02 September 2010
























tool by hioxindia.com


 

Accomplishments and Controversy as HRC Concludes 7th Session, Institution Building Incomplete

New York, 11 April 2008 – The UN Human Rights Council has concluded its 7th Session in Geneva, Switzerland. The Council’s four-week program aimed to conclude institution-building measures of the Council and to move toward a more substantive human rights agenda.

Progress was made both on Council institution-building and on contemporary human rights work with the passage of 36 human rights resolutions and decisions, the extension of 13 Special Procedures mandates, and the election of 18 members to the Advisory Committee.

Debates during Session 7 reflected continuing tensions surrounding institution-building areas, and some tasks remain unfinished. The Council concluded its decision-making segment on 28 March, but the Session was extended until Tuesday, 1 April, to allow delegations additional time to make general end-of-session comments.

Following the conclusion of Session 7 attention has turned to the Universal Periodic Review, which began on 7 April, and Session 8 of the Council, scheduled for 2-13 June.

Institution-building Developments

From the Council’s establishment in June 2006, it faced a heavy program of work to complete the transition from the former Commission on Human Rights and make the Council fully able to promote and protect human rights and respond to human rights violations around the world. The Council’s June 2007 institution-building text established several working groups intended to continue and complete the unfinished work. The working groups were:

  • Working Group on Work, Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure (established procedures for the Council to organize its work through a predictable and flexible agenda)

  • Working Group on Complaint Procedures

  • Working Group on Expert Advice (developed the Advisory Committee)

  • Working Group on Review of Special Procedures (to deal with both the review of mandates (also called “Review, Rationalization and Improvement” (RRI)) and to oversee the appointment of mandate holders)

  • Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Review

During Session 7 the Council aimed to complete its work in the above areas. Despite some successes, however, a few areas remain incomplete.

Special Procedures Mandates

Special Procedures are mandates set up by the Council to investigate human rights situations around the world, with specific tasks including:

  • To analyze human rights issues and situations;

  • To advise on the responsive measures;

  • To alert the international community to address specific situations and issues;

  • To advocate on behalf of the human rights victims; and

  • To activate and mobilize international and national communities.

The Council is in the process of carrying out a review of all the Special Procedures mandates established under the former Commission on Human Rights. During Session 7, the Council agreed to extend the mandates of 13 Special Procedures:

  • Independent Experts on the Effects of Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of all Human Rights (extended 3 years)

  • Human Rights and International Solidarity (extended 3 years)

  • Minority Issues (extended 3 years)

  • Human Rights Defenders (extended 3 years)

  • Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (extended 3 years)

  • Violence Against Women (extended 3 years)

  • The Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion (extended 3 years)

  • Contemporary Forms of Racism (extended 3 years)

  • Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (extended 3 years)

  • Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (extended 3 years)

  • Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (Burma) (extended 1 year)

  • Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (extended 1 year)

  • Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Somalia (extended 1 year)

The Council also created one new mandate, an independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights and Obligations Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation.

The Council decided not to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Appointment of Mandate-holders

Each Special Procedure mandate is carried out by an appointed “mandate-holder” with primary responsibility for the mandate.

Prior to Session 7, concerns were raised that the appointment procedure for Special Mandate holders lacked transparency and competitiveness, reflecting that fact that for several of the mandates the Consultative Group had nominated only one candidate. (The role of the Consultative Group is to consider the candidacies of persons nominated by the Council Secretariat, and then propose to the Council President a list of candidates that are most qualified to fill the posts.)

On 26 March, the Council approved the appointment of the following Special Procedures mandate holders:

  • Raquel Rolnik (Brazil), Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context;

  • Olivier de Schutter (Belgium), Special Rapporteur on the right to food;

  • James Anaya (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people;

  • Najat M’jid Maala (Morocco), Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;

  • Cephas Lumina (Zambia), Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights;

  • Thomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar;

  • Richard Falk (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

  • Maria Magdalenan Sepulveda (Chile), Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty;

  • Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia), Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences;

  • Jeremy Sarkin (South Africa), Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances;

  • Milton Nettleford (Jamaica), African Descent;

  • Shamsul Bari (Bangladesh), Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Somalia;

  • Margaret Sekaggya (Uganda), Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders;

  • Malick El Hadji Sow (Senegal), Aslan Abashidze (Russia) and Roberto Garreton (Chile) to the Working Group on arbitrary detention.

In the ensuing general discussion about the Special Procedures mandate holders, delegations raised fresh concerns about deficiencies in the appointment process. The Asian Group regretted that there was not enough geographical distribution in this process. Delegations said clarification was still needed on the status of mandate holders that had reached the end of their three-year terms. These mandate holders should not be renewed automatically.

Finally, concern was expressed over the appointment of Richard Falk to the mandate on Palestine, in part because of his controversial comparison of Israeli treatment of Palestinians with the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. Israel has since declared that it will deny Falk an entry visa to Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Complaints Procedure

The Council is still in the process of finalizing the procedural mechanisms of the Complaints Procedure (known as the 1503 procedure under the former Commission on Human Rights). Through the complaints procedure, victims can bring human rights problems to the attention of the Council and request action.

The unfinished aspects of the Complaints Procedure were scheduled for consideration during closed sessions on 17 and 25 March, but there was no public announcement about the outcomes of those discussions.

There were signs, however, that the Procedure was already operating on substantive issues during the Session. On 25 March, Council President Costea stated that the Council had examined, in closed meetings, the human rights situation in Turkmenistan under the Complaint Procedure, and it had decided to ”keep the situation under review.” In conformity with the confidentiality of the procedure, Costea said, members of the Council were requested not to refer to the situation in public debate (both the decision and material about the complaint were confidential).

Advisory Committee

The new HRC Advisory Committee will function as a “think-tank” for the Council, providing expert opinion and research on human rights at the request of the Council.

Prior to the Session, President Costea announced that election to the Advisory Committee would take place by secret ballot. However, election for three of the five regional groups (Africa, Asia, and LAC) proceeded without a secret ballot because the number of candidates in each group exactly corresponded to the number of seats available. Candidates from the Eastern European and the WEOG groups were elected by secret ballot.

Based on the criteria of experience, morality, independence and impartiality, the Council elected the following 18 individuals to serve on the Advisory Committee:

African Group:

Mona Zulficar (Egypt) – elected for 2 years

Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya) – elected for 2 years

Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Mauritius) – elected for 3 years

Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco) – elected for 1 year

Baba Kura Kaigama (Nigeria) – elected for 3 years
Asian Group:

Shiqiu Chen (China) – elected for 1 year

Shigeki Sakamoto (Japan) – elected for 2 years

Ansar Ahmed Burney (Pakistan) – elected for 3 years

Purificacion V. Quisumbing (Philippines) – elected for 3 years

Chung Chinsung (Republic of Korea) – elected for 2 years
Group of Latin American and Caribbean States:

Miguel Alfonso Martínez (Cuba) – elected for 1 year

José Antonio Bengoa Cabello (Chile) – elected for 2 years

Héctor Felipe Fix Fierro (Mexico) – elected for 3 years
Eastern European Group:

Vladimir Kartashkin (Russia) - elected for 2 years with 42 votes

Latif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan) – elected for 3 years with 30 votes
Group of Western European and Other States:

Jean Ziegler (Switzerland) - elected for 1 year with 40 votes

Wolfgang S. Heinz (Germany) – elected for 2 years with 24 votes

Emmanuel Decaux (France) - elected for 3 years with 24 votes

The appointment of Jean Ziegler to the Council’s Advisory Committee drew widespread criticism. Ziegler was elected with more votes than any other appointment. However, critics maintained that Ziegler’s appointment does not reflect the wider concerns of the international community. Human Rights Watch (HRW) contended that Ziegler had abused his current UN mandate as special rapporteur on the right to food, ignoring many of the world’s most starving populations and instead focusing attention on his personal political agenda. Ziegler also was criticized for his role as advisor to Ethiopia’s Colonel Mengistu and his relationship with Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. In 2005, both Secretary-General Kofi Annan and High Commissioner Louise Arbour publicly denounced Ziegler for having compared Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards. He is the only UN expert to have been so reprimanded, according to HRW. In April 2006, an international coalition of 15 non-governmental organizations, including victims of Cuban and Libyan abuses, protested Ziegler’s nomination as a UN expert.

The Advisory Committee’s first meeting is scheduled for 4-15 August.

Universal Periodic Review

Several Member States highlighted the Universal Periodic Review during interventions in the proceedings. Despite the conclusion of UPR modalities prior to Session 7 several Member States expressed concern that the process required further attention before its 7 April start. Pakistan and Russia commented that the modalities of the UPR process required “finishing touches” and “firming up”.

Human Rights Proceedings

Following the Council’s discussion on the human rights situation in the Gaza Strip (see ReformtheUN.org Latest Development Issue #240), the Council returned to its program of work and debated the human rights situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Sudan and Myanmar (Burma). For each situation the Council adopted a Resolution expressing concern and urging improved action by the governments in question, signatories to relevant agreements, international institutions, and others to increase cooperation with the Special Rapporteurs and implement the Council’s previous calls regarding the situation. In the case of Myanmar/Burma, authorities were strongly urged to re-establish basic freedoms immediately and to make their current constitution-drafting process inclusive, participatory, and transparent.

Additionally, the Council tasked the High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake two new studies – a compilation of relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions, and a study of the relationship between climate change and human rights.

The Council also adopted a resolution on the Composition of the Staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), detailing the need to ensure and maintain geographical balance in the OHCHR staff.

In total, Council adopted 36 resolutions and decisions pertaining both to current human rights issues and to Council organizational and procedural matters. Resolutions on the promotion and protection of specific human rights issues included:

  • Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism

  • Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • The Rights of the Child

  • Elimination of Violence Against Women

  • Prevention of Genocide

  • Concrete Actions against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

Council Controversies

Session 7 closed in an atmosphere of tension after a series of controversial decisions, beginning with the decision to interrupt Council proceedings during the first week of the Session to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip. Originally scheduled for discussion on 17 March, the Council moved the agenda item up in order to be able to respond to the ongoing situation in the region.

Questions then arose as to why the same consideration was not made regarding the violence in Tibet. Attempts to raise the issue of Tibet in the Council on 25 March were blocked by procedural motions on the basis that they diverged from the agenda. President Costea eventually restricted the Tibet discussion by stating that delegate statements should not address specific human rights situations. According to Human Rights Watch, “The council has not only the right, but the obligation to address the Tibet crisis. It’s scandalous that the council ends up silencing those who are trying to make sure it does its job.”

The adoption of a draft amendment to the renewed mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom and opinion of expression was particularly controversial. Many Member States voiced “disappointment” with the working methods and decision-making processes of the Council.

The original draft resolution was described by the sponsor, Canada, as a short procedural resolution based on bi-lateral consultations. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), introduced an amendment to the draft resolution that the Rapporteur should “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination,” citing caricatures and the production of documentaries on Islam as examples.

The amendment effectively changed the role of the Rapporteur from one of defending freedom of opinion to investigating abuses of the right of freedom of expression, according to various legal analyses. According to NGO group Reporters Without Borders, “there are other [UN] mechanisms for condemning racist attacks or defamation by the media. It is not the rapporteur on free expression’s job to do this. It is like asking the rapporteur on freedom of religion to investigate human rights abuses committed in the name of religion. Such reasoning is absurd.” Nonetheless, the OIC amendment was adopted with 27 votes in favour, 17 against and 3 abstentions.

The controversy then extended to the procedures used in adopting the amendment. Reportedly, the sponsors of the amendment had failed to participate in pre-Session negotiations, instead introducing amendments from the floor, and without circulating texts as is the usual procedure. India, Switzerland, Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Bolivia, the United Kingdom (on behalf of Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Monaco and Andorra), Guatemala and Brazil withdrew their co-sponsorship of the original draft resolution. Cuba then stepped in as a new co-sponsor, on the condition that Cuba could introduce an additional oral amendment. This version was adopted with 29 votes in favour, 15 against and 3 abstentions. Whether the doubly-amended draft resolution could or should subsequently be subject to a suspension of voting to allow Member States opportunity for further consultation was unclear.

According to ISHR: “President Costea, under clear time pressure and not disguising his own confusion in relation to the procedure to follow, agreed with the Egyptian interpretation [that a suspension should not be allowed.]” Put to a vote, the doubly-amended draft resolution was adopted with 32 votes in favour and 15 abstentions.

Member States closing comments included:

European Union: The Council was prematurely pushed into voting without proper time to consider the substance of certain resolutions, and deeply regrets “attacks” to “important mandates.”

Australia: Disappointed and concerned with the final content of certain resolutions.

Algeria: The Council “should not give priority to political expediency over legality.”

Canada: Concerned at the contravention of rules of procedure.

Thailand: “Better consensus” should be achieved in the future. Resolutions should be more concise and action-oriented to allow more efficient and effective implementation.

Next Steps

The UPR is now in the midst of its first Session (7-18 April), and the Session 8 of the Council is scheduled for 2-13 June.

Documents

Timetable for the First Session of the UPR (28 March)

HRC 7th Session Resolutions and Decisions (Section 1) (28 March)

HRC 7th Session Resolutions and Decisions (Section 2) (28 March)

Index of HRC Session 7th Session Resolutions and Decisions (28 March)

HRC Resolution on DPRK (25 March)

HRC Resolution on Myanmar (Burma) (25 March)

HRC Resolution on Sudan (25 March)

List of Vacancies for Special Procedures Mandate Holders (19 March)

Human Rights Council Resolution on Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories (5 March)

Daily Updates from International Service for Human Rights: April 1, March 28, March 27, March 26, March 25, March 20, March 19, March 18, March 17, March 14, March 13

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service. To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailman/listinfo/latestdevelopments. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.