18 June 2009
Council Decides to Discontinue Consideration of the
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the Complaint
Procedure
The Human Rights Council this morning approved five
candidates for special procedure mandates, including new Special Rapporteurs
on the independence of judges and lawyers and on violence against women, and
adopted a resolution under its organizational and procedural matters on
issuance of reports of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in
all official languages of the United Nations.
At the beginning of the meeting, Martin Ihoeghian
Uhomoibhi, President of the Human Rights Council, said that in closed
meetings, the Human Rights Council had decided to discontinue consideration
of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the complaint
procedure.
The Council approved five candidates for special procedure
mandates: for the Working Group on people of African descent, Mr. Sicilianos
Linos-Alexander (Greece); for the Working Group on arbitrary detention, Mr.
Mads Andenas (Norway); for the Working Group on enforced or involuntary
disappearances, Mr. Osman El-Hajje (Lebanon); as Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers, Ms. Gabriela Carina Knaul De Albuquerque
e Silva (Brazil); and as Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its
causes and consequences, Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa).
Gopinathan Achamkulangare of India expressed appreciation
for the work done in short-listing the candidates, but was deeply
disappointed at the recommendation for the Working Group on People of African
Descent, and said that this nomination was a clear violation of paragraph 44
of Council resolution 5/1 in the section on the appointment of mandate
holders. The nominee had conveyed his intention of resigning from his current
human rights position by the end August 2009. The Council was obliged to
appoint the mandate holders by the end of the session, which meant that the
nominee would hold two positions simultaneously, which would be a clear violation
of the Council resolution. India was surprised that the Secretariat had not
brought this important fact to the attention of the Council. This violated
the spirit of the institution-building package. The Council should have the
benefit of a diversity of perspectives from as wide a basis as possible.
Whilst the services rendered by the nominee were appreciated in his current
position, he should withdraw from the list. Should the Council continue with
its plan to nominate him, then India would have to disassociate itself from
the consensus.
The President of the Council said that the nominee would
indeed resign from his post with the Committee on Elimination of Racial
Discrimination at the end of August. As the Working Group would not be
meeting until 2010, there would be no overlap of functions.
In the resolution on issuance of reports of the Working
Group on the Universal Periodic Review in all official languages of the
United Nations (A/HRC/11/L.2), adopted without a vote as orally amended, the
Council decided that all the reports adopted by the Working Group on the
Universal Periodic Review at its fourth and fifth sessions and the additional
information submitted by the States under review should be issued before the
adoption of the outcome by the Council as official documents in all official
languages of the United Nations, prior to the twelfth session of the Council;
recalled that the Working Group should endeavour to apply in its reports the
word limits established in the annex to President's statement 9/2; and
decided that all reports adopted by the Working Group shall be issued as
official documents in all official languages of the United Nations, in a
timely manner before their consideration by the Council, and requested the
Secretary-General to ensure the necessary support to that effect.
Mariana Olivera West of Mexico, introducing the draft
resolution on L.2, said that during the Universal Periodic Review, reports
had to be adopted without delegations having the translated texts. This
situation should not repeat itself and having documents available was an
obligation and was essential to the adequate functioning of the mechanism.
Mexico had already emphasized earlier that it attached great importance to
the Universal Periodic Review process and its universal character that should
contribute to improve the human rights situation in the field. The examined
States had undertaken enormous efforts on the national level to participate
in the process and Mexico was committed to adequate follow-up to these
efforts. In that regard, it was indispensable that the Secretariat supported
this mechanism and conformed to the mandate that the General Assembly had
given it.
Joao Ernesto Christofolo of Brazil, speaking in an
explanation of the vote after the vote on resolution L.2 on the translation
of the reports of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, said that the
Brazilian delegation congratulated and thanked the Mexican delegation for
bringing forth this resolution, and called on all delegations to remember to
vote on the proposed budget of the Fifth Committee while in New York in order
to ensure the fulfilment of the aim of this resolution.