Opening Statement by Bacre Waly Ndiaye Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: The United Human Rights Council's performance, prospects and challenges

Berlin, 16 October 2012

Ladies and gentlemen,
Participants,
Colleagues and friends,

I am deeply honoured and privileged to address you here today. I would like to thank the Friedrich Ebert foundation and the organizers of this event for giving me this opportunity at the start of what, I am certain, will be an important dialogue yielding an enriching exchange of views just in the aftermath of the awarding of the 2012 Nobel Prize to the European Union, on of our most generous donors, and on the eve of the day of the international day for the eradication of poverty.

As always, I am pleased to speak to audiences about the activities of the Human Rights Council – the United Nations’ premier human rights body. As one of the 47 original members of the Council, Germany has spearheaded numerous important initiatives and has continued to do so as an observer State over the last three years. The Council has clearly benefited from this active involvement.

Since its establishment over six years ago, much has been said publicly about the Council. Both critics and advocates have voiced opinions which have echoed far and have in turn formed more views and opinions. The media has steadily reported on the Council’s activities providing a much needed spotlight on its activities. One could argue that with the emergence of social media not long after the Council’s own creation, the face of human rights itself has changed. Human rights activism and messages have indeed taken on new forms as has been evidenced on numerous occasions at Council sessions, in particular in the wake of the Arab Spring.

The challenge, I suppose, is to maintain the spotlight on the Council’s activities and to preserve its credibility. I imagine your deliberations here over the course of the next few days will address these broad questions. While you take stock of both achievements and setbacks, this venue, I am certain, will provide an important opportunity to provide a useful assessment yielding important proposals on how the Human Rights Council can actualize its true potential and best serve human rights victims.

Dear participants,

To put things into context, I will take the next few minutes to spell out some of key developments leading up to the creation of the Council in March 2006, some of its accomplishments since, and finally by providing a brief assessment of my own.

Looking back in history, the predecessor of the Council, the Commission on Human Rights, established only one year after the UN itself, in 1946, had unquestionably engaged into many proud accomplishments. The Commission, in short, set global human rights standards, dealt with a wide range of human rights issues, and helped promote the work of the new Organization. Among its notable achievements over the sixty years of its existence was the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which continues to define our work today.

Although the Commission was praised by Member States for its work, in particular for its independent experts, the political nature of some of its decisions resulted in heavy criticism and increasingly provoked calls for its reform; politicization, double-standards, and selectivity were among those criticisms.

This reform amounted to years of work and research eventually leading to the release of the report of the High-level Panel on Threats and Challenges in 2004. This report, commissioned by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was followed the year after with Mr. Annan’s report “In Larger Freedom” through which he recommended that Member States consider replacing the Commission by a stronger "Human Rights Council" with a more authoritative position. Ultimately, United Nations Member States agreed to replace the Commission with the Council by adopting the World Summit Outcome Document that same year. It took over six months of negotiations for Member States to work out the details on the nature and composition of this new body but in the end the General Assembly adopted resolution 60/251 on 15 March 2006, establishing the Human Rights Council.

These are facts which you know well, yet fitting to retell in the context of your discussions. The overarching fact, of course, is that through adopting this resolution six and a half years ago Member States set out to build a stronger and more effective human rights institution.

The key differences between the Commission and the Council are also well known. Namely, a more transparent and effective process for the election of members; the holding of meetings throughout the year, compared to the one annual session held by the Commission; the ability to convene emergency sessions on short notice, 19 were held by the Council thus far compared to the five convened by the Commission throughout its history; and, of course, the peer review process which became known as the Universal Periodic Review, devised to address the question of double-standards. Not only urgent country-specific human rights situations have prompted the Council to hold special sessions, but also thematic emerging situations with tremendous impact on the economic, social and cultural rights of millions of people, such as the financial and economic crisis and the food crisis which have also been addressed in special sessions.

Dear participants,

Since the Human Rights Council held its first meeting in June 2006, it has held 21 regular sessions, 19 special sessions, completed the first round of the Universal Periodic Review, successfully initiated the second round of this process, and has adopted nearly 700 resolutions and decisions addressing numerous human rights themes and situations around the globe. In doing so, the Council has managed to shed light on human rights issues which would otherwise go largely unnoticed. Moreover, the Council has created new mandates for special procedures, has set up a dozen commissions of inquiries and fact finding missions, and has adopted new human rights standards which have since been forwarded to the General Assembly for final adoption.

In the wake of the Arab Spring alone, the Council has adopted a dozen resolutions sharply criticizing the regimes in Libya and Syria. On the former, the Council, for the first time, decided to call the General Assembly to suspend the membership of Libya in view of the human rights violations by the Kaddafi regime, in implementing General Assembly resolution 60/251. On the latter, the Council has adopted eight resolutions condemning human rights violations, and has held four special sessions since the uprising began 18 months ago, the most recent to respond to the massacre in the Syrian village of Al Houla. In doing so, an independent fact-finding mission and a commission of inquiry were set up to investigate and report on human rights violations being reported on a large scale throughout the country. A similar investigation was authorized by the Council for Libya, which uncovered flagrant human rights violations committed by the former Kadaffi regime. In response to these crises, and others like them, the Council has managed to establish itself as an organization able to respond effectively to human rights crises around the globe.

Several Commissions of Inquiry and fact-finding missions have been established by the Council as an outcome of its special sessions. The reports of these commissions have produced solid basis establishing the fact of human rights violations and provided sound recommendations for accountability and prevention of further violations. I should mention, in this regard, the Goldstone report on the Israeli attack on Gaza strip, the report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the
Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance and most recently on Côte d’Ivoire and on Israeli settlements. However, the outcome of the special session on Sri Lanka did not lead to any action, as an illustration of the polarisation context.

Since its Working Group began meeting in April 2008, the Universal Periodic Review mechanism has shown much promise. The 100 per cent participation of States during the first cycle has been a major success. This success was compounded by the high-level of participation during the first cycle of delegations and constructive discussions and recommendations posed to the States under review. This process is now well into its second phase, with the next group of States to undergo their review beginning next week. While we are off to a good start in this second phase, we must remain mindful of potential setbacks. For instance, the high number of recommendations made during the past UPR session – on average 150 per State under review - should not be misleading, as many were repetitive or similar to those made during the previous review. While we also heard specific action taken by States to implement recommendations posed during their first reviews, thus demonstrating the value of this mechanism, more emphasis should be placed on States’ commitments to their human rights obligations to make this process truly successful. Indeed, the bar has been set very high through the 100 per cent participation during the first cycle and I am confident that States will continue to rise to the challenge to reach the ultimate goal of this unique enabling process – to improve the human rights situation in every country with significant consequences for people around the globe.

As one of the main pillars of the Council’s work, the Special Procedures continue to shed light on human rights situations in all parts of the world thus complementing the Council’s work to address violations that occur. These independent experts have been working hand in hand with the Council since its inception, as they have with the former Commission, proving them truly invaluable. In effect, the Special Procedures carry out much of the work of the Council by highlighting human rights situations in remote parts of the world and reporting on them to the global body back in Geneva. When reporting to the Council these experts made numerous recommendations to States on ways to improve their human rights records. While on occasion States have chosen to ignore recommendations, or at times attempt to discredit the mandate holders, more often than not they have heeded these calls and taken some form of corrective action to improve human rights policies within their territory for the betterment of their citizens. Of the 48 Special Procedures mandates with nearly 80 experts servicing these mandates now in place, 15 were created by the Council, most recently the Special Rapporteurs on the human rights situations Belarus and in Eritrea and the Independent Expert on environment. To improve monitoring by the Special Procedures of human rights on the ground, the Council has strengthened the election and appointment process of Special Rapporteurs since this year, making the process more transparent and consistent.

Of special note is the work of the Council’s Complaint Procedure mechanism on Eritrea which has led to a decision to declassify testimonies received thereon for the newly appointed Rapporteur to follow up on. I would also like to highlight the important work carried out by the Council’s Advisory Committee, represented here by our friend and colleague Professor Heinz. The Committee has produced a number of crucial studies and reports on increasingly important themes which touch all of our lives. One in particular I would like to mention here is its work to produce the United Nations Draft Declaration on human rights education and training which was eventually adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in December last year.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Over the course of its short existence, the Council has initiated new working methods or strengthened existing ones. For instance, States have been organizing more frequently informal consultations prior to adoption of texts in the formal session. States have also been addressing important human rights issues through an increasing number of panel discussions, seminars and round tables allowing for a constructive and dynamic exchange of views.There is however a need to address the increasing gap between the development of mandate and tasks without matching resources.

On a more technical note, the Council has been increasingly reliant on webcast services which it has benefited from since its very first session thus allowing for remote participation and in turn enhancing its visibility. Pre-recorded video messages have also become a regular feature at official meetings allowing those unable to attend meetings in person, including NGOs, to participate from afar. The Council has also been echoing its voice loudly through a variety of social media tools which has worked well to heighten awareness among the public worldwide about the work being done in Geneva as well as better informing meeting participants and the media about key developments and practical information. These efforts and the intent of these tools should never be underestimated as effective means to promote the Human Rights Council while aiming to build support for and sustain the credibility of the organization.

It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the important steps taken to enhance the participation of persons with disabilities in Council meetings. Since the March session in 2009, an annual panel discussion addressing the rights of persons with disabilities has been held with sign language and captioning for the hearing impaired, as well as brail documents for the visually impaired. This is a service we employed for a panel discussion on a gender perspective at last month’s session, and hopefully we will continue to do in future.

Dear participants,

I wanted to take this opportunity to pay special attention to the valuable role played by civil society in the Council. Simply put, without civil society the work of the Council would not be realized or complete. The role of Non-governmental organisations and national human rights institutions should never be underestimated in terms of how they influence the activities and decisions of the Council. At times civil society representatives are the silent actors behind the scene, for example in the UPR process, where they continue to provide invaluable input into reports which often lead to recommendations posed to States. More directly, NGOs continue to shape discussions on the numerous issues tackled by the Council through their interventions in discussions and debates on a host of issues. On average, NGOs organise some 100 side events per Council session, spotlighting issues deserving of focussed attention. Social media, webcast and video are already enhancing their role and impact well beyond the Council room and corridors.

On a less positive note, an unfortunate trend observed in recent months is the rise of reprisals against human rights defenders and members of civil society, in particular. The President of the Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General himself, have spoken out strongly on this issue clearly indicating that no such behaviour should be tolerated and utterly stamped out. I take this opportunity to echo this call and to applaud the work of human rights defenders everywhere in advancing human rights, all human rights for all human beings.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the face of crisis situations, the Council has shown that, whenever there is a unity of purpose and desire for consensus there is the capacity to act to address these situations in a timely and constructive manner. But still, there is room for improvement and for States to do more. The engagement of States must be more than just a one-shot exercise. There is a need to ensure that the common resolve often expressed is followed up with concrete action, so as to produce meaningful impacts on the ground, and make a difference in the lives of people in need of protection.

We have witnessed a stronger and more active engagement within the Council through the intensification of consultation and consensus building, as evidenced in the increasing number of cross regional initiatives and increasing number of resolutions adopted by consensus. I have no doubt that the building of bridges and the forging of common grounds and engagement of all stakeholders, including NGOs, will determine how successful the Council is in carrying out the rising challenges entrusted to it.

One of the main challenges for the Council is for its words and decisions to translate into real action and change on the ground. Human rights are indeed universal values and, as recent events have underscored, they are also universal aspirations. But as a multinational body the Council will always have to deal with different perceptions of human rights. The discourse on human rights within the Council cannot avoid the different political, economic, social and cultural context in which they occur. Therefore, recognizing diversity and having mutual respect for different views and opinions while cherishing our common humanity must remain at the heart of the constructive dialogue and cooperation that the Council seeks to promote within and beyond.

I thank you for your attention and wish you a successful conference.