The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the progress report of the
Working Group on the review of mandates. Following a presentation of the report
by the facilitator, Tomas Husak, delegates raised such issues as the methods of
appointment of mandate-holders, accountability of mandate-holders, cooperation
between mandate-holders and with States, and the contentious issue of country
mandates.
Mr. Husak said the Working Group managed to elaborate on the
principles of the review, as well as on its objectives and structure, and was
also able to engage in a substantive and fruitful dialogue between the
delegations and Special Procedures mandate-holders. Overall, it reached
agreement on the need to further strengthen and enhance the Special Procedures
to improve the enjoyment of human rights as well as protection and promotion
against human rights violations. It was underlined that the coherence of the
human rights machinery, including the Special Procedures, should be improved.
Among issues raised by delegates was the question of whether to appoint
or elect mandate-holders. One point of view was that the High Commissioner for
Human Rights should appoint the mandate holder, based on objective and reliable
information criteria and suitability for the mandate in question, as direct
elections of Special Procedures by the Human Rights Council would not be an
effective way to ensure that the best possible candidate was appointed to the
mandate.
Other delegations said the Council should directly elect
mandate holders in the manner that members of the treaty bodies were elected, as
this was the responsibility of the Council. The Special Procedures should
reflect representation from all geographical regions, cultures, civilisations
and legal systems, expertise, experience, independence and impartiality and
gender balance.
The accountability of mandate-holders should be
strengthened, speakers stated. It was important that the Manual and Code of
Conduct became a self-regulating tool for the Special Procedures rather than
being imposed by the Council. On the Code of Conduct, it was up to the
Coordination Committee on mandate-holders to establish this, following
consultation with States, delegations said. With reference to rationalization of
mandates, overlapping should be analysed case by case. Cooperation, delegations
said, was essential, both between mandate-holders, and between mandate-holders
and Governments.
The review process should maintain the upholding of all
human rights as a principle, delegations said. The basic principles of reviewing
the Special Procedures should be based on international laws and cultural
specificities of States. The balance of all categories of Special Procedures
should be strengthened. Likewise, the level of protection under the purview of
Special Procedures should be maintained.
Country mandates were highly
politicised, some delegates noted, urging that country reports should be
restricted to exceptional cases to which much stricter criteria would be applied
than was the case in the past, with a view to preventing the politicisation of
debates that was quite characteristic of the deliberations of the Commission on
Human Rights. The Special Procedures should be able to consider country-specific
issues in the context of their mandates, and carry out country visits in this
context, a delegation said.
Speaking this morning were the
representatives of Finland for the European Union, the Russian Federation,
China, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, Algeria for the African Group, Mexico, Republic of Korea,
Uruguay, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Tunisia, Nigeria, India, Malaysia,
Philippines, Brazil, Netherlands, Switzerland, Morocco, United Kingdom, Cuba,
Canada, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Slovenia, Norway, Iran, Belgium, Liechtenstein,
Belarus, United States and Colombia.
The discussion of the progress
report will continue during this afternoon’s meeting, which will begin at 3 p.m.
Presentation by Facilitator of Working Group on Review of
Mandates
TOMAS HUSAK, Facilitator of the Working Group on the
Review of Mandates, said the Working Group held nine meetings during its
first session from 13 to 24 November 2006. The dialogue benefited from lively,
structured and rich exchanges which enabled progress in several respects. The
Working Group managed to elaborate on the principles of the review, as well as
on its objectives and structure, and was also able to engage in a substantive
and fruitful dialogue between the delegations and Special Procedures
mandate-holders. In overall, it reached agreement on the need to further
strengthen and enhance the Special Procedures to improve the enjoyment of human
rights as well as protection and promotion against human rights violations. It
was underlined that the coherence of the human rights machinery, including the
Special Procedures, should be improved.
As facilitator, Mr. Husak said,
he had indicated several principles for the review before outlining its
strategy, such as the significance of Special Procedures to the prevention and
protection against human rights violations and assistance to their victims.
Timeliness of action, accessibility to victims, independence of mandate-holders
and their objectivity were also highlighted, and it was underlined that the
enhancement of a system was conditional on the improvements regarding the
cooperation by and with the Government and the interaction with a parent body.
The current differences, which were healable and could induce agreement,
should not detract from the many precious points of convergence. A draft
non-paper on the review of mandates would be presented that would be the basis
for common endeavours during the second session of the Working Group. During
this period, Mr. Husak hoped to take up comprehensive issues, such as the means
of designation of Special Procedures in office, and criteria and focus for the
operation of mandate-holders in thematic and country levels, including the
functioning of thematic and country mandates in tandem. Among other topics, he
wished to focus on the accountability of actors, the code of conduct and its
contribution in this respect, the interaction between the Universal Periodic
Review and Special Procedures and other essential means of improving coherence.
All delegations should be guided by the purpose of endeavours, which were to
strengthen and improve the Special Procedures.
Statements on
Presentation by Facilitator of Working Group on Review of
Mandates
SATU SUIKKARI (Finland), speaking on behalf of
the European Union, said that to guarantee maximum independence and
competence, the High Commissioner for Human Rights should appoint the mandate
holder, based on objective and reliable information criteria and suitability for
the mandate in question. She would of course also consult with all stakeholders
and strive for a broad geographical balance, if enough qualified candidates were
available. A well-publicized roster of experts would contribute to the
availability of excellent candidates, provided this was based on clear,
objective and reliable information criteria to establish professional
experience, expertise and independence. The European Union was of the firm view
that direct elections of Special Procedures by the Human Rights Council would
not be an effective way to ensure that the best possible candidate was appointed
to the mandate. From their experience of other elections, the European Union did
not believe elections were the best way to ensure geographical and gender
balance.
The European Union welcomed the efforts undertaken thus far by
the Coordination Committee to enhance and strengthen their methods of work to
carry out their mandates in the most effective way, as well as the openness and
transparency of these efforts. The European Union believed that the review of
working methods should be conducted predominantly by the Special Procedures and
the High Commissioner. The Coordination Committee could strengthen the
functioning of Special Procedures by taking up a role as a self regulatory body
in keeping with practices of collective independent organizations such as the
media or the judiciary.
SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said
the role of the Special Procedures was of great value to the work of the
Council. However, they should be reviewed to better contribute to the good
functioning of the Council. The basic principles of reviewing the Special
Procedures should be based on international laws and cultural specificities of
States. The balance of all categories of Special Procedures should be
strengthened. All States should agree on the recommendations of the Special
Procedures. In the past, Special Procedures had reflected double standards and
politicization on the issues they were dealing with. An initiative to create new
mechanisms should be limited. The methods of work of the Special Procures should
be reviewed, taking into account their de-politicization.
It was also
essential that an intergovernmental format should be adopted while reviewing the
Special Procedures. Russia believed that the manuals of the United Nations on
Special Procedures, including the code of conduct, should be the documents of
reference. On the selection of experts serving in the Special Procedures, the
Council should proceed to the election process based on fair geographical
distributions.
ZHANG YI (China) said the discussions had been
transparent and democratic. The preliminary conclusions presented were taken
note of. Since the Secretariat had prepared a summary which duly reflected the
discussion, there was no need for the Facilitator to compile a similar parallel
document. This practice of this particular Working Group should not constitute a
precedent. China could not agree to using the title preliminary conclusions - as
any conclusions should be endorsed by the Working Group, and it had not done so
for this document. The title of the document should be changed to Facilitator’s
Preliminary Progress Update. The document should not be the basis for future
negotiations. It should also give further account of the views of the different
points of view of the delegations, as this was not the case.
On the
selection of mandate holders, the document highlighted concerns over elections,
but not concerns over appointments. When discussing country mandates, it had
been reiterated by delegates that this was the most politicised aspect, but this
point of view had not come through in the document. The accountability of
mandate-holders should be strengthened. On cooperation between Governments and
Special Procedures, this should go in both directions, and the latter should
adopt a cooperative approach when dealing with Governments. No country was
obliged to extend a standing invitation. The document could be further improved.
AZAD JAFAROV (Azerbaijan) welcomed the preliminary conclusions of
the Working Group. Azerbaijan said that cooperation was the essence of the whole
process. It could not be one-sided; it was necessary to have close cooperation
between the Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council. The mandate holder
represented the Human Rights Council as a whole. Azerbaijan called the Working
Group to further discuss the matter of cooperation during the next round of
discussions.
Azerbaijan underlined that Special Procedures should not be
seen in isolation but as interlinked and interrelated to other United Nations
human rights instruments also aiming to achieve the full realization of all
human rights. The specific nature of these mechanisms should not be overlooked,
though. Therefore, Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council stood on their
own vis-à-vis the treaty bodies.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said
the Special Procedures were the most important tools in monitoring and dealing
with human rights violations. The resolution of the General Assembly on
establishing the Council had called for the strengthening of the Special
Procedures. The Working Group during its future sessions would deal with the
review and harmonization of the mandates under the Special Procedures. The
increase in cohesion and coordination of mandates would also be among the tasks
of the Working Group. Other than the indepednce of the mandate-holders, their
capacity and integrity should also be taken into consideration. The increase in
consistency and cooperation should be the goal of the Council. Since the Council
was meeting in a quasi-permanent basis, the issue of follow-up should be given
special attention.
Non-governmental organizations from the developing
countries that were not serving the interests of their respective governments
should be allowed to participate when the situation of the States were being
considered. In all cases, there should be reciprocal cooperation between the
mandate holders and the States under review. States should also extend permanent
invitation to the mandate holders of the Special Procedures. The development of
good practices by the mandate holders would help the victims of human rights
violations.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the intricate analysis
that tried to capture preliminary discussions on the review of mandates required
more time for assimilation and understanding. The two documents distributed did
not contain any conclusions, even preliminary, but stray observations which were
not compatible. In the analysis as well as the annexed topics for discussion,
the most critical question, what was the relationship of the Special Procedures
with the Council, had not been fully raised or adequately addressed. It was
unclear whose opinions were being cited, as the text was without attribution,
and some views were beyond comprehension.
The OIC, after careful
deliberation, had given clear and unambiguous advice on the review of mandates,
which merited reiteration. The Council should directly elect mandate holders in
the manner that members of the treaty bodies were elected. The Special
Procedures should reflect representation from all geographical regions,
cultures, civilisations and legal systems, expertise, experience, independence
and impartiality and gender balance. The election of mandate holders was the
responsibility of the Council, and could not be assumed by any advisory panel or
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Manual of Operations
of the Special Procedures should be drafted by the Council, and it should
include a code of conduct and criteria of admissibility of communications, as
well as guidelines for media interaction and country visits. The current review
of the Special Procedures should rectify the lopsided emphasis placed so far on
civil and political rights and bring protection and promotion of economic,
social and cultural rights, including the right to development, to a higher
plane.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the
African Group, said the African Group wished to express its concerns
regarding the method of making recourse to the preliminary conclusions, as an
outcome of the discussions that took place within the framework of the
inter-sessional Working Group. If these documents, it was true, had not been
approved by the members of the Group, neither were they mere minutes of the
deliberations. In the case of the conclusions on Special Procedures, however,
these very conclusions went well beyond merely summarizing the debates,
defending a position that was not actually shared by a large number of
participants.
For instance, on the issue of the election or appointment
of mandate holders, the proposed summary on the appointment of mandate holders,
by the Chairman, the High Commissioner or the Secretary-General, based on a
pre-evaluation by the Committee of Coordination on Special Procedures, was
contradictory to the views of the majority of the delegations, who had declared
themselves in favour of an election by the Human Rights Council itself; in
addition to the fact that such an evaluation on the part of mandate holders
themselves would bring about a conflict of interest. Neither was there any
agreement to the effect that certain Special Rapporteurs should be simply
appointed by the Secretary-General.
Concerning the priority areas,
asserting that there was unanimity on the fact that “country focus” was
essential was equally questionable. On the contrary, it was stated by the
majority that country reports should be restricted to exceptional cases to which
much stricter criteria would be applied than was the case in the past, with a
view to preventing the politicisation of debates that was quite characteristic
of the deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights.
ELIA SOSA
(Mexico) believed that there was a possibility to reach consensus on the
text under discussion. The effectiveness of the Special Procedures was the main
issue at stake. The mandate holders should be experienced and independent so
that they carried out their work properly. The Council was meeting throughout
the year and this would allow it to underscore the importance of follow-ups. The
debate should be focused on this issue. The mechanisms established by the
mandate-holders themselves should be valued. Mexico stressed the importance of
the independence of the Special Procedures in order to promote mutual
cooperation between the mandate holders and States. The election of the mandate
holders should be transparent and ensure their independence, and multiple
mandates should not be attributed to one expert. The mandate holders should be
experienced, with good knowledge of their respective areas of specialization. It
was also important to have excellent coordination among the various mandates so
that the Council could function effectively.
KIM MOON-HWAN (Republic
of Korea) said the discussions in the Working Group had been fruitful. The
various issues and views identified during the discussion would provide a good
basis for further discussions and negotiations in the future. Independence,
objectivity and expertise were the most important elements in the Special
Procedure mechanism. To ensure the effectiveness of the mechanism, they should
be distanced as much as possible from any type of outside influences, in
particular political dynamics coming from the Council. The Experts should be
nominated by the President, with a candidates' roster open for all stakeholders
for recommendations, and with attention paid to equitable gender and
geographical balance. There was a need for more transparency in this mechanism,
and it should be addressed through genuine dialogue and mutual respect through
stakeholders.
The cooperation between States and the Special Procedures was
of paramount importance, and should be promoted on both sides. States had a
critical role to play and duty to discharge in ensuring cooperation. The members
of the Council should show a good example in this regard. Effectiveness in the
mechanism depended in large part on cooperation between mandate-holders. The
Coordination Committee should be recognised as an effective tool to enhance
cooperation between the mandate-holders. It was important that the Manual of
Conduct become a self-regulating tool for the Special Procedures rather than
being imposed by the Council.
ALEJANDRA DE BELLIS (Uruguay)
appreciated the work of the facilitator, in particular the preliminary
conclusions. In accordance with the guiding General Assembly resolution, the
Human Rights Council should review all of the mandates. Hence, it was important
for Uruguay that this review process should maintain the upholding of all human
rights as a principle. Likewise, the level of protection under the purview of
Special Procedures should be maintained.
On elections and appointments of
mandate holders, Uruguay stressed the importance of developing criteria that
took into account, among other things, independence, impartiality, proper gender
balance, and geographical representation. Bearing in mind that independence of
the mandate holder was vital, Uruguay supported the appointment of mandate
holders by the President of the Council or the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in consultation with regional groups.
With reference to
rationalization of mandates, overlapping should be analysed case by case. The
fact that an issue, such as the right of the child and adolescent, was being
considered by a number of mandate holders did not indicate that there was
necessarily overlapping but rather that mandate holders were addressing
different rights pertaining to one issue. On cooperation, Uruguay thought that
cooperation extended by Governments to Special Procedures and follow up was
essential.
ANDRE MARENTEK (Indonesia) said that given that the
Working Group had already officially met, it should therefore be able to procure
its own report. Indonesia recognized and appreciated the usefulness of the
document before the Council but Indonesia was convinced that a single working
conclusion by the Group, as per the established practice, was the best approach
in the future. Similar concerns as well as clarifications on the matter had been
put forward by several delegations, including Indonesia. One of the reasons for
Indonesia’s view was the fact that the Working Group should seize that
opportunity to come up with its own conclusions, rather than having to go into
negotiation. Indonesia supported enhancing cooperation with all Special
Procedures and would like to highlight the role that the Council could play
securing cooperation and guarantee of States’ goodwill at an early stage.
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said country focus was considered
essential, and it had been agreed that the past controversy over some of them
should not spill over to the Council. Delegations should remember
Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s appeal made several days ago, that the great
challenge for the Council was to find a way to embrace the universality of
rights while at the same time addressing specific human rights situations. The
Universal Periodic Review could not totally replace country mandates - the two
were complementary.
On the selection and appointment of mandate holders,
the procedure should be streamlined or unified wherever possible, but in doing
so it should not be at the cost of maintaining diversity reflecting different
cases, different histories, and the background of each mandate holder.
Ambassador Husak’s suggestion of a “hybrid model” merited attention.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the facilitator for his
leadership in the Working Group and for the preliminary report. The Human Rights
Council should establish a harmonious system of Special Procedures to uphold
human rights. Special efforts should be made to overcome diverging points. All
delegations were convinced that a Special Procedures system was key for the
promotion and protection of human rights. Mandate holders should be impartial
and independent; there should not be overlapping of mandates; a code of conduct
should be put in place; and close relations with the Human Rights Council should
be developed.
On the appointment of mandate holders, Bangladesh supported
elections as the best way to avoid politicisation, and select the appropriate
expert. This process would not affect independence and neutrality of the
functions of mandate holders but would ensure objectivity and accountability. On
cooperation with the State, the relationship between mandate holders and States
should be based on mutual respect and responsibility. It should be looked at
from a broad perspective.
ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said that certain
matters needed further clarification with regard to the review of the Special
Procedures. As in the case of the Universal Periodic Review, the document on the
Special Procedures should have listed the elements of convergence and
divergence. Considering that the document was a preliminary one, Tunisia
believed that certain elements still needed further reflection. With regard to
the mandate holders, Tunisia would opt for their election in order to ensure
their independence and to give them legitimacy. Tunisia was also of the view
that thematic mandates should be strengthened. Equal importance should be given
to the mandates concerning civil and political rights one hand and economic,
social and cultural rights on the other.
ABDUL BIN RIMDAP
(Nigeria) said in view of the emergence of convergence of opinion as
outlined by the facilitator, emphasis should be placed on the elements that
needed further discussion. Mandate-holders should be elected by the Council,
from a list of experts compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, which should establish independence, expertise, and track record on
human rights. It should also ensure a gender balance. Country measures should be
left in the field of the Universal Periodic Review. The acheivement of coherence
and cooperation between the mandate-holders was vital. The Draft Manual for
Special Procedures was approved. Some mandates should be rationalised to avoid
duplication.
The Council should play a guiding role for mandate holders
- and the latter should always ensure prompt submission of reports, as well as
regular updates on their progress. Cooperation with Governments was a major
element in ensuring success, and therefore mandate-holders should ensure that
allegations were substantiated. All Member States should cooperate with
mandate-holders, inviting them to visit, or other Member States would believe
they had something to hide, and the Council would find other means to make them
cooperate.
RAJIV CHANDER (India) said that the Special Procedures
were among the main instruments available to the Human Rights Council for the
promotion and protection of human rights. The process of review and
rationalization of Special Procedures should bear in mind the complementarity
and mutually reinforcing nature of various mechanisms of the Council. The
Council should have a direct say in the selection and appointment of mandate
holders. The broad framework for the functioning of the Special Procedures
should also have the Council’s endorsement. This meant that the Council should
approve the Special Procedures Manual of Operations.
India welcomed the
Human Rights Council decision to entrust the Working Group with the task of
developing a code of conduct for the Special Procedures. With regards periodic
monitoring of the work of individual mandate holders, India proposed a system of
peer review among the mandate holders.
Country mandates created against
the wishes of the country concerned had been the main source of controversy in
the former Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council should be
careful not to repeat the same mistake. In India’ view, the Universal Periodic
Review would be the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing country situations
in a positive and non-selective manner.
HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said
the election of mandate holders should not be politicised and the criteria of
their selection should reflect their respective geographical representation.
Special Procedures should maintain country specific mandates and they should be
accountable to the Council. They should carry out their country visits in a
cooperative manner and not in a confrontational way. Other than Special
Procedures, other thematic mechanisms should be emphasized to consider country
situations. Between the Council and the Special Procedures, smooth cooperation
should be enhanced. In addition, States should cooperate with the Special
Procedures and invite the mandate holders on a permanent basis.
JESUS
ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) said on the initial groundwork that had been
accomplished, so far the Working Group had discussed the broad scope of the
review, including conceptual questions. It had identified areas in which the
system of Special Procedures could be improved and rationalised. Areas of
consensus had been identified, and areas where further discussion was required.
The Council and the Working Group should, as there was very little time, examine
how to implement the review. Criteria for analysis and evaluation of different
mandates should be established. The question of whether certain mandates had
achieved the task they were intended for should be examined.
The
objective of the review, to improve the system of reviews for all stakeholders,
including Governments, should be borne in mind. Review should be done
holistically, with protection gaps addressed. There should be a timely response
to allegations and reports of human rights violations. Special Procedures, while
serving in their independent capacities, should bear the stamp of the United
Nations, and ensure wider, more legitimate and credible promotion and protection
of human rights. The text of the report could be further clarified and
simplified to address the points of view of all delegations, and this showed
that much work remained to be done.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO
(Brazil) said that the preliminary results of the Working Group
constituted a solid basis for discussion. The principle of equal geographical
representation, which was a common United Nations practice, should be taken into
consideration in the selection of mandate holders. The Council should give
special attention to keep a balance between civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development.
On coherence, the manual of Special Procedures should be used as a
guide. In addition, the Coordination Committee should assist in providing more
coordination; the expert advice advisory body replacing the Commission on Human
Rights should also assist in this matter. Brazil was open to the idea of a Code
of Conduct in so far as it would promote a better climate between mandate
holders and States. On cooperation, it was vital to stimulate standing
invitations as a way of cooperating with mandate holders.
HANNO WURZNER
(Netherlands) said the preliminary conclusions provided insight in what
had the Council had achieved so far, and what still remained to be done. The
Netherlands was concerned about the consequences of a prerogative endorsement by
the Council of the proposal of the hybrid model of the selection of mandate
holders, which was proposed by the facilitator. The model did not meet the main
concern of the tension between the impartiality of Special Procedures on one
hand and their dependence on States who elected them on the other. The
Netherlands remained strongly convinced of the merits of appointment, proceeding
by a thorough screening process.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland)
said the preliminary conclusions reflected the state of the work accomplished so
far, including points of convergence, divergence, and negotiation. Switzerland
was not in favour of the election of mandate-holders, as this did not
necessarily indicate independence. The mandate-holders should be appointed
following consultation with the main actors, including the High Commissioner for
Human Rights. The hybrid model could be discussed, but only if it guaranteed the
maximum amount of independence for mandate-holders.
On the Code of
Conduct, it was up to the Coordination Committee on mandate-holders to establish
this, following consultation with States. The Code should contain rules of
conduct not only for the Special Procedures but also for States in their
interaction with the mandate-holders. The system of Special Procedures should
cover all rights, including civil and political rights and economic, social and
cultural rights, including the right to development. Overlap was inevitable. The
Coordination Committee could do its best to avoid this, but overlap was
preferable than gaps. The Special Procedures should be able to consider
country-specific issues in the context of their mandates, and carry out country
visits in this context.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the
review of mandates and the Special Procedures was an important and delicate
task. By the end of this process, the Council should be able to consolidate the
work of the Special Procedures and address existing gaps. With reference to the
selection of mandate holders, they should be experts, impartial, independent,
and follow an equitable geographical representation. The selection process
should also bear in mind that mandate holders represented different legal
systems, and that gender balance was also achieved.
On the criteria on
the rationalization of mandates, the Special Procedures must fully carry out
their mandates in full respect of the State. The right to development, the
balance between civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and the
universality of human rights should also be observed.
Greater
coordination between mandate holders should be attained to avoid duplication,
and ensure coherence. The Human Rights Council should also aim at enhancing
communication and sharing of information to harmonize methods of
work.
The relationship with the Human Rights Council must be harmonized,
and the provision of information provided in a timely fashion. On the role of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it should support the Special Procedures
and also ensure support of the promotion and protection of all human rights.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that Council was still a
long way from consensus on the appointment of mandate holders. The United
Kingdom strongly believed that the need to avoid politicisation should be
fundamental in the Council’s approach on this issue. Some form of independent
selection and appointment procedure for mandate holders was essential if this
was to be achieved. Some delegations had proposed the direct election of mandate
holders by the member States of the Council. However, the United Kingdom
believed that election by States would inevitably lead to individual mandate
holders, and eventually the whole system, becoming politicised. Independent
appointments were in no way inconsistent with a democratic system. The Council
simply needed to ensure that an adequate system of checks and balances was in
place. Elections were also not the best way to ensure either equitable
geographical distribution or gender balance. The Special Procedures also had to
have a means of ensuring accountability if the system as a whole was to function
effectively. The challenge was to find a system for accountability which
safeguarded their independence. The Coordination Committee provided Member
States with a credible way to ensure accountability of Special Procedures and
develop good practices while maintaining independence.
RODOLFO REYES
RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said this was an essential element for the
implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251.
The same resolution gave guidelines for the work that needed to be done, namely
to preserve, rationalise and promote the Special Procedures system. The current
system had positive elements which should be preserved, but was also encumbered
with harmful elements that had affected its credibility. It was important to
strike a clear balance between the logical principles of analysis, as well as to
analyse the details. The Working Group had an overview approach, and the
fundamental danger here was that the details had been wrapped up. The main
priority was thus to discard those items that had caused discredit to the
system.
The Working Group should continue its analysis of
particularities, case by case and mandate by mandate, in order to rationalise
and put an end to those mandates that had been a basis for the partial
discrediting of the system. New foundations should be established in order to
ensure that the issues were de-politicised. The Working Group should analyse the
mandates individually in order to be able to prune those that should be
eliminated. There could be an Independent Expert who had great experience,
integrity and recognition, but when they received a mandate that was spuriously
based, if they did not have the ethical strength to reject the mandate, then
bankruptcy of the cooperation system took place. There could only be mutual
cooperation when the advantages of this type of system of relationships could be
recognised.
JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said that the Special
Procedures were one of the most important legacies of the Commission on Human
Rights. Special Procedures were vital to provide independent information for the
Human Rights Council to fulfil its primary goals. The Council should maintain
the independence of Special Procedures and guarantee the universality of
coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States. Special Procedures
should be entrusted with generating reports, and conducting field studies in
cooperation with stakeholders, including national institutions and
non-governmental organizations. They should at the same time function as an
early-warning system.
It was essential to keep the independence of the
Special Procedures. Canada supported appointing mandate holders by the President
of the Council or by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights to ensure their impartiality and independence. The Human Rights
Council must preserve the independence of the Special Procedures and strengthen
cooperation with Member States. With reference to the work of the Working Group
on rationalization and standardization of methods of work, a Manual of
Procedures was an important element.
SUMDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka)
said the mandate holders should be independent and non-political. Emphasis
should also be given to the development of a balance between the various
categories of human rights, such as civil and political rights, and economic,
social and cultural rights and the right to development. International technical
and advisory assistance should be provided to the countries identified by
country situation procedures. The question of the appointment of the mandate
holders should also be given higher consideration. The Council should organize a
session on the appointment of the mandate holders, who should be elected in a
secret ballot, reflecting a fair geographical distribution.
FAITH GAN
(Singapore) said there should be more in-depth discussions on the review
at the next meeting of the Working Group. On whether mandate holders should be
appointed or elected, the issue was how to guarantee independence and
competence, whilst ensuring a democratic means of selection. States should be
involved in the elections, as this would not necessarily compromise independence
of mandate-holders. The question of competence was a non-issue, as a screening
process would weed out those who did not fit the criteria.
The
relationship between the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures should
be discussed later, when the Universal Periodic Review itself was further
clarified. On cooperation by and with Governments, some had said that
invitations to visit were an instrument for safeguarding cooperation. Substance
was more important than form, and focus should be on the human rights of States,
rather than attention paid to peripheral issues such as whether a standing
invitation existed.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that the efforts of
the Human Rights Council should be focused on improving the effectiveness,
independence, impartiality and quality of work of the Special Procedures. The
nomination of mandate holders must ensure the selection of the most qualified
candidate who fulfilled the fundamental criteria of independence and
impartiality. This issue had been under much debate in the Working Group but
Slovenia remained convinced that elections through the practices of lobbying and
reciprocal exchanges of support were not disposed to secure this criteria.
Elections were even less likely to ensure gender equality or the equal
opportunity for candidates from small countries. The best way ahead was drafting
of criteria on the basis of which selection of mandate holders would follow
through a transparent, non-political process.
Mandate holders should
strive in their work for good cooperation with the countries concerned. Good
practice in this regard existed and was being further developed by the Special
Procedures through their Manual. Cooperation though, as many delegations stated
in the Working Group already, was not a one-way street. A number of States had,
through the issuance of standing invitations and through timely responses to
requests for visits and communications from Special Procedures, shown openness
to constructive dialogue.
ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said that
the review process should be built on a clear and shared understanding of the
objectives of the Special Procedures as a system. The Special Procedures should
be seen as an integral part of the UN human rights machinery and as am important
part of the Council. They constituted a unique link between governments,
national institutions, non-governmental organizations and other civil society
organizations. The Special Procedures would provide valuable analysis on key
human rights issues, they could serve as a mechanism of last resort for victims
and they could prevent serious abuses, through the system of urgent appeals.
They could also serve as early-warning mechanisms to draw attention to human
rights crises. The independent status of the mandate-holders was key to allow
them to fulfil their mandates and report on human rights violations.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said the report should be called the
Facilitator’s Progress Report. The report did not reflect the discussions during
the session in a balanced manner. The Human Rights Council should have a
straight-forward, direct role in the election of mandate-holders, which would
not undermine their independence, but would bring more transparency to the
system that would be an essential prerequisite to avoid politicisation.
Mandate-holders should reflect different geographical, cultural and religious
backgrounds.
The review should aim at improving the balance between
civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including
right to development. The direct accountability of the mandate holders to the
Human Rights Council was supported. The Human Rights Council should examine a
review of mandate holders individually and collectively. The urgent appeals
format should be standardised and unified, and criteria set. On the code of
conduct, this should be approved by the Human Rights Council.
BART OUVRY
(Belgium) supported scheduling submission of reports throughout different
sessions of the Human Rights Council as a good way of making better use of
resources, including those of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner. Belgium underscored the need to have independent Special
Procedures, and saw convergence on this point by many delegations. Nevertheless,
they had to make sure that the principle of independence was put into practice.
Concerned countries should cooperate with mandate holders in such as way as to
let them carry out their mandate free of any political pressure. On the Code of
Conduct, any mechanism should respect the principles of independence and
transparency.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) said that one of the
issues that had been less satisfactory in the past was the cooperation between
governments and the Special Procedures. Governments wished to see more
predictability and reliability with regard to the work of the Special
Procedures. A more standardized and harmonized format concerning the
terminology, the conduct of visits and the reporting was indeed desirable and
would contribute to more confidence on both sides. At the same time, the
effectiveness of visits and their follow-up depended on the cooperation of both
sides. Any further Code of Conduct or similar set of principles had therefore to
provide the rules of governments as well. The Council would have to make sure
that governments fully upheld those rules in the spirit of genuine dialogue with
mandate holders and with the aim of ensuring equal treatment of all States when
it would come to the conduct of and follow-up to country visits.
ANDREI
MOLCHAN (Belarus) said particular attention was given to country
mandates, and the issue of country topics in the Council. It was necessary to
clearly divide the two aspects in the Working Group. Because of their
politicisation, the imposition of double standards and political models, these
mandates were counter-productive, and the Working Group should discuss their
abolition. The basic tool for the Council when considering human rights
situations in countries should be the Universal Periodic Review, and the
complaints procedure. Only in situations of mass and grave human rights
violations should a special session be called.
Mandate-holders should be
appointed with clear criteria, and should be independent. The United Nations
General Assembly Third Committee had adopted a resolution entitled Encouraging
Equal Dialogue on Human Rights, and this could provide the necessary basis for
developing mutually agreeable standards on the topic of country situations in
the Council.
JAN LEVIN (United States) said that the aim of the
review should be to enhance the Special Procedures’ efficacy in promoting and
protecting human rights. Human rights violations did not occur in a vacuum.
Abuses or failures to protect happened in particular countries. The Human Rights
Council needed to keep the most effective tools for addressing those violations;
that meant retaining both thematic and country specific Special Procedures and
country specific mandates. That also meant that the same rules should apply
within the Council for the creation of new mandates, whether they were thematic
or country specific.
As there were already more than forty Special
Procedures and in light of the budgetary implications of this proliferation of
mandates, the United States would favour combining existing procedures and the
exercise of caution before creating new thematic and country specific Special
Procedures mandates. In this regard, the United States also encouraged mandate
holders to conduct joint visits and to issue joint communications when
appropriate.
The appointment of independent, impartial and professional
experts as mandate holders was essential to maintaining the credibility of the
Special Procedures system. This could best be assured by having regional groups,
non-governmental organizations and States nominate candidates from which the
President of the Council in consultation with the Office of the High
Commissioner would select the mandate holder.
RAFAEL ANTONIO QUINTERO
(Colombia) said that the manner in which reports were presented by
mandate holders were not fully reflected in the document under discussion. Any
assessment should be substantiated by evidence and it should not be based on
value judgements. The mandate holders should not deal with all subjects
indiscriminately. Their actions should focus on the main theme to which their
were mandated. The dialogue between governments and mandate holders was also
essential in establishing the reports. The standing visits invitation by States
to mandate holders should not be used without prior consultations with the
respective governments. The mandate holders should always maintain responsible
attitudes. On the other hand, States should be substantially informed so that
they prepared their
responses.