Statement by Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye at the Third Budapest Human Rights Forum

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished Participants,

It is my great pleasure and honour to participate on behalf of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Third Budapest Human Rights Forum .High Commissioner Navi Pillay has asked me to convey her best wishes to you for the success of this important meeting. I would like to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Hungary for organizing this important meeting, and a panel discussion on the Review of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). This initiative is topical and very timely. Next week, the intergovernmental Working Group on the HRC review will hold its first session in Geneva thus marking the formal launch of the review process.

In my remarks today, I will refer on how the overhaul of the intergovernmental human rights machinery was set in motion, identify the major achievements of the Human Rights Council and conclude with a few ideas which aim at strengthening the Council through its review process.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Moving from the Commission to the Council was not an easy endeavour.

The origins of the establishment of the Human Rights Council can be traced back to the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in 2004, reflecting the proposals of the former High Commissioner, which were aimed at restoring the credibility and effectiveness of the human rights mechanism.  This report was followed by 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 so as 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 which was followed by the historic adoption of General Assembly resolution 60/251 on 15 March 2006.
Tremendous efforts were deployed at the time to ensure that General Assembly resolution 60/251 would encapsulate the major components of the reform without undermining what already existed. OHCHR supported these efforts, including those to ensure that there would be as seamless a transition as possible and that protection gaps would be filled. The 2006 founding resolution of the Human Rights Council endowed the Council 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 also envisaged new criteria for membership in this body and increased meeting time, also empowering the Council to meet as often as needed beyond its regular three annual sessions  The resolution also bestowed upon the HRC the responsibility of examining at regular intervals the human rights record of all UN Member States through the aptly named Universal Periodic Review mechanism. 
 
Excellencies,
More than four years on, it is useful to reflect on the achievements of the Human Rights Council.
Clearly, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is its most significant innovation.  The uniqueness of this process stems from its universality: each and every Member State of the United Nations is reviewed with equal scrutiny and on the basis of uniform criteria.   

As at September 2010, a total of 127 of the 192 Member States of the United Nations have been reviewed. Although it is still premature to draw conclusions, we should be encouraged by the positive results achieved thus far.  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 which are comprised of experts who address country situations or themes. Many States have pledged to strengthen implementation of human rights standards at the national level and cooperate with the special procedures,.  They have announced their intention to ratify human rights instruments to which they were not yet parties and/or to comply with outstanding reporting obligations. Some States even committed themselves to withdrawing reservations entered on ratification or accession to provisions of international instruments.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me now turn to the mechanisms often described as the jewels in the Crown of the Council: the Special Procedures. Now numbering 31 thematic and eight country mandates these procedures now cover all sets of rights. The special procedures system continues to evolve with the creation of new mandates, for example, in the field of cultural rights, water and sanitation. Last month, the Council also decided to create a Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of association and of assembly, as well as a working group on discrimination against women in law and practice. The work undertaken by the competent and dedicated unpaid independent experts with monitoring and public reporting functions is invaluable.
Progress has also been made in terms of their working methods. A recent trend is 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. Greater transparency has been introduced with mandate-holders 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.

The High Commissioner has urged and will continue to urge all countries to fully cooperate with the special procedures, including through issuing and honouring standing and other invitations for visits, the timely provision of responses, and other constructive engagement, both during and outside HRC sessions. In this context, the independence of mandate holders is indispensable for the effectiveness of their work; it should be strengthened and not be further constrained.
Excellencies,

One of the strengths of Commission on Human Rights was in the area of standard-setting where highly visible and tangible results were made in the course of the past 60 years.  All core human rights treaties have emerged as a result of negotiations conducted in the former Commission.  Since its establishment four years ago, the HRC has also shown itself to be a leader in this area, with adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Work is underway on new instruments. Inter-government working groups are working on (a) a new Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would establish an individual complaint procedure, and (b) a draft declaration on human rights education and training on the basis of the draft submitted by its Advisory Committee. Last month, the Council also decided to establish a working group to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the activities of private military and security companies.

The HRC has now held 15 regular sessions and 13 special sessions, addressing a wide range of human rights issues and situations throughout the year. The Council has shown flexibility in terms of considering urgent matters. It has developed new features, such as the convening of thematic special sessions and the holding of panel discussions on a broad range of issues and themes. 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.

The Council has also convened an urgent debate (the Gaza flotilla) during a regular session and a stand-alone interactive dialogue on a country-specific issue (i.e. Somalia), and pronounced itself through presidential declarations on pressing human rights issues and situations (i.e. religious intolerance – “Burn a Koran Day”; Ecuador).

The interactions with the High Commissioner for Human Rights have also expanded and become better structured. She provides regular updates followed by well-crafted 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.  

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 and recently in Gaza). The dispatch of such fact-finding missions expands its knowledge base, as well as that of the international community. The Council has a responsibility to ensure that these tools are utilized in all relevant situations to account for human rights violations in a factual and impartial manner.

Distinguished Participants,

The High Commissioner and her Office have closely been following and participating in informal brainstorming discussions on various aspects of the review. High Commissioner Navi Pillay has shared some general expectations from the review including through her statements on various occasions including through her at the regular sessions of the Council and at the General Assembly. We should encourage a pragmatic approach to this exercise. The review is not about reinventing the wheel from scratch.  Rather, it is an opportunity for objective evaluation of the Council’s past performance with a view to making it more effective and efficient in implementing its mandate. It is against this background that I would offer a few ideas for your consideration which aim at strengthening the Council through its review process.

The current HRC review should be conceived as an additional phase in a process and not as a single event.  It is not the first of its kind, and it is likely to be followed by future ones in the decades to come since no institution maintains its legitimacy and sense of purpose indefinitely. 
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. As mentioned on several occasions by High Commissioner Pillay, the process should also be as inclusive as possible. It should make it possible for all proposals, coming from all stakeholders, including national human rights institutions and civil society, to be presented, shared, discussed and tested. 

Given that the institution-building phase of the Council comprehensively focused on the review of the mandates and the creation of new mechanisms, stakeholders might during the forthcoming Council review, focus on other substantive and procedural matters that relate to the functioning of the Council itself.

The challenge remains to take advantage of this process by ensuring that it actually reaches victims and makes a positive difference in their lives.   Indeed, the Council’s effectiveness will largely depend on its ability to make the UPR process credible and actionable through discernible improvements in human rights conditions. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With regard to UPR, it now time for us to think practically and creatively on how one can build upon its strengths develop them further, as well as to tackle the challenges the mechanism is facing. As well known, the increasing number of recommendations being addressed to the State under Review under the UPR testifies to the interest and seriousness with which States approach the UPR and at the same time reveals a number of corresponding challenges: the high number of recommendations (up to 120 recommendations are now made per country) and their implementation. We must devise innovative means to ensure that the plethora of recommendations can be dealt with in a meaningful manner. To this end, it would be crucial to streamline, synthesize, and clarify UPR recommendations—which in some cases have reached unmanageable numbers.  This proliferation may engender the perverse effect of blurring priorities rather than enhancing protection.   Moreover, the current UPR system does not always identify clearly which recommendations are accepted or rejected by the State under review.  In fact, there is the danger that some recommendations could be overlooked by recipients.  We should make the system more user-friendly, transparent, and thoroughly intelligible
That is certainly a challenge for States, which bear 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.

Colleagues and friends
Another important issue concerns the advisability of bolstering the Council’s toolbox of mechanisms and make this more nimble so as to expand its access to information to ensure greater 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.  What is at stake is the ability of the Council to react both to chronic and to urgent human rights violations.  This is in reality the benchmark against which the success of the Council will be measured.
It is critical that we all explore – Member States, independent experts, civil society, NHRIs and all interested stakeholders- in the weeks ahead realistic options which, together with the UPR and independent experts’ work, may enable the Council to deal better with long-neglected human rights conditions, as well as emergencies. 

Distinguished Participants,
The working relationship and interaction between the Council and the General Assembly, in particular its Third Committee, have to be discussed in the context of the review process. Many perceive the Council as a principal body, although institutionally speaking it remains a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly.  This has created expectations on the part of sponsors of resolutions that new activities, mandates or bodies be carried on within existing resources.  It also induces to overlook the fact that for a new mandate to be enforceable, it needs to be endorsed by the General Assembly, which considers actions of the Council only once a year, while the Council, as virtual a standing body, meets throughout the year. 

The dynamism in the Council’s capacity to react in the face of urgent human rights issues is not matched by the General Assembly’s timetable.  It is therefore hoped that the relationship be clarified and better structured. Thus far, OHCHR has been able, for the most part, to re-direct resources to support the Council’s urgent work.  This resource re-engineering will not be sustainable in the long-term, however.  The Council’s decisions should not be hampered by a lack of dedicated resources.  The solution could be a separate contingency fund for the Human Rights Council to follow up on its recommendations, or a more timely process for the General Assembly’s consideration of the Council’s requirements, but it is clear that a more responsive arrangement should be considered.

Excellencies,

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. We must collectively remain focused on our common goal: ensure a better protection of victims of human rights violations wherever they occur.

Köszönöm.  (Thank you)