Deputy High Commissioner's statement for the Annual Conference of the Centre for International Law and Policy at New England School of Law

Boston, 9 April 2010

Prof Cirone, Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure and honor to address you at the opening ceremony of the Annual Conference of the Center for International Law and Policy on “Reviewing the UN Human Rights Council”.  As the Council is gearing up to reviewing its work and functioning five years after it has come into existence as called for by the GA, this Conference is indeed very timely and topical.    I would like to warmly thank the organizers for this important initiative.

I bring you the warmest greetings of the High Commissioner, Navi Pillay, who has been closely following and personally participating in some of the brainstorming meetings that have been taking place on this important work.   

Let me begin by recalling that the efforts to overhaul  the intergovernmental human rights machinery that culminated with the creation of the Human Rights Council in 2005 can be trace back at least by a decade to 1995 when the then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali called for a comprehensive reform of the Commission on Human Rights, which had lost its original visionary impetus.  A first effective and constructive wave of reform followed in 1999/2000 and a second, unsuccessful one in 2002/2003.

The direct trigger for the most recent reform, which led to the establishment of the Human Rights Council, was the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in 2004, reflecting the proposals of the former High Commissioner, aimed at restoring the credibility and effectiveness of the human rights mechanism.  What followed is well known: the report of the former Secretary-General ‘In larger freedom’, calling for the replacement of the Commission on Human Rights by a Human Rights Council, to afford human rights a more authoritative and central position in UN action.  This idea was endorsed by the world’s leaders at their 2005 World Summit, leading to  the historic adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 60/251 on 15 March 2006.

The Council was endowed with a strong mandate to promote and protect all human rights for all everywhere according to principles of impartiality, independence, objectivity and non-politicization. The founding resolution envisaged new criteria for membership in this body and increased meeting time.  Crucially, it bestowed upon the Council the responsibility to examine at regular intervals the human rights record of all UN Member States through the aptly named Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

It is important to conceive the current HRC review as the latest phase in an evolutionary process and not as a singular event.  It is not the first of its kind, and it is not likely to be the last.   But we must not loose sight of the fundamental purpose.   In moving ahead, it will be important to ensure that the Council is not distracted from its core mandate to address both chronic human rights situations and fast-unfolding emergencies wherever and whenever they occur in order to make a difference on the ground.  Hence, the process must be a pragmatic and realistic one.  It should make it possible for all proposals, coming from all stakeholders to be presented, shared, discussed and tested. 

Critical thinking and suggestions are needed, but we should not dwell upon criticism alone.  Rather, we should reflect on lessons learned from the Council’s achievements so far and seize this opportunity to make adjustments without undermining its potential.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Moving from the Commission to the Council was not an easy endeavor.  It took place at a challenging moment in the international community, in an atmosphere in which the very concept of multilateralism and international cooperation was hotly debated.  Tremendous efforts were deployed at the time to ensure that the major components of the reform encapsulated in GA resolution 60/251 would be successfully implemented without undermining what already existed.   With all the expertise and resources we could muster, we at OHCHR supported these efforts in ensuring that there would be a seamless  transition.

 In its first year of work, under the skilful leadership of the Council’s 1st President, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the Council shaped its own institutional architecture and devised new methods of work and modalities to overcome the shortcomings of the Commission.   

Subsequently, the Council sought to translate the letter and spirit of resolution 5/1 into practice.  In this endeavor, the Council showed a laudable degree of invention and flexibility, particularly with regard to urgent matters which were, inter alia, dealt with the convening of special sessions.  Panels held during sessions and other forms of debates also enhanced the Council’s capacity to respond.  The dispatch of fact-finding missions expanded its knowledge base, as well as that of the international community. 

Clearly, the Universal Periodic Review is the most significant innovation of the Human Rights Council.  The unique strength of this process lies in its universality.  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.   It is a review by and among peers, with extensive involvement of the concerned State at all stages of the process.

The Council’s interactions with the High Commissioner have also expanded and become more structured with regular updates by the HC, well-defined questions and comments by delegations and numerous opportunities for the Office to introduce reports and comments on key aspects of the Council's work.  These exchanges have helped to sharpen the mutual understanding between the Council and the Office of our respective activities and mandates and key aspects of our complementarity.   

Increased time and space has also been given to Special Procedures, particularly thematic ones.  The Council now benefits from the expertise of 55 mandate-holders, including the most recent one on cultural rights.  They are the Council’s eyes and ears, and provide it with information on human rights situations on the ground. 

Standard setting is certainly another area where highly visible and tangible results were made in the course of the past years.  Core human rights treaties were the result of  negotiations conducted in the former Commission.   The Council continued this work.   The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2008 is a recent example of the Council’s contribution in this respect.  

In looking ahead, there are many pockets of issues that need to be fleshed out and answers found if the review process is to lead to the strengthening of the Council.

The first regards the working relationship and interaction between the Council and the General Assembly, in particular its Third Committee.  Many in Geneva perceive the Council as a principal body all but in name, while those in NY clearly see it as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly.  There is a serious disconnect between Geneva and NY. This has created expectations, on the part of sponsors of Council resolutions that new activities, mandates or bodies that emerge from its three yearly sessions and many special sessions throughout the year, that they can and must be resourced.  Many have also overlooked the fact that for a new mandate to be enforceable, it needs to be endorsed by the General Assembly, which has considered proposals of the Council only once a year.   Clearly, the swiftness of the Council’s action  in the face of urgent human rights issues has not been matched by the General Assembly’s processes.  It is therefore rather urgent that the relationship between the Council and the GA be clarified and better structured.  

The second area concerns the advisability of bolstering and sharpening the Council’s toolbox of mechanisms with a view to expand its ground of understanding and scope of action. In this regard, the High Commissioner has repeatedly called on Council members to think creatively in order to take full advantage of discussion opportunities, including inter-sessional briefings, special sittings during sessions, and presidential declarations and fact-finding missions on behalf of the Council.  The goal is to enhance the ability of the Council to weigh in on chronic human rights violations, which is a key benchmark against which to measure the success of the Council.

I invite participants to explore all realistic options which, together with the UPR and independent experts’ work, may enable the Council to deal better with such long-neglected human rights conditions, as well as emergencies.  Engaging the media and the public at large will be crucial in this effort. 

Third, the Universal Periodic Review got off to a good start, and has now passed the half-way point in its first 4-year cycle, with 112 member states reviewed so far.  The central purpose of the UPR is 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, and by most accounts the process has been a success. 

The challenge for the review is to make the UPR process credible and actionable through discernible improvements in human rights conditions on the ground, especially for the victims of violations.  To this end, it will be crucial to streamline, synthesize, and clarify UPR recommendations - which in some cases have reached unmanageable numbers.  This proliferation may have the perverse effect of blurring priorities rather than enhancing protection.  There is much room to make the process more user-friendly, transparent, and easily understandable.   
We must ensure that States follow-up the recommendations of the UPR, as well as those of the Special Procedures, and of the human rights treaty bodies. To this effect, overlap or even duplication of requests should be avoided.    We need to prevent fragmentation of protection and approach the challenge of States’ compliance in a manner that enhances synergy among the various human rights mechanisms.

This brings me to my next point, namely the challenge of the implementation of recommendations at the national level, since that in the end is what counts.   Although responsibility for implementation rests primarily with States, a diverse spectrum of national stakeholders can help Governments in this demanding task.  Wide participation in this process will also ensure that the UPR debate trickles down from the international stage to the national level, so as to stimulate a sense of ownership and positive effects for domestic human rights constituencies and affected individuals and groups. 

The UN system as a whole is also coming together to better coordinate in bringing the benefits of the UPR to the ground level.  OHCHR, of course, has an important, leading role to play.  We are in the process of mapping our abilities and resources, both at HQ and in the field, with a view to crafting an Office-wide policy on our role in the UPR follow-up process.

These are some thoughts I share with you, as pointers to start off our day-long deliberation, which I hope will help us those of us who are at the forefront of the review exercise to enrich our thinking with intellectual depth and vigor.

Thank you very much.