02 September 2010
























tool by hioxindia.com


 

HRC Still Seeking Consensus on Institution-Building Issues; Working Groups to Meet Throughout May

New York, 10 May 2007 – The working groups tasked with the institution-building of the UN Human Rights Council concluded a three-week block of consultations on Friday, 27 April. Some areas, like Working Methods and Rules of Procedures, are very close to consensus agreement, while others, such as Review of Mandates and Special Procedures, have made little progress since their meetings at the Council’s Fourth Session. Because the agreements are incomplete, the Council scheduled four additional days for consultations (tentative dates: 10, 18, 24, and 25 May).

The agreed deadline for all institution-building work remains 18 June. On the following day, the new members and the new President will take their seats on the Council.

Below are highlights of the discussions between 18-27 April and the resulting status of each issue. These are derived from the presentations of the facilitator of each working group at the wrap-up session on 27 April. Each facilitator presented either a non-paper or oral brief summarizing any new areas of convergence and remaining obstacles to agreement. (For previous updates on each issue, please see Latest Developments dated April 16 and 23.)

Complaint Procedure – Most of the discussion on the complaint procedure (by which victims can bring human rights problems to the attention of the Council and request action) was focused on the mechanisms of the procedure. Ambassador Blaise Godet of Switzerland presented an updated non-paper, showing that while progress was made, some areas of contention still exist.

  • The non-paper stated that in response to a complaint, the Council “may take any action as it deems appropriate” and then gave five examples of actions that could be taken. States debated whether these actions should be “exhaustive” (African Group, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran and Thailand) or “non-exhaustive.” Argentina wanted the Council to be innovative, not limited in its remedies.

  • The working group, almost by consensus, now supports the idea that only the Council can hold public debates on a current situation. Only Belgium and the European Union suggested that the Complaints Working Group “B”, which reports to the Council with recommendations on addressing the situation (which Working Group “A” has brought to its attention after determining the severity of the human rights situation), should also have the right to hold debates.

  • Other areas still in contention include whether to require the exhaustion of domestic remedies before filing a complaint, how delegates will be appointed to positions on the two Complaints working groups, and if decisions in the second working group may be taken by simple majority or will require consensus.

  • The Facilitator asked India to draft a proposal based on its suggestions for improving the timeliness and frequency of meetings.

Review of Mandates/Special Procedures – The facilitator, Ambassador Tomas Husak of the Czech Republic, admitted that no real progress was made on this issue. The working group held its final meeting on 26 April, only a day before the presentation to the President, so Ambassador Husak was not yet able to present a revised non-paper. (As of today it is still being drafted.)

  • Clear, unyielding divisions are evident on the selection process for mandate-holders, their relationship to the Council, the application of Country-Specific mandates, and the need for a Code of Conduct for mandate-holders.

  • There was lengthy debate on the African proposal for a Code of Conduct. Some states do not see it as necessary, arguing that existing regulations should provide the basis for their actions, while others see the need for a Code due to behavior of mandate-holders in their own countries, which they felt violated “ethical principles.” One suggested compromise was to establish a Code that would not supersede the Special Procedures manual. Consensus still appears to be out of reach.

Expert Advice – Ambassador Musa Burayzat of Jordan submitted a revised non-paper to the President with the caveat that its contents would not meet with total approval of any one delegation. He advised instead that it should be used as a strong basis for further negotiations. Continuing areas of contention during the meeting on 19 April and the “extraordinary session” held on 25 April at the request of the facilitator included:

  • The use of a pre-screening process: States are split between the use of pre-screening selection criteria for experts and direct nomination of candidates by States. The current draft calls for a pre-screening procedure but allows for a candidate to be nominated directly if they “enjoy demonstrable support at the national level and from the respective regional group.”

  • The actual size of the group of experts.

  • The identification of specific rights in the mandate: many States felt it should address all human rights equally.

  • The proposal that experts can meet individually with the Council.

Universal Periodic Review – The facilitator, Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco, identified a few key areas that had not been agreed upon in the meeting on 24 April. But he stated that some of the undecided areas would have to evolve through the process itself once it is installed.

  • On the role of experts, the working group showed a roughly 50/50 split on the need and use of independent experts in the UPR, with neither side appearing willing to abandon their position.

  • The need, use, and purpose of UPR country rapporteurs are still in question with no strong agreement on any of these issues. There are numerous proposals on incorporating the rapporteurs into the process, including the Facilitator’s idea to create a joint rapporteur of an individual expert and country representative, but so far the proposal lacks majority support.

  • States have not reached consensus on questions regarding the involvement of the concerned state, including the need for it to consent to the UPR.

  • Controversy still surrounds the inclusion of international humanitarian law (IHL) as a basis for review in the UPR. The current draft of the non-paper reads, “In situations where IHL is applicable, human rights law shall be applied in light of relevant IHL.”

Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure – Ambassador Enrique Manalo of the Philippines presented a non-paper highlighting the areas of convergence and disagreement on both Methods of Work in the Council and Rules of Procedure. Overall, there is considerable agreement on the basic principles. The prognosis appears good for acceptance of the draft by the 18 June deadline.

  • The basic scope of the working methods and procedures for Special Sessions has been agreed upon, along with a strong basis for the rules of procedure – a combination of the practices of the Human Rights Council itself along with those of other General Assembly committees.

  • The role of the Bureau and the High-Level Segment still need further negotiation.

  • There is still some disagreement on how to handle the outcome of the Council when the result is something other than a resolution and the legal implications of each outcome.

  • An agreement has not been reached regarding the need for consensus versus simple majority on voting matters.

  • The facilitator has noted that no matter what is decided this month, the working methods of the Council will necessarily be dynamic and adjusted as the Council proceeds.

Agenda and Program of Work – Ambassador Carlos Martinez Alvarado of Guatemala presented a draft for both the Council’s annual agenda and its program of work. He viewed these drafts as a positive step but noted that members still had not reached consensus on several of the main areas. The two meetings of the working group seemed to be repetitive without any true progress. Cuba described the discussion as “a dialogue of the deaf.”

  • There is an almost even divide over the proposal to incorporate items on cross-cutting human rights issues and human rights situations into the agenda, with the majority of Western states in favor of inclusion and many developing countries opposing.

  • Disagreement persists regarding the inclusion of “other issues” in the agenda and a specific section regarding Palestine and other Arab territories occupied by Israel. These issues were not discussed at length in the final meeting, however.

  • It was unopposed that the Council will hold three regular sessions of nearly equal length per year along, with an organizational session at the beginning of each Council year.

  • The agenda for each meeting was still under debate, with some States preferring each session devoted to a specific type of human right, while others felt it necessary to include all categories of rights at each session.

Next Steps

The next step is for Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba of Mexico to compile a list of pending issues to serve as a guide for the final stage of discussions, tentatively beginning 10 May. The President proposed a two-track negotiation process that would continue throughout May. The first track will be private, informal, bi- and multi- lateral discussions between the President and the delegations. The second track will feature weekly public consultations to inform the stakeholders of the progress being made.

Useful Documents

For the documents used to compile this update – from the HRC Secretariat and the International Service for Human Rights, please see the Human Rights Council page of ReformtheUN.org.

Civil Society Initiatives

The Conference of Non-governmental Organizations (CONGO) held an informal briefing for NGOs on 8 May in Geneva to address the outcomes of the working group meetings, the issues at stake between now and 18 June, and what can still be done to influence the process.

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service.  To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailmanlistinfo/latestdevelopments. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.