Note for the file Re: Seoul Seminar on “Ways to Ensure an Effective Human Rights Council” 20 November 2009

1.         A seminar was organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea and the British Embassy to the ROK with a view to examining ways to ensure an effective Human Rights Council.  This seminar is part of a series of meetings being organized by various Member States in relation to the review of the Human Rights Council in 2011.  Both the Republic of Korea and the U.K are part of the Reflection Group on Strengthening the Human Rights Council*.  Please be advised that the first meeting was organized by France and Mexico from 29 – 30 October 2009, in which Eric represented OHCHR.  I was informed that the ROK would host another meeting as part of the Reflection Group in 2010 in Seoul. 

2.         The seminar was opened by Mr. Oh Joon, Deputy Minister, MOFAT, the ROK, in which he stated that the objective of the seminar was to evaluate the work of the HRC as a key institution of the UN for the promotion and protection of human rights and to deliberate on ways to enhance its relevance and effectiveness in view of the 2011 review.  While acknowledging the achievements made by the HRC, particularly the establishment of the UPR, he noted the general view that much more would need to be done to make the Council more relevant and effective.  Particularly, as to the challenges facing the HRC, he stated as follows: “the lack of a viable monitoring system for the implementation of the UPR recommendations, insufficient time allocated for the UPR consideration, and the lingering practice of “prior endorsement” by regional groups in the election of the Council members, among others, are cited as key challenges facing the Council.”
 
3.         A congratulatory remarks by Mr. Jonathan Knott (Minister Counsellor, chargé d’affaires, the British Embassy in Seoul) followed. He welcomed and supported Korea’s growing role as an important global player in the human rights field and in development assistance, peacekeeping, climate change and international financial reform.  He emphasized the importance that countries like Korea speak up and share their experiences to demonstrate the true universality of human rights. He further noted that “without effective national mechanisms to turn international commitments into reality at the domestic level, those commitments are worth very little.”

4.         The meeting was attended by senior officials from the Korean and UK Foreign and Justice Ministries, civil servants, academics, including Kevin Boyle, Korean members of Treaty Bodies and the Advisory Committee, officials of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, the diplomatic community, including UNHCR, Western, Asian and African Missions, and civil society representatives including Amnesty International. I delivered a keynote speech that underscored the achievements made by the HRC and identified those areas that require improvements so as to make the HRC become more relevant and effective. On the achievements, I noted that the HRC had been 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, I noted that the HRC had shown the increased flexibility in terms of considering urgent matters through special sessions. I also noted that the interactions with the HC had expanded and better structured as well as that more time and space was being given to Special Procedures.  I further noted the increasing use of panel discussions in the HRC and its key role in ensuring accountability for human rights violations through the establishment of fact-finding missions or commissions of inquiry.

5.         I noted the birth of the UPR both as an opportunity and as a challenge: 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; and challenge to ensure that this opportunity is effectively used with the ultimate goal of strengthening the promotion and protection of all human rights for all.  In this connection, I highlighted the positive trends of the UPR: 1) all the 80 states that had gone under review took the UPR seriously; 2) the active participation of NGOs and NHRIs in making written submissions; and 3) recommendations are being already implemented by some States.

6.         I also touched upon a couple of aspects that would deserve to be looked into in the context of strengthening the Council: 1) further thoughts would need to be given to the formats of various innovative forms of discussions and debates, including panel discussions; 2) improvements need to be made with respect to the traditional formats of discussions such as general debates and interactive dialogues with special procedures mandate-holders; and 3) the need to build upon the strengths of the UPR and develop it further particularly in relation to implementation.

7.         In terms of the UPR, I highlighted a few aspects: 1) the need to work towards a user-friendly and unambiguous approach for all States in relation to their positions on the UPR recommendations; 2) the need to seek ways and means to engage with all relevant actors to strengthen the follow-up to the review; and 3) the need to look at the substantive role that the Troika could play in the UPR as the active engagement as a member of the Troika in the UPR could provide the Troika Member State with the further possibility to pursue human rights dialogue with other Member States at different levels.  Consideration should also be given to extending the role of the Troika to following up the UPR outcome.

8.         Regarding the Special Procedures, I also noted that the comprehensive system of special rapporteurs and working groups covering all sets of rights was retained. I also welcomed the progress made in terms of working methods and the recent trend for thematic rapporteurs to join forces in reporting on cross-cutting issues and on situations to provide a comprehensive analysis.

9.         I also underscored that the issue of human rights at national level had not significantly expanded. Hence, I reiterated the HC’s suggestions for the need to envisage new settings such as special sessions without an outcome, inter-sessional briefing sessions, special sitting during sessions and presidential declarations to the media on behalf of the Council.  I further proposed that the idea of regional rapporteurs or observatory complementary to the work of thematic or country special rapporteurs be explored.  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 require urgent attention by the region and the international community.

10.       I concluded by noting that the 2011 review should be conducted in an inclusive manner with all concerned parties and in a spirit of cooperation with a view to reaching a consensus that the Council as well as at the GA.  I also highlighted that the Asian group will have an important role to play in this as it will nominate the next President of the HRC.

11.       The following elements were raised during Session on the UPR:

• Need for greater coherence of the UPR with other international human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies and special procedures;
• Need to recognize the independent protection mandate of the High Commissioner as part of the overall international human rights protection.  In this connection, the need to ensure and strengthen the independence of the OHCHR from the HRC was emphasized;
• Need to look into interim measures for implementation before the four-year cycle of the UPR ends;
• Need to have more time to respond by the State under review to recommendations and questions raised during the UPR WG;
• The fact that a broader range of civil society actors have been involved in the UPR at the preparation stage, including trade unions and religious organizations was noted;
• Active participation in the UPR by UNCTs and UN agencies were noted and follow-up by UNCTs at the national level was emphasized;
• The usefulness of the UPR webcast was highlighted;
• It was suggested that OHCHR maintain a webpage where Member States could voluntarily share their progress on implementation of the UPR outcome;
• Suggestion was made to shorten the 4 year periodicity; and
• Need for better-structured and measurable recommendations and even their timeframe.

12.       The following elements were raised during Session on Special Procedures:

• Need to secure cooperation from States;
• Need for improvement regarding the selection process;
• Need for an effective use of the manual and code of conduct, highlighting also the duties of member States;
• Need for strengthened cooperation among the UPR, treaty bodies and the SP;
• Need for continuing rationalizing the SP;
• Need for ensuring states’ implementation of the SP’s recommendations;
• Need to overcome efforts to weaken the overall effectiveness of international human rights protection system by States, including the SP;
• Need to translate the outcome of the international human rights mechanisms into local languages;
• Request for OHCHR to look into ways and means to strengthen the independence and relevance of the Advisory Committee.

• The following elements were raised during Session on Implementation:
• Implementation is at the heart of the GA resolution 60/251;
• Suggestion to pay systematic attention to implementation by the HRC, for instance convening panel session on implementation;
• Suggestion to learn from other international law mechanisms in relation to implementation, for instance, implementation mechanisms under international environmental law;
• The fact that the primary duty to implement lies with the state was highlighted, as well as the importance of international cooperation;
• The role of Parliament in implementation was highlighted;
• CEDAW Committee’s approach to pinpointing a couple of recommendations to the State Party and its subsequent follow-up on implementation on those recommendations was noted;
• The need to set clear timelines for implementation was highlighted;
• Importance for consulting national stakeholders at the implementation stage was also highlighted, as well as the role of UNCT;
• Need to integrate implementation of the international human rights mechanisms in the existing national human rights action plan implementation;
• How to report on the implementation of the UPR outcome to the HRC should be considered, including the need to consider interim reporting on implementation;
• Suggestion was made to link ODA to the level of implementation of international human rights mechanisms’ recommendations by ODA receiving Sates, as well as more generous funding of the UPR implementation Trust Fund; (I have serious reservations -if applied only to aid-receiving countries- and may affect the unique universal character of the UPR).
• Need to increase OHCHR resources for implementation of UPR, TB and Special Procedures recommendations in a holistic manner; and

Need to engage on rejected UPR recommendations for forging national consensus and better understanding of the issues raised in these rejected recommendations.

Seoul OHCHR Northeast Asia Regional Office

14.       During the meeting, the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Korea (Mr. Cho Tae Ik) spontaneously raised the difficulties the RoK was experiencing in offering to host the OHCHR Regional Office for Northeast Asia with “2 countries” expressing serious reservations about the project and de facto freezing the project at this stage.

15.       Finally, I would like to thank all colleagues who helped in the preparation of my mission and supported my participation, in particular Maghaly Pana and Jong-Gil Woo as well as Rory Mungoven for his good briefing on RoK and DPRK prior to my departure for the mission.
ENDS