Commission on Human Rights Concludes Final Session and Panel Reflects on Next Steps on the Human Rights Council and Role of NGOs

Commission on Human Rights

The Commission on Human Rights concluded its final session on 27 March 2006 referring all reports to the Human Rights Council for consideration during its first session in June 2006. The Commission has therefore left open for the Council the adoption of the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

The annex to the ECOSOC Procedural Resolution on the Closure of the Work of the Commission outlines mechanisms of the Commission whose reports are referred to the Human Rights Council. These include the open-ended working groups, country-specific special procedures, technical cooperation programme, 1503 procedure, thematic special procedures, thematic working groups, the work of the Sub-Commission, and other mechanisms.

March 22 Panel on the Human Rights Council

On 22 March 2006 the Department of Public Information and the GA President's Office held a panel discussion on the Human Rights Council. The panelists included Jan Eliasson (President of the General Assembly,  Kenneth Roth (Executive Director of Human Rights Watch), Yvonne Terlingen (Representative to the UN for Amnesty International), Craig Mokhiber (Deputy Director for the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), and Rachel Groux (Counselor for the President of the GA).

Recognising that the creation of the Human Rights Council was an important first step, the panelists took the opportunity to highlight key strengths of the Council, ways in which the Council’s new structure and mechanisms address shortcomings of the Commission, and crucial areas for further action within the coming months and years. Find below an outline of some of these points. Click on the link to access the webcast of the panel discussion.

Improvements and Strengths of the Human Rights Council:

• In contrast to the Commission on Human Rights, the Council Resolution places a greater emphasis on dialogue and cooperation in order to address the political tensions that have often paralysed the Commission's work.
• The Human Rights Council Resolution elevates the status of the human rights body from a subsidiary body of ECOSOC to a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Resolution provides the opportunity within five years to elevate the Council to a principal body so as to place human rights on equal footing with peace/security and development.
• The Human Rights Council, which will maintain the ability to address gross and systematic human rights violations, is now mandated to contribute to prevention and respond to human rights emergencies, addressing criticisms that the Commission was purely reactive in its work.
• The Council will hold an increased number of sessions, from one six week session to at least three sessions for a minimum of ten weeks with the opportunity to hold additional sessions, which will allow the Council to address human rights more consistently throughout the year.
• The practice of joining the Commission to avoid scrutiny will be undermined by the Council's universal periodic review mechanism, which will hold Council members accountable during their term and evaluate all countries' fulfillment of their human rights obligations and commitments.
• The Council will maintain strengths of the Commission, including its special procedures, mechanisms for NGO participation (based on ECOSOC Res.1996/31 and practices of the Commission), and the ability to pass country-specific Resolutions.
• New membership requirements, if properly applied, will dissuade regions from putting forth controversial candidates and dissuade such candidates from risking defeat. These requirements include the following:

- each member must receive 96 positive votes in the GA;

- each candidate must be voted on by the General Assembly;

- all members are expected to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights;

- members must agree to cooperate with the Council (ex: receiving special rapporteurs during their term);

- in electing members to the Council, member states are expected to take into account candidates' contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights as well as voluntary pledges and commitments;

- the GA, in a two-thirds majority vote, may suspend the membership of a Council member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Next Steps and NGO Roles

Elections, 9 May 2006: It was emphasised that the next few months will provide a crucial opportunity to ensure that the elections live up to the improved standards outlined in the Resolution and that during this period it will be important to:

• Push for candidates to submit "specific and measurable" pledges outlining their agendas and commitments
• Encourage member states to make pledges committing to vote for candidates according to the standards outlined in the Resolution (Mexico, for example, has stated that it will not exchange votes on candidatures or disclose its voting intentions to avoid the influence of factors outside the human rights agenda, Click here to download this statement)
• Push for a member states to declare candidacies 30 days prior to the May 9 elections to allow enough time for Member States to familiarise themselves with the candidates before voting.
• Explore improved regional nomination mechanisms

Click here to download Amnesty International’s proposals on the elections.

First Session, 19 June 2006: Because the first session of the Human Rights Council will be crucial in shaping the Council's work, the panel highlighted a number of areas in which human rights NGOs could play a strategic role in ensuring a strong Council:

• Monitoring the Council's review of mandates, functions, special procedures and NGO participation to ensure that these mechanisms are strengthened and improved rather than weakened
• Evaluating the ways in which NGOs previously interacted with the Commission on Human Rights and identifying the most effective ways for NGOs to contribute to the Council's work. For example, would interactive dialogue be helpful, can NGOs make their participation more targeted now that the Council will be holding three sessions per year, and what are mechanisms that can be put in place for NGOs to participate and provide input when they are unable to attend?
• Contributing to the drafting of rules and procedures
• Pushing within the next five years for the elevation of the Council's status to a principal UN body
• Providing recommendations on the Council's architecture and how its work should be distributed among the three sessions.