry to examine the human rights situations (for instance as was in Darfur, Myanmar and recently in Gaza).

Distinguished participants,

9. The feature clearly distinguishing the Council from its predecessor is the Universal Periodic Review. The uniqueness of this process stems from its universality in a number of aspects. First, each and every Member State of the United Nations is reviewed with equal scrutiny and on the basis of same standards in relation to the enjoyment of all rights set out in, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Second, this is a review by and among peers, with extensive involvement of the concerned State at all stages of the process.
 
10.       The UPR created both an opportunity and a challenge: an opportunity to give life to the reform of the United Nations system and particularly its human rights bodies; and an opportunity to create an enabling environment and a forum for constructive, non-politicized dialogue and cooperation, guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity. The challenge still however remains to ensure that this opportunity is effectively used with the sincerity and commitment by the Member States, so that the ultimate goal of strengthening the promotion and protection of all human rights for all could be realized.  Whether this challenge has been adequately met is a key question, and I would here like to note the positive trends we have observed so far in the life of this young mechanism.

11.       The UPR process has been taken very seriously by the 80 states – from every region – which have been reviewed from small states with populations of little more than 10,000 to those numbering more than a billion. All 80 states presented themselves before the UPR Working Group, many represented by high-level officials from the capitals. Member and observer states of the Human Rights Council have participated with great interest in taking the floor to raise questions and concerns, commend best practices, and make recommendations to the state under review. We have seen the active participation of NGOs and NHRIs in making written submissions, which helped shape the issues raised during the review.  These submissions are, indeed, key to ensuring that grassroots voices are heard in the course of this intergovernmental meeting held in the conference halls of the United Nations in Geneva. And we have already seen a number of recommendations in the course of implementation by states under review – be they related to the ratification of human rights treaties or to adoption of policies and programmes at the national level.

12.       Before arriving in Seoul, I participated in a regional briefing on the UPR held in our regional Bangkok office for Southeast Asian states to be reviewed in the coming two years.  This was the second regional briefing for the region and one of a number of briefings the OHCHR has organized so far this year, including in Beirut, Panama, Bishkek, Dakar, Addis and Brussels. My colleagues and I were delighted to observe the high level of interest in these briefings, which are attended by State, NGO, NHRI as well as United Nations Country Team representatives eager to learn more about the process and how they can best utilize it.

13.       The key to a meaningful and successful review is the active involvement of all stakeholders, something which is made easier by the transparency of the process. The documents which form the basis of the review are public, and submissions are invited from a broad range of organizations.  The actual review in the Working Group and the adoption of the report in the Council plenary are both webcast live, thus allowing for close scrutiny by national and international actors on the ground.  There has also been tremendous interest in many of the reviews in the media both local and international, which has ensured that human rights issues have had high visibility and have been placed firmly in the public domain.  In this connection, I would like to highlight an important role that United Nations programmes and agencies on the ground could play in the context of the UPR.  Recently, we have witnessed increasingly active involvement of United Nations Country Teams, through submitting joint UNCT submissions along with individual agencies’ own submissions to the UPR process.  These contributions have been very much valued both for the review itself and for possible future engagement of the United Nations when it comes to implementation of the UPR outcome.

14.       In short, within the brief period of its existence, the UPR has proven to be a valuable addition to the existing United Nations architecture for the protection and promotion of human rights, complementing the important work of the human rights treaty bodies and special procedures.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

15.       I would like to raise a number of aspects, which in my opinion, could be considered as valuable in our quest to strengthen the Council. I am sure we will have ample opportunity to discuss these ideas in more detail in the course of this seminar.

16.       Further thoughts need to be given as to the format of the above-mentioned various innovative forms of discussions and debates in the Council, including panel discussions. Improvements can also be made with respect to the more traditional formats of discussions such as general debates and interactive dialogues with special procedures mandate-holders. The review of the Council in 2011 will indeed constitute an occasion to look into these matters with a view to improving the working methods of the Council and to enhance its effectiveness.

17.       Also, it is now time for us to think practically and creatively on how one can build upon the strengths of the UPR and develop them further, as well as to tackle the challenges the mechanism is facing. This is critically important as I believe the Council’s effectiveness will be judged through an assessment of the UPR. Hence, I am convinced that this seminar will make an important contribution to ensuring a positive result.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

18.       As well known, the increasing number of recommendations being addressed to the State under Review under the UPR testifies the interest and seriousness with which States approach the UPR and at the same time reveals a number of corresponding challenges. 

19.       I would like to highlight two aspects of particular interest: First, the high number of recommendations - up to 120 recommendations are now made per country - leads to a report of the Working Group that is, frankly speaking, not always very easy to understand and hence to use, especially by people who do not deal with UN documents on a daily basis. The current system does not always lend itself well to identifying which recommendations are accepted or rejected by the State under review. In fact, there is the danger that some recommendations are not at all dealt with by the State under review. Accordingly, more clarity should be sought. Already now, some member States make their responses to recommendations known in an exemplary manner by producing a separate document, the so-called Addendum 1. I am glad to highlight that the two hosts of our seminar, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, have set a standard for other countries through their excellent Addenda they submitted to the Human Rights Council. I am convinced that we should work towards a user-friendly and unambiguous approach to be taken by all States that are reviewed.

20.       This brings me to my second point, namely the question of the implementation of recommendations. We would certainly all agree that the UPR process does not end once all documents are adopted in Geneva. Quite the contrary: after the recommendations, the real work begins at the national level. We must devise innovative means to ensure that the plethora of recommendations can be dealt with in a meaningful manner. That is certainly a challenge for each State, which bears the primary responsibility for implementing the accepted recommendations. The international community is also asked to make a contribution, in particular in support of developing and least developed countries. No doubt, the focus of the second cycle of the UPR will be on the implementation of recommendations, and we must seek ways to engage with all relevant actors to strengthen the follow-up to the review. In this regard, it is worth noting the progress already made by a host of states: Bahrain created last week its first ever national human rights commission as a result of the UPR outcome; the Philippines has adopted a legislation on women’s rights, the so-called “Magna Carta on women’s rights”; as a first step of implementing the UPR recommendations, Indonesia has analyzed all the recommendations given to it by international human rights mechanisms, including UPR, treaty bodies and Special Procedures, with a view to implementing such recommendations in a holistic manner; and in Malaysia, NGOs held a briefing for Parliamentarians with a view to updating them on the review.    

20.       Further, I would like to draw your attention that more thoughts should be given to what kind of a substantive role the Troika could play in the UPR.  As a matter of fact, I believe that through active engagement as a member of the Troika in the UPR, the Member States of the Council now have further possibility to pursue human rights dialogue with other Member States at different levels. Consideration should be given to extending this role to following up the UPR outcome.
 
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

21.       As far as other mechanisms are concerned, the Special Procedures are often termed the jewels in the Crown of the Council. With the adoption of resolution 5/1, and following the subsequent review, rationalization and improvement process during which the Council reviewed all special procedures mandates individually, a comprehensive system of special rapporteurs and working groups covering all sets of rights was retained. We can now benefit from the work of 39 special procedures mandate-holders including the recently appointed independent expert in the field of cultural rights. The work undertaken by these highly competent and dedicated independent experts with monitoring and public reporting functions is invaluable. Annual reports, country visits and the almost 1,000 communications and appeals sent by special procedures each year are recognized as important contributions.  The complementarity of the work of the special procedures to the activities of treaty bodies and other mechanisms should also be highlighted. The High Commissioner has urged and will continue to urge all countries to invite and welcome the visits of mandate-holders, and fully cooperate with these mechanisms of the Council. Given that the institution-building phase of the Council comprehensively focused on the review of the mandates and the creation of new mechanisms, stakeholders should now, during the forthcoming Council review, be able to give particular attention to other substantive and procedural matters that relate to the functioning of the Council itself.

22.       Progress has also been made in terms of working methods, in particular the recent trend for thematic Special Rapporteurs to join forces in reporting on cross-cutting issues and on situations to provide a comprehensive analysis is welcome. On the selection procedure of Special Procedures, well-known experts in their field continue to be appointed, and expertise on the substantive issues of the mandate should continue to be the primary consideration in the appointment. Greater transparency has been introduced with the new system since mandate-holders are now appointed from a shortlist recommended to the President of the Council by the Consultative Group established under resolution 5/1, based on a Public List of candidates maintained and updated by the OHCHR. Recently, the Consultative Group has provided more detailed public explanations for its recommendations. We have also seen improvement in the gender balance of mandate holders – in April 2008, before the first new mandate-holders appointed under the new selection procedure took up their functions, 26% of mandate-holders were women and 74% men, in September 2009, this percentage had changed to 36% vs. 64%. As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the adoption of CEDAW this year and look forward to the 15-year review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Governments must work hard to ensure gender balance is achieved.  

23.       The country and thematic independent expert mechanisms have been and continue to be fundamental tools allowing the Council to assess the human rights situations on the ground. They provide a comprehensive analysis of a country’s human rights situation, engage in a regular and meaningful dialogue with the country concerned and are able to make recommendations taking into account the latter’s needs. In the recent past, as previously mentioned, the Council has also requested groups of thematic and country mandate-holders to look at specific country situations in the context of the follow-up to special sessions. This was the case with the Sudan, the OPT/Gaza and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Other mandates have played a welcome role in early warning processes through their ongoing work on thematic or country issues.

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

24.       The tools available to discuss the issue of human rights at national level have not significantly expanded since the time of the Commission on Human Rights with the noticeable exception of the UPR system. As the High Commissioner has repeatedly stated, it is important to identify innovative ways to deal with chronic human rights violations or situations. In this regard, the High Commissioner has evoked  the need to envisage new settings such as Special Session without an outcome, inter-sessional briefing sessions, special sitting during sessions, and presidential declarations to media on behalf of the Council. There is room for creativity and flexibility in order to provide the Council with a broader array of mechanisms in dealing with thematic or country based human rights situations.

25.       Another avenue to explore is the idea of Regional Rapporteurs or observatory which would be complementary to the work of thematic or country Special Rapporteurs. The Great Lakes Region of Africa is a good example of where a Regional Rapporteur or observatory could be especially useful to analyze the inter-related cross border human rights violations and to support collective regional and international responses. As you are aware, the continuing problem in this region caused by the conflicts is the vast amount of displaced persons with drastic consequences on human security and human rights. Other common challenges faced in this region are: weak institutional and human capacity in the administration of justice; impunity; violence against women, young girls and children; poverty and social inequity; HIV/AIDS pandemic. Despite multiple efforts to promote good governance and human rights in this region, there is a lack of coordination of actors and country monitoring mandates for human rights have been dramatically reduced (with only the Special Rapporteur on Burundi being still in place). 
 
26.       Accordingly, the Human Rights Council through a Regional Rapporteur or observatory would institute a reliable mechanism of obtaining credible and quick information on issues of strategic importance that need urgent attention by the region and the international community. This could, in turn, be linked with a special focus on for instance violence against women, young girls and children. Such a new mechanism would provide unique expertise to support UN agencies and the region’s efforts to identify suitable strategy and policy as well as add it to the toolbox which is available to the Human Right Council in dealing with chronic human rights violations.
 
Excellencies,

27.       As with the recommendations emanating from the UPR, the implementation of Special Procedures faces serious challenges. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has been encouraging the Council, and would also encourage the General Assembly, to take immediate, decisive and appropriate actions to follow up on the recommendations submitted by the special procedures. In this respect, it is also crucial to find ways to raise the attention of the concerned States, civil society, UN agencies to implementation of these recommendations.

28.       While the review of the Human Rights Council 2010/2011 constitutes an important opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of the Council, it is equally important that this process be handled in a constructive and pragmatic manner. We should not focus on criticism alone but we must rather try to distill lessons learned from the few years of operation of the Council and seize this opportunity - which the drafters of resolution 60/251 were mindful enough to foresee - of making adjustments without undermining the achievements made.

29.       When it comes to the review of the functioning and the work of the Council, this should to the extent possible remain a Geneva-driven process, which should not be conducted to the detriment of the implementation of the Council’s mandate. The General Assembly should consider upgrading the Council to a principal organ under the UN Charter. In this connection, the GA should also address the relationship between the Council, the Assembly itself and its Third Committee. Harmonization should be the paramount considerations.

30.       Let me conclude by noting that it is essential for the review to be conducted in an inclusive manner with the involvement of all concerned parties and in a spirit of cooperation with a view to reaching a consensus at the Council as well as at the General Assembly. The Asian Group will have an extremely important role to play, including because it will be called on to nominate the next President of the Human Rights Council. He or she will have the solemn task of guiding the substantive debate on the elements of the review during the critical period of time June 2010 to June 2011.

Thank you very much and my best wishes for a fruitful meeting.

Gam-sa-ham-ni-da