CRINMAIL 65:
Human Rights Council Review
In this issue:
To view this CRINMAIL online, click here
Human Rights Council Review
When the Human Rights Council (HRC) replaced the Commission in March 2006 (resolution 60 / 251), the General Assembly decided that a review of the Council's work and functioning shall take place every five years. Next year sees the initial review of the Council, but preparation meetings and negotiations have already started.
This CRINMAIL will aim to give you an overview of what is happening and where opportunities may exist for advocacy.
Back to basics!
The HRC is made up of 47 States responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. The Council was created with the main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and making recommendations on them.
How does the Review work?
The Review will look at all aspects of the Council's work and functioning, assessing its effectiveness and looking at possible reforms to strengthen the body.
Summary of the dialogue to date
One formal meeting took place in Geneva from 25 – 29 October, where States, NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions proposed reforms of various aspects of the Council's work, including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Special Procedures (SPs) and the Advisory Committee. A series of informal meetings are currently taking place to see if a consensus can be reached.
Below is a brief update on issues being discussed under each item.
1. Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
About the UPR:
The UPR was created in 2006 to review the full range of human rights issues of all 192 UN Member States. In contrast to other mechanisms, States question fellow States on their human rights records. Despite the fact the first cycle of reviews have yet to be completed (144 States have completed their reviews), a number of issues have already emerged.
Discussions during the Review so far:
Dialogue between States, NGOs and NHRIs has focused on all areas of the UPR process, including the length of the reviews, the gap between reviews, NGO participation, the final recommendations proposed to States under review, the implementation process and the key objectives of the second cycle of reviews.
Differences were expressed over the degree of reform required, with some States encouraging mid-term reports to highlight progress made in implementing the recommendations from the review, whilst others (Bangladesh, Azerbaijan) firmly against the idea of mid-term reports.
States were divided on whether the reviews needed to be longer and whether a gap was needed between the first and second cycle, and furthermore whether the troikas (States selected to facilitate the outcome report) should play a more substantive role.
NGOs pressed for greater participation in the process and more consultation with States prior to and after the review, however States barely referred to this key area. NGOs also pressed for more concise and action-oriented recommendations, with States obliged to provide clearer responses.
The issues raised above will be discussed during the informal meetings, with a view to reaching a consensus.
For further information:
2. Special Procedures
What are Special Procedures?
Special Procedures are the name given to 'mechanisms' created by the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) to address human rights situations in specific countries, or to address specific human rights themes, for example, the right to education.
Usually, Special Procedures are individual people, or groups of people (called Working Groups). If they are individuals, they may be called a Special Rapporteur, a Special Representative or an Independent Expert.
What do they do?
Although the tasks given to Special Procedures vary, their role is to examine, monitor, advise, and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories (called country mandates, eg Independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi), or on major themes (called thematic mandates eg Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children).
Discussions in the Council's Review:
The work of Special Procedures has been the most contentious of the debates in the Council's Review to date, with some States proposing a restriction of the work of Special Procedures in carrying out their work independently and thoroughly.
The two areas of concern emerged over the mandate of Special Procedures and the selection and appointment process. Some States argued that mandate-holders must respect a code of conduct when carrying out their work, with the likes of Pakistan, Cuba, China, Nigeria and Russia proposing the establishment of an independent legal committee to monitor compliance with the code of conduct.
Furthermore, some States, including Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), and Egypt (on behalf of NAM) pushed for a more restricted appointment process, where prospective mandate-holders have to receive the consent of Member States prior to being selected. These suggestions are of great concern to the effectiveness and independence of these important mechanisms.
Other States pressed for the strengthening of Special Procedures, with some States even proposing that cooperation with the Special Procedures be a criterion for Council Membership (US, Spain and Czech Republic). Some States also pressed for responses to Special Procedure visits to be documented. Finally, the UK and Austria called on the Council to provide protection to human rights defenders who engage with the Special Procedures.
For further information:
3. Advisory Committee and Complaint Procedure
What is the Advisory Committee?
An Advisory Committee , composed of 18 experts, was established to function as a think-tank for the Council and work on its direction. The Committee's mandate is implementation-oriented, with the scope of its advice limited to thematic issues pertaining to the mandate of the Council; namely promotion and protection of all human rights.
Discussions in the HRC Review:
Some proposals were put forward to reform the Advisory Committee, including a radical proposal to replace the Committee with a roster of individual experts who would produce studies mandated by the Council (proposed by Belgium, on behalf of the EU). Many States opposed this (including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Pakistan) and wanted the Advisory Committee to remain in its current form, with more meeting time to be allocated.
Regarding the composition and selection of members, some States and NGOs proposed the appointment process should be similar to that used to appoint Special Procedure mandate-holders.
What is the Complaint Procedure?
A Complaint Procedure was adopted by the Human Rights Council (Resolution 5 / 1) to "address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances" (OHCHR). Click here to read about the details of the Complaint Procedure and the criteria for a complaint to be examined.
Discussions in the HRC Review:
The debate on the functioning of the Complaint Procedure exposed the shortcomings and lack of credibility of this mechanism. Two solutions were suggested: 1. Abolish the complaints procedure, 2. Retain it and reform its structure. Others, however, argued it should be kept the same as it currently is. The majority of States stressed the importance of maintaining the Procedure's confidential nature and avoiding duplication with other human rights mechanisms.
4. Agenda and Programme of Work
Discussions in the Review have also focused on the Council's programme of work, with many States proposing a reduction in the current workload, by reducing the number of Sessions per year to two from three (with four weeks per session). Some States, NGOs and NHRI's suggested that stakeholders should be able to participate in the Council's work through video-conferencing or messages. In addition, some states proposed the establishment of a special funding mechanism to enable small delegations from developing countries to participate more effectively.
What happens next?
The President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Phuangketkeow of Thailand, appointed five facilitators to continue discussions on the themes discussed in the first review. Each facilitator was instructed to focus on one of the individual areas of discussion.
- Mr Omar Hilale, Permanent Representative of Morocco for the UPR
- Ms Maria Ciobanu, Permanent Representative of Romania for the Advisory Committee and Complaint Procedure
- Mr Hannu Himanen, Permanent Representative of Finland for the Special Procedures
- Mr Gopinathan Achamkulangare, Permanent Representative of India for the Agenda and Programme of Work
- Ms. Maria Nazareth Farani Azevêdo, Permanent Representative of Brazil for Working Methods
The facilitators conducted public consultations from 11 to 30 November and a retreat is being hosted by the President in Bangkok from 8-10 December 2010. During this retreat, which is partly open to all and partly closed, issues where agreement has been reached will be identified, together with those requiring further negotiation.
The second session of the Working Group is scheduled to take place in early february, with the review process likely to be completed by the 16th regular session of the HRC in June 2011.
For further information:
15th Session of the Human Rights Council
The 15th Session of the Human Rights Council took place from 13th September to October 1st this year.
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
9th Session
The 9th Session of the UPR took place from November 1st - 12th, with the following States completing their reviews:
Liberia Libya Malawi Mauritania Lebanon Maldives
Marshal Island Mongolia Honduras Jamaica Panama
United States of America Andorra Bulgaria Croatia
CRIN have extracted children's rights references from all 144 reviews completed to date, including the 9th Session. Click on the countries above to read the individual reports. The final outcomes and recommendations will be updated once published.
Report Launch: "Status of Children's Rights in the UPR"
CRIN recently launched a report assessing the extent to which children's rights are being addressed in the UPR, and how NGOs are engaging with this new mechanism.
Upcoming 10th Session
The following countries will be reviewed in the 10th Session of the UPR, which takes place from January 24th to February 4th 2011:
Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Prinicpe, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Oman, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Australia, Austria, Estonia and Georgia.
Reports extracting children's rights from the pre-review reports will be available shortly here.
Upcoming Special Procedure Visits
-The Special Rapporteur on Violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, will visit Zambia from the 6th - 10th December 2010. For further information.
-The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mr. Githu Muigai, will visit Bolivia from the 6th - 13th December 2010. For further information.
-The Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances will visit Timor-Leste from the 13th - 20th December 2010. For further information.
Complaints Mechanism
The second Working Group meeting on the Communications Procedure will take place from the 6th - 10th December 2010.
{THE LAST WORD}
"We are not talking about random acts of illegal violence, but extreme violence which is authorised in state laws, sentences passed by adult judges in today's courts, sentences carried out by a range of adults – adults paid to execute children, to tie them down and flog them, to lock them up and guard them in prison - in some cases literally for their lives."
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, speaking at the Inhuman sentencing campaign launch, October 2010. More here
Back to top
|
