NGO STATEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS REFORM:

KEEPING FAITH WITH THE CHARTER

The World Summit of Heads of  States and Governments at the UN General Assembly in September 2005 declared its "resolve to create a Human Rights Council", to succeed the Commission on Human Rights. It did not however reach agreement on the mandate, functions, size, composition, membership, working methods and procedures for the Council, nor on NGO participation in its work.

The UN Commission on Human Rights has for some time been the target of an intensive discrediting campaign because of its composition and its "politicization". Its eagerness to deal with hitherto neglected areas of social and economic rights has also been questioned.  

Few, if any, United Nations organs can point to a more successful record in responding to peoples concerns. By setting international norms – developing and spearheading declarations, covenants and conventions - the Commission has provided a basis for promoting and protecting human rights everywhere. The Commission has established special procedures and technical services to assist in the implementation by governments of these norms. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of UN member states that wish to maintain and further the achievements of the Commission. Removing the human rights work from the Economic and Social Council to a Council under the UN General Assembly, that is, separating the work of the Commission from that of other Commissions under ECOSOC with close linkages to human rights, requires much thought and must not be rushed.

As NGOs we have a responsibility to weigh our words carefully when characterising an institution in which our achievements have played such an important role, as the Commission on Human Rights has been more open to engagement from a diverse range of NGOs than any other UN body. Accordingly, this statement by the undersigned organizations is made in an effort to contribute to a more balanced and broader dialogue on the matter of human rights reform and the setting up of a Human Rights Council.

The agreement, in principle, to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council is a serious process that should be conducted carefully, considering every aspect of its implications for the human rights machinery as a whole and the core principles of the UN Charter. The decision of the General Assembly was for "open, transparent and inclusive" negotiations to be completed during the 60th session of the General Assembly, which ends in September 2006. To allow the Commission on Human Rights to hold its scheduled 2006 session and complete its work in dignity will ensure that there is no interruption in the UN human rights work and allow for a new Council to start its work on a solid basis.

We strongly believe that more time is needed to engage people and governments everywhere in a broad and rational democratic dialogue on constructing a Human Rights Council that genuinely encompasses a strengthening of the human rights system as a whole and its universality - ensuring equal consideration of economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights and promoting the right to development.

It is of fundamental importance that the reform of the UN human rights machinery is undertaken in the spirit of the Charter, respecting the equal rights of nations large and small, and without the pressure and threats of withholding assessed contributions to the UN budget.

While there is room in every institution to improve its work, it is our view that the erosion of credibility of the Commission on Human Rights, does not lie primarily in its structure and architecture. It lies in the absence of will of the parties concerned to work together to agree on the means for genuine promotion and protection of human rights.

The Commission on Human Rights located within ECOSOC was an initiative of NGOs attending the San Francisco Conference. It was inscribed in the Charter without dissent at the proposal of one of the UN's founding members. The Commission on Human Rights is the only Commission specifically mentioned in the Charter as a body that the ECOSOC "shall" establish. To instruct the ECOSOC no longer to deal with human rights and abolish the Commission amounts to a Charter amendment, which if not undertaken formally according to the Charter procedures, would require almost unanimity in view of the previous understanding of the Law of the Charter.

Removing human rights from the social and economic development context of the ECOSOC may include a risk that social and economic rights are conceptually given less priority as well as marginalising a rights based approach to development. These matters must be fully considered and answered in the reform process. Furthermore little attention seems to have been given to the problem of setting up a Council under the General Assembly while keeping the Commission on the Status of Women and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in the ECOSOC orbit and thus structurally isolated from the main human rights body.

Throughout the governmental deliberations there have been overwhelming majorities for keeping the number of members of the new Human Rights Council at the same level as that of the Commission on Human Rights. We have noted that not only developing countries have insisted on this but also that the European Union in its statement of 11 October accepted it as one of its preferred options. Keeping the membership at the present number has won support from a diversity of member states from all regions, a fact that should not be ignored.

We believe that in order to ensure a broad pluralistic reflection of all human rights concerns from all regions of the world the present number of members as a minimum must be preserved. It would be a serious step backwards if its membership were reduced, accompanied by a preponderance of major powers in its membership.

While efforts to enhance the quality and credibility of the membership of the new Council is desirable, utmost care must be taken that no new double standards are being established and that the election of members rather than the work of the new Council becomes the focus of public attention. If an imaginary claim is made for the Council only to be composed of members with the "highest" human rights standards few countries would qualify. A radical departure from the principle of universality applied in all other UN organs would not be to the benefit of engaging the membership and further empowering the UN to effectively deal with human rights. In particular, suggestions that election to the Council be undertaken by two thirds majority may result in an unhealthy strengthening of geopolitical considerations and time consuming and costly election campaigns in the General Assembly to the detriment of small and impoverished countries. Such a provision is not likely to meet the test of equality among member states. The suggestion to require more candidates than seats from each regional group however could introduce a situation of equality among all regions in electing the members of the Commission. Furthermore, the suggestion to limit membership to two consecutive terms respects the equality of all member states and offers the opportunity to broaden participation in the Council.

We wish to stress the need to consider fully the Charter principle of equal rights for countries, large and small, in the setting up of the Council. For example, if the Council is established as a standing body, that meets year round, it may affect the ability of states without permanent missions in Geneva, in particular the least developed and small island states, to fully participate. Those concerns must be resolved before the Council is set up.

The meetings of the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission have functioned as unique forums in which the international human rights community has come together. To preserve this extraordinary characteristic of the Commission there is a need to maintain a principal major session of the Council similar to the annual meeting of the Commission. If the work of the Council is spread out over the year in many sessions the very crucial aspect of civil society participation is at risk and attendance at the Council may be reduced. We would also like to stress the importance of preserving the role and status of the Sub-Commission as an expert body in the new system.

The treaty bodies have set good examples of a systematic and de-politicized review of the human rights performance of states. It would be unfortunate if any new mechanism established were to duplicate, undermine or overshadow the important role of the treaty bodies. As expert bodies they have a greater ability to perform their role with credibility. A peer review system among states raises many questions, including that it may consume a disproportionate part of the meeting time and resources of the new Council. In our view the treaty bodies need renewed and strengthened support. The General Assembly could make an important gesture of support for the Human Rights Committee by restoring in the UN budget the honorarium its members are entitled to, as stipulated in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Non-governmental organisations need to be assured of a continued and unreduced role in the new Council through a specific decision by the General Assembly that the Council will apply the ECOSOC rules for NGO-participation in its work as if it were a functional commission of ECOSOC.

If reform of the United Nations human rights machinery is to be successful it must build on a desire to seek agreement in the same spirit that guided the founders of the United Nations. It must inherit and respect the comprehensive human rights agenda developed by the Commission on Human Rights. It must ensure that in practice and at every stage the Human Rights Council will give fair, equal and energetic attention to all human rights, social and economic rights, civil and political rights as well as the right to development.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

Migrants Rights International

International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations (ISMUN)

Third World Institute - Instituto del Tercer Mundo

Tebtebba - Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education

Indigenous World Association

International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples

Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM)