Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: On 25 March, the Human Rights Council adopted a text on the review of the work and functioning of the Council. This report documents the discussions which have taken place on the various areas of the Councl's work, presents a summary of the final outcome document, and a response to the final outcome document by NGOs.
Menu:
- 25 MARCH - The Council adopted a text on the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council, for submission to the General Assembly in New York.
- Read the document and about the discussions - MAY - Formal and informal meetings are currently underway at the General Assembly in New York, discussing the adopted text.
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. The initial review began last year.
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 looks at all aspects of the Council's work and functioning, assessing its effectiveness and looking at possible reforms to strengthen the body.
The four key areas are:
- Universal Periodic Review
- Special Procedures
- Advisory Committee & Complaint Procedure
- Agenda & Programme of work
- Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure
A series of formal and informal meetings are conducted, with contributions from States, UN agencies and civil society.
After many months of discussions and negotiations, the Council adopted a text on the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council.
- Read the final text (outcome document)
- Read the full report of the review process (including the views of individual States)
The text is limited in terms of the number of changes that have taken place.
NGOs engaged closely throughout the process, attending both formal and informal meetings, but were left disappointed by the progress made.
International Service for Human Rights commented:
"The process was marked by a reluctance on the part of States from both ends of the political spectrum to work towards compromise positions. As a result, the potentially most fruitful proposals, including the creation of a mechanism to address urgent and chronic human rights situations, were shelved".
On 18 March, a General Debate under Item 6 took place in the Council, with a focus on the UPR. Several NGOs took to the floor to express their disappointment at the outcome of the review process, in particular the lack of progress made in reforming the UPR.
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:
- UPR-Info's HRC Review webpage
- OHCHR's extranet
(username: hrc extranet, password: 1session) - CRIN's UPR webpage
- CRIN's new report: "The Status of Children's Rights in the UPR"
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:
- International Service for Human Rights web-page
- OHCHR's extranet web-page
(username and password as above) - CRIN's guide to Special Procedures
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.
For further information:
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) have covered the Council's Review process, reporting how some States are blocking the review's progress by refusing to engage meaningfully with the overall review, notably Egypt (on behalf of the NAM), Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC).
Key areas of concern:
- Special Procedures: Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Indonesia (on behalf of the ASEAN), Bangladesh, Cuba, Thailand, Nepal, Iran, Myanmar, and China stressed that special procedures should carry out their work in strict compliance with their mandates.The African Group further suggested creating an independent legal Committee to review compliance.
- Universal Periodic Review: Members of NAM, OIC, and ASEAN reiterated their position that only those recommendations accepted by states during the first cycle should be subject to follow-up in subsequent cycles.
- Capacity of the Council to address situations: Egypt (on behalf of NAM), Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), Cuba, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand claimed that there was no need for additional mechanisms to deal with emergency situations and rejected the proposal for a ‘trigger mechanism’ presented by the Brazilian Ambassador.
- Read more on ISHR's coverage of the HRC Review
- Read ISHR's oral statement on the 7th february during the meeting.