28 June 2006 - Child Rights and the new Human Rights Council 8
___________________________________________________________
Wednesday 28th June - ORDER OF THE DAY
- Discussions on the establishment of a Universal Periodic Review mechanism (10am - 1pm)
- Council considers issue of the review of mandates and mechanisms (3-5pm)
- Iran: Human Rights Watch calls on Council to remove rights abuser from UN Delegation
___________________________________________________________
If you do not receive this email in html format, you will not be able to see some hyperlinks in the text. Please visit http://www.crin.org/email to read the CRNMAIL online and view archives.
___________________________________________________________
Discussions on the establishment of a Universal Periodic Review mechanism (10am - 1pm)
At 10am, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba called to order today's meeting, resuming discussions on item 4 of the agenda: the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006. Today, the Council will discuss more particularly the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism set out in Resolution 60/251, operational paragraph 5 (e):
"The Council shall inter alia (...) undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session"
Paragraph 9 furthermore stresses that:
"members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, shall fully cooperate with the Council and be reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism during their term of membership"
Ambassador de Alba announced that the aim of today's discussion was to identify measures to be taken to ensure that the UPR mechanism becomes a reality within the time frame set up by the GA Resolution (a year). Discussions should also take place on the estalishment of an inter-sessional working group in charge of holding consultations on the elaboration of UPR modalities, as suggested by the Mexican Ambassador himself.
Statements by permanent representatives
The following delegations delivered statements on the UPR mechanism: Uruguay, Switzerland, Malaysia, Mexico, Austria/EU, India, Canada/Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brazil, Russian Federation, Algeria, Algeria/African group, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Philippines, Japan, Ghana, Poland, China, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Romania, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Zambia and Ukraine.
An instrument reflecting a new culture
All delegations welcomed the UPR mechanism as the most important and most innovative feature of the Human Rights Council and of the reform of the UN human rights system. All of them expressed the hope that this new mechanism would enable the Council extricate itself from the politicisation, double-standards, and political selectivity displayed by the defunct Commission on Human Rights.
UPR, they said, is an "instrument reflecting a new culture" (Uruguay) and therefore should not allow exceptions or excuses based on the idea of infringement of domestic sovereignty. The new mechanism must place all countries on an equal footing and therefore be based on universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity, and inclusiveness. It must use similar parameters for all States and ensure coverage of all human rights issues.
How should UPR be established?
Paragraph 5(e) of Resolution 60/251 left to the Council the task of determining the modalities for the elaboration of the UPR mechanism. All delegations expressed their wish for an inclusive consultation process, whose outcome would enjoy the trust of all. However, slight disagreement was sometimes expressed regarding the nature of consultations and the consultations time frame.
Although a suggestion was made for an infomal process to start the UPR consultations (Switzerland), most countries favoured the establishment of an inter-governmental open-ended working group that would consider relevant procedural questions and submit its recommendations to the Human Rights Council. The working group would meet between HRC sessions and update the Council regularly on progress made. Consultations within the working group would involve all stakeholders, i.e. Council member States, observer States, UN agencies, representatives from Treaty Bodies, NGOs and Nationals Human Rights Institutions. Many delegations suggested that the president of the UPR working group should be a Council member.
Time frame
Two different views were expressed with regards to the pace the consultation process should take, although most agreed that the working group should be established and start its work immediately after the first HRC session ends.
Some speakers insisted that time constraints set out in Resolution 60/251 should not be sacrifice the effectiveness of the consultations, and the process is too important to be rushed (Uruguay, Malaysia, EU). Cuba also called on the Coucnil to be cautious and not show too much haste in wanting to finish UPR talks by December 2006, as suggested by many delegations, so as not to transmit the Commission's vices not the Council. Indonesia also suggested that there should be no additional deadlines introduced to the process of the elaboration of the UPR modalities other than the one mentioned in the GA Resolution, as the Council needs to take its time.
Most speakers, however, expressed their wish to see the UPR mechanism fully operational within one year, as specified by Resolution 60/251 (Switzerland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, etc). They suggested consultations should end by December 2006, in order for the Council to finalise the mechanism as early as possible and start the review process next year.
Suggestions on the modalities of the UPR mechanism itself
FAIRNESS: All delegations expressed the view that the UPR modalities should be agreed upon by consensus and applied uniformally to all countries, in a non-selective and impartial manner. However, many stressed that the Council should also take into account the specific capacity needs and level of development of every country concerned, and provide assistance accordingly (Brazil, Algeria/African group).
CAPACITY BUILDING: Many delegations said UPR should be viewed as an opportunity for States to assess their performance and needs with respect to human rights protection, not as a tribunal-like instrument (Brazil, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Republic of Korea). Thus, through UPR the Council was encouraged to do more than simply criticise governments and rather identify failures in order to facilitate support from the international community where it is needed.
SIMPLICITY: All delegation specified that the process should not be burdensome, and impose additional reporting duties on States, especially for developing countries, which lack the required capacity. It should be an efficient and meaningful system but with a reasonably light procedure (Indonesia, Canada/Canada, Australia, NZ) - hrc should not place heavy reporting burden on countries.
EFFICIENCY: Most delegations were adamant that the UPR mechanism not duplicate but rather complement the work of other mechanisms such as Treaty Bodies. However, they believed that Treaty Body mechanisms, the ILO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism or regional peer review mechanisms such as NEPAD's (the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Sri Lanka) should be used and drawn upon when setting up the HRC's UPR (India, Sri Lanka, etc).
On the subject of Treaty Bodies, a few speakers suggested that UPR should be a way to encourage States to ratify the main human rights treaties, especially those States that have made such pledges in order to be elected to the new HRC (Romania).
RELATIVISM: A few delegations insisted that UPR should not become a tool for the HRC to impose any values. Accorind to them, the UPR mechanism must be able to take into account, respect and reflect the diversity and complexity of UN member States (Brazil, Algeria, China).
REGULARITY: Many States suggested reviews should be carried out regularly, and some put forward a proposal of UPR being carried out every three year for each State.
UPR follow-up
Finally, a few speakers suggested that UPR could serve as an input for a global report to be prepared by the Office of the High-Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in each UN members State.
Other statements
Statements were then made by the following non-Council member States: Thailand, Liechtenstein, Chile, Colombia, Nepal, Bhutan, Singapore, Vietnam, Cote d'Ivoire, Islamic Republic of Iran, Macedonia, US and Armenia. And the following NGO representatives: Human Rrights Watch (on behalf of 5 NGOs), the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, the Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitie entre les peuples. NHRI: Commission on Human Rights Philippines.
The meeting ended at 1pm and the Council will resume discussions at 3pm in order to consider the review of mandates and mechanisms.
Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=8968
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council considers issue of the review of mandates and mechanisms (3-5pm)
At 3pm, the 19th meeting of the Human Rights Council resumed its discussion on agenda item 4: the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, and focused on the issue of the review of mandates and mechanisms as stated in operational paragraph 6 of Resolution 60/251:
"the Council shall assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalise all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights in order to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; the Council shall complete this review within one year after the holding of its first session".
Mandates and mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, or Special Procedures, are designed to address specific country situations or thematic issues. They comprise mandate holders such as special rapporteurs, special representative and independent experts, as well as working groups of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Special Procedure mandates are to examine, monitor, advise, and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries (country mandates), or on major human rights violations worldwide (thematic mandates). For this, mandate-holders undertake country visits (or fact-finding missions).
Statements
Statements were delivered from the following delegations: Austria/EU, New Zealand (NZ, Australia, Canada), Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, Russian Federation, Algeria/African Group, Malaysia, Tunisia, Japan, Peru, Cuba, Switzerland, China.
Acknowledgement of strengths
All permanent missions agreed that the mandates and mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights were a unique and indispensable monitoring instrument of the UN human rights system. They have provided independent, expert advice to the Commission and they must be maintained, as stated by paragraph 6 of Ga Resolution 60/251 above.
Weaknesses
However, many speakers criticised the Special Procedures (SPs) for their politicisation, selectivity (Cuba) and inefficiency. Critics pointed out that SPs as a system were inconsistent and inefficient as rising numbers of mandates were increasing the chances of mandate overlaps while not necessarily filling gaps. This is compounded by the fact that rapporteurs tend to go beyond the scop of their mandate and thus replicate other rapporteurs' wor (Singapore, Norway, Thailand, Colombia).
Need to strengthen the system
Acting on the GA Resolution's suggeston to "improve and rationalise" mandates and mechanisms, many delegations suggested areas for improvement and said they considered the creation of the Council as an opportunity to think about how to make SPs more efficient. All agreed that the SPs expertise needed to be kept but the suggested enhancing their effectiveness (Japan) by adopting a more holistic approach, in order to eliminate duplications and identify areas that are not yet covered by mandates (Chile). Some warned against several risks entailed by the reform, including ending up with an even weaker system and less specific mandates (Brazil), or upsetting inter-state relations in the field of human rrights (Peru). Brazil warned that this review process should not eliminate the added value brought by specific mechanisms to the UN human rights system.
Consultation process
Most speakers welcomed the HRC president's suggestion to establish an inter-governmental and inter-sessional open-ended working group to undertake a review of the proposal to rationalise all mandates and mechanisms of the CHR. Most delegations also pointed out that the consultation and review process should seek transparency and include SPs, civil society, the OHCHR, and Council members.
Extension or non-extension of mandates?
Most delegations called for a renewal of all mandates of Special Procedures for a period of one year. The Russian Federation was not in favour of this, and thought it would contradict paragraph 6 of Resolution 60/251.
The issue of country specific mandates
Country procedures are a 'special procedure', a mechanism that deals with all human rights violations within one country. It involves giving country mandates to independent experts, who report to the Commission yearly. Criticism has often been directed at the Commission for always focusing on the same countries or avoiding strong condemnation of human rights violations in certain countries, when given the opportunity, which has often undermined the credibility of the Commission.
As a result, many delegations today expressed a clear refusal to renew country mandates or carry on with country-specific Resolutions (unsurprisingly: Russia, DPRK, Cuba: “we need fresh air rather than electrical storms”?). Others, including New Zeland, on behalf on NZ, Canada and Australia, were adamant country mandates be maintained and encouraged the Council to work on new methods to examine human rights violations in countries and provide them with the necessary asistance.
Elimination or creation of new mandates?
Opinions were once again divided on this subject. Russia asked for a moratorium on the creation of new mandates and other countries (including Argentina) asked for the creation of new ones as new issues require attention. Colombia suggested there should be a strict selection process for new mandate holders.
Moreover, many delegations asked for standardised procedures for mandate holders to exercise country visits (switzerland, Thailand). They suggested mandate holders should produce standardised reports according to a set of guidelines in order to work in a less ad hoc manner.
Non-Council member statement included: US, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Colombia, Norway, Chile, Iran. NGO statements were made by: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, HRW, International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, OMCT, Amnesty International, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, International Organisation of Indigenous Resources Development.
President Luis Alfonso de Alba adjourned its 19th meeting at 5pm.
Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=8979
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran: Human Rights Watch calls on Council to remove rights abuser from UN Delegation
[New York, 22 June 2006] – Iran should immediately remove Tehran’s notoriously abusive prosecutor general from its delegation to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Human Rights Watch said last week. The prosecutor general, Saeed Mortazavi has been implicated in torture, illegal detention, and coercing false confessions by numerous former prisoners.
“Iran’s decision to send Mortazavi to Geneva demonstrates utter contempt for human rights and for the new council,” said Joe Stork deputy director of Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch. “Iran has just confirmed why UN members refused to elect it to the Human Rights Council.”
In April 2000, Mortazavi, then the judge of Public Court Branch 1410, led a massive crackdown to silence growing dissent in Iran. He ordered the closure of more than 100 newspapers and journals. In 2003, he was promoted to the post of Tehran’s prosecutor general. In 2002, a human rights expert appointed by the old UN Commission on Human Rights to monitor the human rights situation in Iran took the extraordinary step of naming Mortazavi publicly in his report and calling for him to be suspended from the bench.
Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi died in June 2003 while in the custody of judiciary and security agents led by Mortazavi. Lawyers representing Kazemi’s family have alleged that her body showed signs of torture, including blows to her head, and that Mortazavi participated directly in her interrogation.
In 2004, Mortazavi orchestrated the arbitrary detention of more than 20 webloggers and internet journalists, who were held in secret prisons. Human Rights Watch collected testimonies from several of these detainees who implicated Mortazavi in their ordeal, which included lengthy solitary confinement and coercion to make false televised confessions.
“Iran has brought Mortazavi to Geneva instead of bringing him to justice,” Stork said. “This decision should make Mortazavi the poster child for rampant impunity in Iran.”
Human Rights Watch urged Iran to hold Mortazavi to account in particular for the allegations of torture, and to remove him from office. Governments participating in the Human Rights Council session should seek Mortazavi’s removal from the Iranian delegation, Human Rights Watch said, and should refuse to meet with the delegation while Mortazavi remains a member.
All UN member states were invited to send representatives to speak during this first week of the Human Rights Council, which was created last month to replace the old Commission. More than 100 countries are scheduled to address the body.
For more information, contact:
Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
Tel: 00 1 212 216 1837; Fax: 00 1 212 736-1300
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.hrw.org
Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=8983
___________________________________________________________
This update has been produced by CRIN, in collaboration with the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Subgroup for the Commission on Human Rights. To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archives, visit http://www.crin.org/email. Further information about the 1st session of the Human Rights Council are available at http://www.crin.org/CHR
___________________________________________________________
