Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 28 June 2006] - 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. President Luis Alfonso de Alba adjourned its 19th meeting at 5pm.
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.