Human Rights Commission

UN Human Rights Council

Khin Maung Shwe Coordinator Justice Project TJP-HREIB

Introduction 3 components:




Background: from the CHR to the HRC Assessment of HRC’s performance to date Lobbying and advocacy strategies

Part 1: From the CHR to the HRC Human Rights Council (HRC) was created on 15 March 2006, replacing the Commission on Human Rights General Assembly Resolution 60/251 Q: Why replace the CHR?

Why replace the CHR with HRC?







Hypocrisy in membership (eg. Libya chairs the CHR in 2003) Membership used to shield abusive governments and their allies from scrutiny Failure to condemn or to scrutinize countries committing gross human rights violations Could only respond after violations had occurred (reactive, rather than preventive) Became a divisive forum of competing politics and bloc alliances Need for institutional recognition of human rights

Reforming the UN human rights machinery




1996: UNSG Kofi Annan pledges enhancement of effectiveness and efficiency of UN system




1998 - 2000: Creation of “WG to enhance the effectiveness of the CHR” (Geneva)




2002: UNSG proposes 2nd reform package in a new report (“An Agenda for Change”)




Dec 2004: High Level Panel report recommends replacement of CHR




March 2005: Secretary General’s report recommends replacement but on a different model

Reforming the UN human rights machinery




Sept 2005: World Summit and Summit Outcome Document (proposal for HRC and basic mandate outlined)




15 March 2006: General Assembly passes resolution to replace CHR with HRC – 170/4/3



Against: US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau Abstention: Belarus, Iran, Venezuela




9 May 2006: Election of members




15 June 2006: First session of the HRC (2 weeks)

From CHR to HRC within UN system Security Council International Court of Justice

(P5 + 10) HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

General Assembly

UN Funds and Programmes

(192)

• UNDP • UNHCR • UNICEF

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (54)

• UNIFEM • WFP etc.

Functional Commissions

Regional Commissions

S E C R E T A R I A T -NY

Women

HR (53)

- Asia and the Pacific Soc. Dvmt

Sus. Dvmt

Sub-CHR (26)

Crime

Human settlmnts

- Africa - Europe - Latin America - Middle East

S= slavery, M= minorities, IPs= indigenous peoples,

S

M IPs C TNC J

C= communications, TNCs= transnational corporations, J= justice

-Nairobi -Vienna -Geneva

Comparing CHR with HRC


What do you already know about the HRC?




What don’t you know about the HRC that you would like to know?

Comparing CHR with HRC Membership (selection process):

Membership

Coordination/ nomination by regional group

Direct election based on individual secret ballots

3 years and “unlimited”

Maximum two consecutive terms

N/A

(1) Must uphold highest standards in human rights; (2) must cooperate fully with HRC and be reviewed by UPR; (3) voting must be based on voluntary pledges and commitment to HR

N/A

Members first to be reviewed by UPR; gross violators can be suspended with 2/3 majority of the General Assembly (123)

(duration):

Membership (criteria):

Membership : (review and suspension):

Comparing CHR with HRC No. of sessions per year

One

Minimum of three regular sessions, with the ability to convene special sessions for emergency situations (with support of 1/3 HRC members (16)

Duration of sessions

6 weeks

Minimum ten weeks per year: “standing body”

Venue of sessions

Geneva

Geneva plus…?

Based on ECOSOC NGO participation Res. 1996/31

Based on ECOSOC Res. 1996/31 and “practices observed by the CHR” to ensure most effective contribution by NGOs

Functions

(para 5 of GA Resolution 60/251)




Broad mandate to discuss human rights issues




Address situations of violations of human rights, including prompt response to “gross and systematic violations”




Universal periodic review of all States




Promote advisory services, technical assistance and capacity building, in consultation with States and with consent of concerned Member States

Explicit guiding principles


“HRC to be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation” – –

– –

To overcome criticisms of “politicisation” within the CHR How to ensure impartiality and objectivity when there is no set criteria? Who decides which situation is urgent than another? “Non-selectivity” must not be “non-interference” “Constructive dialogue” must not be a substitute for concrete action

Transition from CHR to HRC: points of concern




Important to look at what the Commission DID achieve – – – –

Special procedures system Unprecedented level of NGO participation Standard-setting Providing expert advice on new human rights issues




How to maintain and expand upon these achievements?




Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Burma under threat?




How will country situations will be dealt with?




How to raise the issue of Burma if SR’s mandate is gone?




What will the new UPR look like? How can NGOs participate?

Recap


HRC created in March 2006 to overcome flaws of CHR—to respond effectively to human rights violations worldwide




On paper, various differences between CHR and HRC: – – – – – – – –




Higher status within UN system Mandate to prevent HR violations Members elected by entire General Assembly, must be elected on basis of pledges and commitment to human rights Only 2 terms allowed for membership (ie. maximum 6 years) Gross violators can be suspended Meets more frequently throughout the year Will conduct Universal Periodic Review of all countries in the world Emergency sessions can be convened with support of 1/3 of HRC members

However, still many uncertainties—how HRC will really operate unclear; possibility of country mandates of the Special Procedures to be abolished

Part 2: Assessment of HRC’s performance to date

–

Established March 2006 Election of membership 9 May 2006

–

4 regular sessions to date

–







–

June 2006 (2 weeks) September/October 2006 (3 weeks) November/December 2006 (2 weeks) March 2006 (4 weeks)

4 emergency sessions to date





July 2006: Palestine August 2006: Lebanon November 2006: Palestine (Beit Hanoun) December 2006: Darfur

10 months of work til date—still too early to assess, but general trends

9 May 2006 elections


9 May election of first members of HRC: –

18 Asian governments compete for 13 seats

–

All Asian candidates submitted pledges



Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand Most were general and vague, though some specific pledges, eg. Indonesia—pledged to ratify 1951 Refugee Convention and its Optional Protocol

www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc

Election results (see handout) Africa (13 seats) Elected Ghana (183) Zambia (182) Senegal (181) South Africa (179) Mali (178) Mauritius (178) Morocco (178) Gabon (175) Djibouti (172) Tunisia (171) Cameroon (171) Nigeria (169) Algeria (168)

Asia (13 seats) Not elected Kenya (9) Madagascar (1) Tanzania (1) Egypt (1)

Elected India (173) Bangladesh (160) Indonesia (165) Japan (158) Malaysia (158) Pakistan (149) Republic of Korea (148) China (146) Jordan (137) Philippines (136) Bahrain (134) Saudi Arabia (126) Sri Lanka (123)

Not elected Thailand (120) Lebanon (112) Kyrgyzstan (88) Iran (58) Iraq (52) Maldives (1) Qatar (1)

Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) (8 seats) Elected Brazil (165) Argentina (158) Mexico (154) Peru (145) Guatemala (142) Uruguay (141) Cuba (135) Ecuador (128)

Eastern Europe (6 seats) Elected

Not elected

Not elected Nicaragua (119) Venezuela (101) Costa Rica (6) Honduras (3) Colombia (1)

Russian Federation (137) Ukraine (109) Poland (108) Czech Republic (105) Azerbaijan (103) Romania (98)

Western European and Other States (7 seats) Elected Germany (154) France (150) United Kingdom (148) Switzerland (140) Netherlands (137) Finland (133) Canada (130)

Not elected Greece (117) Portugal (122) Spain (1)

Lithuania (92) Slovenia (91) Hungary (79) Armenia (70) Latvia (50) Georgia (35) Albania (31) Serbia and Montenegro (1)

Results of election


Power and regional importance counted: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Germany, Ghana, India and Ukraine




High-profile government officials vocally critical of the UN did not get elected: Venezuela and Thailand




Credibility did count: Bahrain, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, South Africa and Switzerland got elected




Lack of credibility also counted: Iraq, Iran




Generally an improvement over the CHR

15 March: HRC created

9 May: election of members

• Draft Convention 19- 30 June: on First Disappearances session

(2declaration weeks) •Draft on IPs •Created 2 WGs on UPR and SPs

• Called 5 – 6 July for fact-finding 1st special mission by session SR onon OPT Palestine • Blocked by Israel

• SR’s reports 18 Sept – 6 Oct: presented, Secondincluding session on Burma (3 weeks)

11- 18ALL June ’07 INSTITUTION5th regular BUILDING session, SPBE ISSUES TO DECIDED interactive UPON dialogues

• Established 11 Aug high-level 2nd special inquiry session on commission Lebanon to Lebanon

Special session on Burma?

• Bloc politics, OIC •Attacks against SPs • Postponed til Nov

• SR on Burma’s report presented

12 – 30 Mar ‘07

• Actions on Darfur, session but noFourth other country situations(3 weeks)

• Dispatched 12-13 Dec high-level factth special 4 finding mission session on • Critical report Darfur

• Adopted 5 27 – 29 including Nov: resolutions, Resumed code of conduct of SPssecond session

29 Nov- 8 Dec: • Institution-building issues Third session (2 weeks)

• Called 15 Nov for nd high-level 3 special factsession on finding mission OPT (Beit • Blocked by Hanoun) Israel

First session (19 – 30 June 06, 2 weeks)


Minister of Foreign Affairs, U Nyan Win delivered speech during High Level Segment –

–

–

–

“Objective of HRC is to promote and protect HR in a more effective manner” CHR allowed itself to be abused as a forum to “vilify and humiliate States, especially Third World countries” “Validity and credibility of information” should be one of the criteria when dealing with country specific situations HRC must address right to development: “as if adding insult to injury, there have been artificial impediments placed on the path to development, such as unilateral sanctions against us”

Second session (18 Sept – 6 Oct ‘06, 3 weeks)




SR on Burma, Pinheiro’s report presented—very critical, highlighted lack of access to the country since 2002 –

Burma: “there is nothing wrong going on in Burma”, highlighted positive developments

–

China: Burma should resolve its problems through its own people. Not in favour of stress and isolation India: opposition to using country-specific resolutions Pakistan: HRC should engage with Burma through dialogue and cooperation, not through selective targeting

– –

Second session (18 Sept – 6 Oct ‘06, 3 weeks) Cont’d


Countries critical of Burma/ supportive of SR: – – – – – – – –

Finland (on behalf of EU): commitment to country-specific procedures Malaysia: called for “speedy process to national reconciliation” Japan: concerned about lack of access given to SR Canada: IDPs and refugees, HRC should support work of NGOs working along Burmese border Australia: Burma must work with HRC to provide safe environment for its people and resolve ethnic conflict NZ: all political prisoners should be freed US: overall concern, also IDPs, how int’l community can help NGOs working on Burma and get release of political prisoners Peru: no tangible progress, Burma’s lack of true desire for cooperation and dialogue, asked SR if Burma is a threat to SEA

Third session (29 Nov – 8 Dec ’06, 2 weeks)




Focused on institution-building issues – –

– –




UPR Expert advisory system (previously Sub-Commission on Human Rights) Special procedures system Confidential complaints procedure (previously 1503 procedure)

No intervention by the government of Burma on any of these issues

Fourth session (12 – 30 March ‘07, 3 weeks)


SR on the situation of Burma, Pinheiro’s report





–

situation may lead to humanitarian crisis if not addressed immediately Burma must be kept high up on HRC agenda Burma must authorise access to affected areas by UN and NGOs If the HRC is to maintain SPs, must ensure that Member States cooperate with them and receive them

Burma’s response (U Nyunat Swe, Deputy Permanent Representative)







Burma fully committed to implementation of 7-step roadmap towards democracy No forced recruitment carried out in Burma, not a country in a situation of armed conflict, enjoying unprecedented peace and tranquility since independence, reject accusation that armed forces target civilians National Committee for Women’s Affairs will be submitting overdue 2nd and 3rd reports to CEDAW Burma is fully aware to improve and promote HR. We are doing everything possible and will continue to do so. HR must be addressed with objectivity and non-selectivity

Fourth session (12 – 30 March ‘07, 3 weeks) Cont’d


Governments defending Burma: – –




India: ‘dialogue and cooperation’, should encourage positive steps taken by Burma China: but called upon speeding up of dialogue and reform

Governments critical of Burma: – – – – – – – – – – – –

Norway Germany (EU) Netherlands Czech Republic Sweden New Zealand US: ‘one of most repressive countries in the world’ Finland South Korea Australia Japan Canada

Performance of HRC: special sessions—case of Darfur


Fourth special session: Darfur (12 – 13 Dec) –

Dispatched High-Level Fact-finding mission, very critical report






–

Establishment of regular monitoring mechanism for Darfur for implementation of various recommendations Extend and maintain mandate of SR on Darfur Recommend action by ICC Compensation and redress to victims GA to request a list of foreign companies that have adverse effects on human rights in Darfur; UN to refrain any business with these companies

Taken up at the 4th regular session in March 2007


Resolution adopted to establish an independent monitoring group on Darfur to ensure that all resolutions + recommendations by UN are implemented and followed up

Lessons


Need independent, well-respected but strong human rights advocate, eg. Jody Williams




Even if report of fact-finding missions is critical, does not mean HRC will act upon them




Special sessions pave way to get situation highlighted and provide entry points for further action




HRC can recommend further action by UN Security Council

Overall analysis Negative trends:


Not much discussion on substance or country-specific situations, except for Darfur




Politicized and divisive debate on the Middle East and racism/ freedom of religion dominating sessions




Bloc politics, lack of moderate States speaking out (“herd mentality”) –

–

Role of OIC: fighting persistently to shield States from criticisms. Note: 3 OIC members chair HRC’s regional groups: Algeria (Africa), Saudi Arabia (Asia), Azerbaijan (Europe) Failure of States that ordinarily support human rights to act as a counterweight to the OIC

Negative trends of HRC (cont’d)


Limitation of NGO participation due to uncertainties, attempts by States to curtail NGO participation—lack of lobbying initiatives by NGOs based outside of Geneva




Many States expressing concern about situation in Burma, but no concrete proposals for special sessions/how the HRC should proceed ahead to deal with the situation




Attempts by regressive States to remove country-specific agenda items as well as country-specific SP mandates, including Special Rapporteur on Burma –

Asian and African States comprise the majority of HRC membership (26/47)—undermines ability of HRC to adopt strong and results-oriented resolutions on urgent HR situations

Positive trends/indicators…


Outcomes of 4th special session on Darfur were very strong




Follow-up action taken at 4th regular session of HRC after special session on Darfur: dispatching of AU-UN peacekeeping force to Darfur, among others




4 special sessions have been convened: 3 on Middle East, one on Darfur—now Asia’s turn? Burma is key country focus after the failure of UNSC resolution




Some expanded scope of NGO participation: – – – –

1st session: for the first time, prominent human rights defenders spoke immediately after the HLS 2nd session: substantive NGO participation in interactive dialogues with the SPs No fixed limit on number of oral interventions NGOs based outside of Geneva now given priority to speak

General strategies in engaging with HRC


Be targeted and informed –




Know the politics –




Define what is to be achieved—not always necessary to go to Geneva Know who can support, and know your enemy—know what has already been discussed and positions of governments on Burma, and incorporate this into your lobbying

Reach out – – –

Contact NGOs based in Geneva Media outreach Establish links with OHCHR NGO liaison office: Laura DolciKanaan, [email protected]

General strategies in engaging with HRC




Be prepared –

– –




Position papers (couple of pages maximum) advocacy materials, audiovisuals, to influence decision-making. Be clear about what you want. Send position papers to OHCHR Secretariat, diplomatic missions, other NGOs and media in advance

Follow up –

Once decisions/resolutions adopted on Burma, publicise it, monitor implementation, and encourage international agencies to act on it

Engaging with other HRC mechanisms




Regular sessions Special procedures: country and thematic UPR




PLUS: May 2007 elections





Regular sessions: Types of NGO participation at HRC






Submission of written statements (need ECOSOC accreditation) Make oral statements (need ECOSOC accreditation) Organize parallel/side events to mobilize public pressure –

Show documentaries and video clips




Possibility of “Special Event” on Burma during official session




Lobbying activities – – –





General Related to specific resolutions Related to specific delegations

Media-related events Parallel mobilization on the ground (campaign)

Special procedures • Established by CHR to monitor, examine, advise and public report on a human rights in a specific country or on a thematic issue mandate • Known as: – Special Rapporteurs – Independent Experts – Special Representatives of the Secretary-General – Working Groups

• Thematic mandates • Country-specific mandates

• Maintain and extend mandate of SR on Burma—must be done before June 2007 • If the mandate on Burma is maintained, propose possible candidates as successor of Paulo Pinheiro • Be ready to proactively engage with thematic mandates if mandate on Burma abolished – 28 thematic mandates – Submit cases of violations: entry point to get Burma consistently on the agenda of HRC

Thematic mandates (28) Civil + political rights (7)

ESC rights (8)

Specific groups (7)

• Arbitrary detention • Disappearances • Extrajudicial killings • Freedom of opinion + expression • Freedom of religion/belief • Independence of judges + lawyers • Torture

• Housing • Education • Extreme poverty • Food • Health • Effects of economic reform policies/debt on ESCR • Toxic waste • Transnational corporations + other businesses

• Indigenous people • Human rights defenders • internally displaced persons • Migrants • violence against women • trafficking in persons, especially women and children • sale of children

Others (4) • use of mercenaries • racism • international solidarity • terrorism

Country mandates (13)




Burma (1992) Cambodia (1993) North Korea (2004)












Belarus Burundi Cuba Democratic Republic of the Congo Haiti Palestine Somalia Sudan Uzbekistan

UPR


All governments, including Burma, will be reviewed by the UPR




However, how UPR will be conducted still unclear—to be decided by June 2007




Members are to be reviewed first—will take years before Burma will be reviewed –




However, target Burma’s neighbouring countries and their responsibility to ensure all rights of Burmese refugees/migrants within their territories (China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, etc)

After UPR is established, prepare NGO reports and information on violations occurring in Burma/neighbouring countries

Membership election: May 2007


Current Asian members whose terms are expiring: India, Indonesia, Bahrain, Philippines – – –




Thailand may be running for membership again –




India: ensure the protection of Burmese refugees and migrants Indonesia and Philippines: ASEAN members Must ratify 1951 Convention on Refugees and its Protocol; Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers Ensure human rights protection of all Burmese refugees and migrants

Remind HRC members about their responsibility to respond to “human rights emergencies” and “gross and systematic violations” –

whether it can act decisively on situations such as Burma will be a test of its own credibility as members

Things to remember


Human Rights Council is an INTER-GOVERNMENTAL BODY, composed of governments –

Every reason that it will be just as political as other bodies such as UN Security Council




Inevitably, decisions/outcomes will be based on the political will/interests of governments




Know which Council members are supportive of addressing the situation in Burma




Before engaging with the Council at the international level, make sure there is coordination and mobilization in the region/ on the ground




Only the UN Security Council has executive/military power

Characteristics of the HRC/ UN






An intergovernmental body Allows political discussions between States, and academic discussions between independent experts With semi-legislative power: can adopt draft treaties to be endorsed and adopted by the General Assembly Without executive or military power: although the Security Council can authorise enforcement action Without judicial power: except where the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction

Asian Group in the UN consists of: 54 countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, North Korea, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Burma, Nauru, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen

African Group (53) Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte D'Ivoire, Democratic People's Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC): 33 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Western European and Other Group (WEOG): 28 Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. Although the United States is not officially in WEOG, for all practical purposes it is a full member.

Eastern European Group (CEIT): 22 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine

Special procedures: what do they do?











Study and increase understanding of a particular human rights issue/ ‘new’ HR areas (eg. effects of counter-terrorism measures on human rights) Receive information on country situations Receive individual human rights violation cases Comment on information/communications received Undertake country visits and issue reports with recommendations Raise public awareness on issues within their mandates Transmit urgent appeals/allegation letters to governments (private + public) Compile names and cases of human rights victims in their reports (public)

Country visits



Most Special Procedures undertake 2 country visits per year Visits cannot be carried out without approval of relevant authorities –

–





Some countries have issued standing invitations, meaning that any Special Procedure can come and visit any time (Iran, Mongolia, Maldives, Timor Leste) Many continue to deny access (eg. North Korea, Burma, Singapore, Vietnam)

During visits, experts assess human rights situation by talking to various actors (gvmt, NGOs, civil society, NIs, etc) After visits, experts issue reports with conclusions and recommendations to improve the human rights situation (submitted to HRC and/or GA)

How to submit cases of violations?


Make sure minimum information is provided: – – –

– –

Identification of alleged victim (s) Identification of alleged perpetrators of the violation Identification of person (s) / organization submitting the communication (will be kept confidential) Date and place of incident Detailed description of circumstances of the incident in which the alleged violation occurred

Communications that contain abusive language or that are politically motivated are not considered.

Sub-Commission on Human Rights




Set up in 1947 with initial mandate to recommend standards for protection of minorities and prevention of discrimination




Mandate has expanded over the years, authorised to examine human rights violations in all countries around the world




Known as “think tank” for the CHR, undertake research on HR issues, develop international HR standards, interpret international standards, monitor violations and implementation of HR




Met once each year for 3 weeks in July and August—venue for discussion among experts, academics, NGOs, governments – Adopt resolutions and decisions




Appointed Special Rapporteurs or Working Groups among 26 independent members to conduct its work




Power to conduct country-specific studies removed in 2000

Sub-CHR: achievements and weaknesses











Achievements: Initiated large number of current HR standards Highlighted new and emerging areas of HR and gaps in HR protection Provided guidance on interpretation and implementation of HR standards NGOs without ECOSOC accreditation could participate (eg. WG on minorities and indigenous populations)







Weaknesses: Composition of members: some members held position within gvmts, no term limits, lack of expertise  politicisation, weakened functions Restrictions on its work—no country studies, limited ability to take initiatives without approval by CHR

Current debate on future expert advisory system




Membership –

Selection/appointment process


– –

Number Criteria





Asian States emphasising geographical representation rather than expertise

Functions/mandate – – –




Asian States wanting State control over appointment and selection

Resumption of country studies? Able to meet throughout the year, now that the HRC is a standing body? Able to take its own initiatives?

Will NGO participation be maintained?

Complaint procedure (1503): How did it work?








Established in 1970 Receive complaints from victims regarding situations which reveal a consistent pattern of gross reliably attested violations of HR in any part of the world Confidential procedure; countries that came up via the procedure were considered in closed meeting NGOs did not require ECOSOC status to use the procedure Criteria: – – – – – – –

Complainant must have exhausted all domestic remedies State against whom the complaint had been made must not be examined under any public procedure of the CHR Subject matter must not fall under mandate of Special Procedures Not possible to submit complaint if individual complaints mechanism set up by a treaty which a State has ratified Complaint cannot be politically motivated or manifestly unfounded Complainant cannot be anonymous Information cannot come from mass media reports alone

Complaint procedure (1503): How did it work?




2 stages after complaint submitted: –

–

–






Sub-CHR’s WG on Communications reviews complaint and assess whether it shows a consistent pattern of gross HR violations CHR’s WG on Situations decide which situations the CHR should take up and make recommendations to CHR on what course of action to take on each situation CHR would then consider the situation in a closed meeting

Process could take 18 months or longer Concerned State would be informed throughout all stages but not complainant No direct remedies or compensation for complainant or other victims offered under the procedure

Future complaint system






Do we need a complaint system if we already have special procedures? What should be the composition of the body examining complaints? How should the Council deal with complaints? What human rights violations should the complaints procedure cover? How to remedy flaws of 1503 procedure? – – –

Lengthy, complex process Secrecy Lack of protection/remedy