New York, 3 October 2007 The Human Rights Council has conducted the first half of its Sixth Session. The Council began with informal discussions on institution-building tasks from 10-12 September. During this time, the Council discussed three non-papers on those areas that the Council could not resolve in its first year, which ended on 18 June 2007. The non-papers contained proposals on:

Objective requirements for the submission of candidatures to the HRC Advisory Committee;

Guidelines for the preparation of information under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR); and

Technical and objective requirements for eligible mandate holders.

The formal components of the Session began on 13 September with an address by Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The rest of the Session allowed for formal consideration of the institution-building proposals, the review of several existing Special Procedures mandates, discussion on the status of various Working Groups, and preparation for the UPR including the selection of the first States to be reviewed. Finally, the Council decided to hold a Special Session on Burma/Myanmar on 2 October.

The Session ended on Friday, 28 September with some institution-building measures deferred until the December 2007 portion of the Sixth Session.

Summary of Outcomes

The Human Rights Council adopted a number of decisions and resolutions on 27-28 September at the close of the first part of its Sixth Session, several of which related directly to institution-building of the Council. A Council decision following up on Resolution 5/1 also known as the “institution-building package” adopted 18 June 2007 – included:

Requirements for members of the Advisory Committee,

Guidelines for States’ preparation of information for Universal Periodic Review, and

Requirements for mandate holders of the Special Procedures.

Pending issues to be resolved, the view of HRC President Doru Romulus Costea, include:

Identify candidates for the HRC Advisory Committee;

Prepare for the first session of Universal Periodic Review;

Set up the Public List for eligible candidates for mandate holders.

In total, the Council took action on 31 draft decisions and resolutions including extending the mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; Special Rapporteur on the right to food; and Independent Experts on human rights in Haiti and Burundi. The Council also created the position of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and the Forum on Minority Issues.

Of the draft decisions and resolutions adopted by the Council, 22 were adopted by consensus. Both States and independent observers point to the high number of consensus decisions as an indication of the cooperation and achievement of the Council.

Institution-Building Issues

Advisory Committee of the HRC

The HRC Advisory Committee will serve as a think tank, providing expertise and advice and conducting research and studies on thematic issues of interest to the Council at its request.

Ambassador Alicia Gallegos of Nicaragua was the facilitator for criteria for members of the Advisory Committee. On 10 September she presented her non-paper on the criteria for candidates to the Advisory Committee. This non-paper was mandated by the Council’s institution-building package of 18 June 2007. It proposed four criteria, developed through consultations with Member States:

Competence and experience

High moral standing

Independence and impartiality

Other factors

The Ambassador described the criteria as reflecting the shared positions of various States. She stressed the importance of balance in gender and age, as ways to ensure a diversified group. Additionally, she noted her conviction that balance between academic qualifications and field experience would be key to ensuring that the Advisory Council is composed of the “best people.”

During the ensuing informal discussion, Member State responses to the non-paper varied from near complete acceptance, in the case of Brazil, to near complete refusal, in the case the African Group. States expressed concerns, including that that “high moral standing” could be both redundant and difficult to quantify.

The Council held informal consultations on 18 September on requirements for members of the Advisory Committee. Ambassador Gallegos presented a revised non-paper which took into account the discussions of 10 September while maintaining the agreed-upon text of the institution-building package. Proposed amendments included removing “age groups” from the considerations and changing the wording about cultural diversity.

A number of States were ready to endorse the revised text, while others expressed concern about changing the agreements of the institution-building package.

In the final decision adopted on Thursday, 27 September, there are four criteria:

Recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights,

High moral standing,

Independence and impartiality, and

Other considerations.

For a complete overview of the Council's work on the Advisory Committee, please see Daily Updates from the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) for 11 September and 18 September.

Guidelines for State Information in UPR

Guidelines for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) refers to the type of information that governments should prepare for the Council’s review of the country’s human rights record, and the format in which it should be submitted.

The Facilitator on UPR guidelines, Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco, presented a non-paper on 11 September, which he stressed was the product of extensive bilateral consultations with States and other stakeholders. The non-paper lists seven potential guidelines for States to use in preparing information for their reviews.

Methodology followed for preparation of information, including consultation process

Background of the country, and framework for the promotion and protection of human rights, including its international obligations

Promotion and protection of human rights on the ground, i.e. the implementation of the country’s international human rights obligations (this is based on the “scope of review,” established in Resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2006)

Identification of achievements, best practices, challenges and constraints

Key national priorities, initiatives and commitments to overcome the abovementioned challenges

State’s expectations in terms of capacity-building and technical assistance

State’s follow-up from previous reviews

These guidelines do not differ dramatically from those in the 30 June discussion paper, with the exception of the addition of guideline VII.

Most States appreciated the simple and flexible structure of the non-paper and several felt that the text was close to agreement. Ambassador Loulichki introduced a slightly revised non-paper on 18 September. Some States felt that it was a good basis for consensus, while others proposed several additional changes to the text, out of concerns about matching the language between sections and between this decision and Decision 5/1 of 18 June, as well as conveying a sense of achievement by the Council.

The final decision adopted on Thursday, 27 September, provided a set of seven guidelines very similar to those presented on 11 September, with slight wording changes.

For a complete overview of the Council's work on the Advisory Committee, please see Daily Updates from the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) for 11 September and 18 September.

In addition to State information, the UPR also will be based on information from other sources, including “other relevant stakeholders” (according to the 18 June 2006 decision of the Council). The UPR staff of the OHCHR will work with the Civil Society Unit to prepare a summary of stakeholder input. They began preparing for this reporting process with a meeting on 24 September to “receive guidance” from NGOs submitting information.

Criteria for Mandate Holders of the Special Procedures

In the 18 June 2006 institution-building package the Council established guidelines for criteria for mandate-holders of the Council’s Special Procedures, or human rights reporting mechanisms, to be completed at the Sixth Session. The June decision required that:

Candidates have: “expertise, experience in the field of the mandate, independence, impartiality, personal integrity, and objectivity.”

“Due consideration should be given to gender balance as well as to appropriate representation of different legal systems.”

“Eligible candidates are highly qualified individuals who possess established competence, relevant expertise and extensive professional experience in the field of human rights” (paras. 39-41).

On 11 September the President of the Council presented a non-paper with suggestions of specific criteria. Through a series of consultations and revisions, States addressed concerns including:

The requirements contained in the institution-building package were sufficient;

It is unnecessary to require candidates to hold university degrees (agreed by the majority of delegations)

Professional experience should be considered as a substitute for a university degree (suggested by many delegations)

Subjectivity of assessing certain criteria.

The final criteria for Technical and Objective Requirements for Eligible Candidates for Mandate Holders, adopted on 27 September, are as follows.

1. Qualifications: relevant educational qualifications or equivalent professional experience in the field of human rights; good communication skills in one of the official languages of the United Nations.

2. Relevant expertise: knowledge of international human rights instruments, norms and principles; as well as knowledge of institutional mandates related to the United Nations or other international or regional organizations’ work in the area of human rights; proven work experience in the field of human rights.

3. Established competence: nationally, regionally or internationally recognized competence related to human rights.

4. Flexibility/readiness and availability of time to perform effectively the functions of the mandate and to respond to its requirements, including attending Human Rights Council sessions.

Now that a set of criteria have been agreed, the HRC Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) immediately may begin registering candidates in a process decided on 18 June. The OHCHR will provide a standardized form for candidates to fill in and maintain a “public list” including candidates’ “personal data, areas of expertise and professional experience.” This process will allow for the selection of candidates for appointment to particular mandates. When a proposal for a new mandate arises, a consultative group will be established to propose a list of candidates to the Council president at least one month before the HRC Session that will consider the selection.

Preparation for the Universal Periodic Review

The Universal Periodic Review is mandated to begin this year. Developing its work program is still considered “work in progress” by the Council. In the Sixth Session the Council agreed on a mechanism to select the States to be reviewed and determine the sequence of their reviews. It also discussed – but did not finalize – the selection process for the facilitators of each State’s review.

Order of States’ Reviews

The Council held two simulations to demonstrate a proposed mechanisms for determining the order in which States will be reviewed.

Under the proposed mechanism for determining the order of States, as demonstrated in the 18 September simulation:

States are tabled according to regional groups and ordered alphabetically (in English)

Members of the Council, and states who have volunteered for review, are “flagged”

The President draws a name out of each regional group and that name moves to the top of the group’s list

The drawn name is moved to the top of the list and followed by member States whose term is ending in 2007, followed by those whose membership ends in 2008

Sixteen States are selected for the first review

To determine the order of review for those 16 states, the President draws the names of the countries one by one.

Delegations found the mechanism complicated. Concerns were voiced over the balance between Member and non-Member States, terms of membership that have ended and been renewed, periodicity of review, and the review of Least Developed Countries.

On 19 September the Council held an additional simulation of the proposed mechanism. This time, the simulation added the rule that for the first review cycle, Member States will be reviewed during the year that their term expires. This mechanism was agreed to, and used in the actual selection of countries later in the week.

States Selected for First, Second, and Third Reviews

On 21 September the Council selected countries for its first round of reviews, following the second version of the selection mechanism. For its first review session (2008) the following countries are scheduled to be reviewed – in this order: Bahrain, Ecuador, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia, Finland, United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Philippines, Algeria, Poland, Netherlands, South Africa, Czech Republic, and Argentina.

The States to be reviewed in the second and third sessions also were selected. Second session states, in this order: Gabon, Ghana, Peru, Guatemala, Benin, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, France, Tonga, Romania, and Mali.

Third session states, in this order: Botswana, Bahamas, Burundi, Luxembourg, Barbados, Montenegro, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, and Tuvalu.

The first cycle of 192 reviews will take until 2011.

In her address to the Council, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour stressed the importance of UPR, stating that the “credibility of the United Nations human rights system hinges upon satisfactory implementation of the review.”

Countries’ responses ranged from support for beginning UPR as soon as possible to arguments to delay it until April 2008, which is what appears on the latest version of the Council’s Provisional Calendar of Meetings for the HRC 2007-2008.

Selecting Facilitators of Review

Another simulation held on 18 September demonstrated a system for selecting the group of three rapporteurs (“troika”) that will facilitate each review. No resolution or decision was taken regarding the selection of the troikas. A note from the HRC Secretariat on 18 September explains that setting up the troikas is a “work in progress”, and the Council will hold a public meeting before the December 2007 session to select the troikas for the first review cycle.

In the proposed mechanism for selecting the review troikas:

Troikas will be composed of Members of the Council only.

Each troika will be composed of Member States from different regional groups.

To ensure equitable geographic distribution, each Member State should only be a member of three troikas, with the exception of three Member States that may serve a fourth time (since there are 47 members of the Council and 48 countries will have to be reviewed every year).

The troikas on which States will have representatives will be determined by drawing lots. For details see the Secretariat’s Draft Note.

Review of Special Procedures Mandates

Beginning on 14 September, the Council began what will be an ongoing review of mandates of the Special Procedures, the human rights reporting mechanisms of the Council. The outcomes of the review meetings varied.

Individual Mandate-holders: Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts

The Council agreed to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Haiti, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and the Independent Expert on the Human Rights Situation in Burundi. The mandate on the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People was renamed the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people” to address a broader spectrum of rights, and the mandate was renewed for three years.

The Council deferred a decision on renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief until December 2007.

States raised two concerns about the review process – lack of consistency between the review of each Special Procedure, and inclusion of the Code of Conduct for mandate-holders. Pakistan suggested that the Council needed to create a comprehensive “roadmap” for the review process, but President Costea responded that due to the diversity of the Special Procedures, they could not all be treated in the same way. He reiterated his strategy of a three-part review process (assessment of a mandate, presentation of report by mandate-holder, adoption of a resolution on the future of the mandate) and said that the Bureau would discuss suggestions on methodology at a later time.

The African Group requested that the Council include a reference to the June 2007 Code of Conduct in every Resolution. The EU objected on the basis that the Code is already legally binding (per Resolution 5/1) and does not need to be repeated in each resolution.

On 27 September President Costea announced that agreement had been reached on a broad set of guidelines for the “review, rationalization and improvement” of mandates:

Equal treatment in the review of mandates,

Reviews are to be completed without prejudice,

The Council expects co-sponsors to adhere to Resolution 5/1, and

The President of the Council will continue to hold consultations to refine the methodology for the review, rationalization and improvement of mandates

Working Groups

The Council created the position of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, which will replace the Working Group on the issue, as well as the Forum on Minority Issues, which will replace the Working Group.

The minority issues Forum, an initiative of Austria, is aimed at facilitating participation by States, NGOs, and “all other stakeholders.”

The initiative to convert the Working Group on slavery into an individual Special Procedure came from the UK, which said it wanted to address a protection gap and become more action-oriented.

The mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was renewed for three years at France’s initiative.

Regarding the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, many states and NGOs had requested that the Council delay consideration of its mandate, because of the General Assembly’s 13 September adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The President suggested allowing more time for stakeholders to consider the implications of the adoption, before deciding on the mandate of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. Bolivia sponsored a resolution for an informal meeting before the December 2007 Session, at which the Council would discuss the future of the Working Group, including considering possible options for its replacement of the WG. This initiative was adopted by consensus.

Other Decisions

Special Session on Burma/Myanmar

During the Sixth Session, the European Union initiated a call for a Special Session on the human rights situation in Burma. The purpose of the proposed session was to discuss the human rights violations in that country, as the military regime has been responding with violence to non-violent protests led by Buddhist monks. The Council would seek access to Burma for its Special Rapporteur, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, who would then report back to the Council in December 2007.

In calling the meeting the EU:

Cited “gross and systematic violations of human rights, "strongly condemn[ed]” violence against peaceful demonstrators, called on the authorities “to desist from violence," and urged the release of political prisoners;

Said it wished to send a UN expert to examine the situation and report back to the Council. Although the Independent Expert on Human Rights in the country has been Paolo Sergio Pinheiro for seven years, the Burmese authorities have barred him from entering the country since 2003.

According to the President’s talking points, 56 states signed the resolution calling for the Special Session. The required number of co-sponsors is 16, or one-third of the 47-country membership of the Council. In this case, 18 members signed on, from all regional groups except Africa, along with 38 observer states, which did include African countries.

The Council discussed the proposed Session on Thursday, 27 September. Approximately 18 States expressed concern about the situation and reminded the Burmese leaders “of their responsibility under international law for the safety of all peaceful demonstrators.” On 28 September, the Council decided that it would hold the Special Session on Tuesday, 2 October. It intended to hold informal talks in the interim to come up with a resolution on the human rights situation in Burma. The outcome of the Special Session will be the subject of a separate Latest Development.

Civil society groups voiced support for the Special Session.

The Asian Centre for Human Rights called on the Council to “unequivocally condemn the Burmese junta for human rights violations including the killings of the monks and other peaceful demonstrators” as well as to establish an international commission of inquiry into the human rights violations in Burma.

HRW: “The Council’s quick action on Burma reflects the severity of the crisis there” and it “allayed the worst fears that it would back away from addressing countries in need of attention.”

The Century Foundation: The Council “should ... press for a resolution demanding a halt to the repression of peaceful protests, and call for free elections that perhaps the United Nations itself might oversee.”

The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) urgently called for a special Human Rights Council session to debate the situation and to “certify the Burmese authorities’ failure to implement the recommendations set forth by the special rapporteur.”

International Commission of Jurists: the Human Rights Council should condemn the Burmese government for its ‘’continuing violations of human rights, including suppression of freedom of expression and assembly, forced labour, and intrusions into the rights of ethnic minorities.’’

Press Emblem Campaign "condemned in the strongest possible manner the crackdown on civilians in Myanmar, the killing of a Japanese cameraman, and the expulsion of two other journalists.”

The ability to convene Special Sessions is a feature of the Council that the former Commission did not have, allowing it to respond more quickly to emergencies. This is 5th Special Session the Council has called and the first since December 2006, when the Council met regarding the human rights situation in Darfur. The previous three Special Sessions focused on Palestinian territories.

Expected Resolution on Sri Lanka

The European Union (EU), which was expected to table a resolution regarding human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, did not submit any. A Sri Lankan newspaper reported that the resolution did not appear on the HRC Secretariat’s final list of draft resolutions circulated on Monday, 24 September.

Working Group on Communications

The Council decided to extend for six months the mandate of the five members of the former Working Group on Communications, which deals with complaints from victims of human rights violations, until the new Advisory Committee was established, which would then elect the members of the new WG.

Integration of a Gender Perspective

On 20 September the Council discussed the integration of a gender perspective into the work of the Council. A panel of four experts spoke. The President considered it the beginning of a long-term process to integrate a gender perspective. An information note has been circulated by Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, and Slovenia setting out the topics discussed by the panel (Information Note). A draft resolution on integrating the human rights of women and a gender perspective throughout the UN system was postponed until December 2007.

NGO Activity

An orientation for NGOs was held by HRC Secretariat, the Conference of NGOs, and ISHR on 14 September, to provide NGO participants in the Sixth Session with information about the Session agenda, status of institution-building process of the Council, and practical aspects of the Session. The Council president also participated.

HRC Bureau met with NGOs on 18 September, 26 September.

CONGO held an NGO briefing session about the Sixth Session on 28 September, to assess the achievements and shortcomings of the Sixth Session. The group also discussed NGOs’ involvement in preparing documentation for the upcoming UPR process.

At the Session’s closing meeting, a joint statement by Quaker groups commended the Council on several accomplishments, including reviewing some Special Procedures mandates, which allows those mandate holders to plan ahead after uncertainty; continuing the Council’s previous practices of NGO participation; and enabling the UPR process to start. It also requested of the Council a more stable program of work so participants can plan, especially the schedule for the interactive dialogues with SP mandate holders. Costea responded that although things probably would continue to change the sequence of meetings should remain unchanged.

Coming Up

The Sixth Session resume for one week from 10-14 December 2007 to complete the Program of Work. Most of the time will be spend on annual reports of Special Procedures and interactive dialogue with the mandate-holders, followed by assessment of mandates. One morning is allotted to “human rights situations that require the council’s attention” on 11 December. (Draft program of work for resumed session).

Other items that can be expected to appear on December’s program of work, deferred from the September part of the Session, include:

Review of mandate of Special Rapporteur on the Human rights situation in Sudan;

Review of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief;

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar; and

Draft resolution on integrating the human rights of women and a gender perspective throughout the UN system

Before the December meeting, several aspects of the Council’s work will continue.

The Working Group on Communications and Working Group on Situations will meet from 19-23 November. These WGs are two components of the new victims’ complaint procedure.

The Council plans to meet to discuss the mandate of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.

The Council will hold a public meeting to select the troikas for the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.

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