Transcript Reporting and review procedure

THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
A Quick Guide
by the International Service for
Human Rights
Reforming the Commission







2001: USA not elected for first time
2003: Libya chairs the Commission
December 2004: High Level Panel report
recommends replacement
March 2005: Secretary General’s report
recommends replacement but on a different model
September 2005: World Summit and Summit
Outcome Document
15 March 2006: General Assembly passes resolution
to replace Commission with Council
19 June 2006: First session of the new Council
Human Rights Council

General Assembly resolution 60/251

Status: subsidiary organ of General Assembly

Status to be reviewed within 5 years

Composition and election:
–
–
–
–

47 member States
elected by absolute majority of the General Assembly
Individual secret ballots
Eligible for two consecutive terms only
Gross violators can be removed by two thirds
majority vote of General Assembly
Membership criteria

Take account of contributions to human right

Voluntary pledges and commitments to be
considered when standing for election

But no disqualification criteria

Members must uphold the “highest
standards” in human rights and fully
cooperate with the Council
Membership
Africa
Asia
Eastern Europe
GRULAC
WEOG
13
13
6
8
7
Total
47
Meetings

At least three meetings a year totalling at least
10 weeks

2006/07 schedule:
–
–
–
–
–

19 to 30 June
18 September to 6 October
27 November to 8 December
Possibly one week in January
12 March to 5 April 2007
Able to hold special sessions on request of one
third of members
Functions

Broad mandate to discuss human rights
issues

Address situations of violations of human
rights, including “gross and systematic
violations”

Universal periodic review of all States
Functions

All “mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities” of
the Commission transferred to Council for review,
rationalisation and improvement within one year:
–
–
–

A system of special procedures to be retained
A system of expert advice to be maintained (Sub-Commission)
A complaints procedure to be maintained (1503 procedure)
Modalities:
–
–
Informal consultations;
Inter-sessional working groups.
1. Universal Periodic Review
Universal periodic review of the fulfilment by each State of its
human rights obligations and commitments:
–
–
–
–
Based on reliable and objective information;
Universality of coverage (all States);
Cooperative, based on interactive dialogue (not a judgement);
Not duplicative of treaty bodies work.
Issues to be decided:
1.
Terms of reference (standards to be used in the review):
–
–
–
–
–
UN Charter;
UDHR;
Treaties?
Other commitments and pledges;
National human rights laws?
Universal Periodic Review
2.
Procedure:
–
–
–
3.
Working Group vs. Plenary
States vs. Experts
Periodicity (3 to 5 years)
Preparation:
–
–
–
–
–
Reports by State under review?
Report by High Commissioner?
Questionnaire?
Simple oral statement?
OHCHR database.
Universal Periodic Review
4.
Outcome:
–
–
–
–
–
–
5.
Country-specific resolution?
Mere interactive dialogue?
Recommendations?
If review undertaken by WG, outcome forwarded to HRC?
Decision by consensus?
Only technical assistance? Referral to 1235?
Follow-up:
–
–
Next UPR round?
Annual report on implementation of recommendation?
Universal Periodic Review
Other issues:

Participation of civil society:
–

“full involvement of the country concerned”, including civil
society;
Link with other mechanisms
–
–
Treaty bodies;
Special procedures.
2. Special procedures
Individual experts or group pf individuals (working groups)
mandated to address specific country situations or
thematic issues.

There are currently 41 special procedures
mechanisms:
–
–

15 dealing with country situations;
26 dealing with thematic issues;
Special procedures:
–
–
–
Carry out country visits;
Receive individual complaints from victims;
Report to the Council and the General Assembly about
their findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Special procedures
Example: Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Belarus (Mr Adrian Severin)
CHR 2002: debate
CHR 2003: resolution
CHR 2004: country mandate
CHR 2005: renewal country mandate
Issues to be decided by the Council:
1.
Rationalisation of mandates
–
–
–
Overlap, number of mandates;
Country mandates;
Review used to terminate undesired mandated?
Special procedures
2.
Working methods
–
–
–
3.
Interaction with the media;
Admissibility criteria for individual communications;
“Code of conduct” for accountability in case of experts
overstepping their mandate;
Selection and appointment of experts
–
–
–
–
–
Role of regional groups;
WG with regional representation instead of individual
experts;
Disqualifying situations;
OHCHR roster;
Need to preserve expertise and independence.
3. Expert advice to the Council






Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights
26 independent experts elected by the Commission
for 4 year terms (half elected every 2 years)
Think tank for the Commission: studies, standard
setting
But was increasingly restricted: no country specific
consideration, no initiation of projects without
Commission approval, TNC Norms
Met annually in Geneva for four weeks
Council required to develop a system of expert
advice
4. Complaints procedure

ECOSOC resolution 1503 (1970):
–
–

Gross violations of human rights;
Pattern of widespread violation of human rights;
Confidential procedure, it may result in:
–
–
Public debate under ECOSOC Resolution 1235;
Appointment of special procedure with country specific
mandate.

Council is required to maintain a complaints procedure.

So far, during the Council session and informal
consultations:
–
–
–
Focus on other issues, not on 1503;
Quest for more transparency;
Clearer admissibility criteria.
Standard setting
Standard-setting Working Groups were
responsible for negotiating new legal standards
in the area of human rights – i.e. declarations or
treaties
Standard-setting Working Groups of former
Commission
–
–
–
Draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances
Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
Consideration of a possible Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights
Role of NGOs at the Commission
ECOSOC accredited NGOs:

Direct access to Commission and Sub-commission
unparalleled in UN system

Written submissions: unlimited number

Oral statements: limited number at Commission

Parallel or side events

Lobbying and persuasion:
–
–
–
General
Related to specific resolutions
Related to specific delegations
Role of NGOs at the Council

During the reform process: fears that NGO access
could be limited.

However, arrangements and practices established
under the Commission are carried forward to the
Council.

The Universal Periodic Review as new avenue of
participation:
–
–
To submit info on countries, highlight violations, ask for
concrete action;
Particularly important if country mandates are
suppressed.
Accreditation

3 categories of NGO accreditation:
–
–
–
General consultative status;
Special consultative status;
NGOs on the Roster;

Applications to ECOSOC Committee on NGOs, meeting
annually.

Consultative status suspended or withdrawn:
–
–
–

Abuse of the status;
Funds from criminal activities;
No contribution to UN work within any three-year period.
Quadriennial reports on activities and contribution to
NGO Committee.
Accreditation

Politicisation of the accreditation process: example of
LGBT organisations.

Some form of participation for non-ECOSOC accredited
NGOs?
Example: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; Ad Hoc Committee
on the Disability Convention
The Council’s first year

Receive and respond to the outstanding reports of the Special
Procedures

Develop and establish the system of universal periodic review

Review, rationalise and improve all mandates of Special
Procedures

Review the system of expert advice and establish its own system

Review the system of individual complaints and establish its own
system

Develop its own rules of procedure, agenda and operating
system

Act on situations to avoid any protection gap