THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL A Quick Guide by the International Service for Human Rights

Reforming the Commission 2001: USA not elected for first time 2003: Libya chairs the Commission December 2004: High Level Panel report recommends replacement March 2005: Secretary General’s report recommends replacement but on a different model September 2005: World Summit and Summit Outcome Document 15 March 2006: General Assembly passes resolution to replace Commission with Council 19 June 2006: First session of the new Council

Human Rights Council General Assembly resolution 60/251 Status: subsidiary organ of General Assembly Status to be reviewed within 5 years Composition and election: 47 member States elected by absolute majority of the General Assembly Individual secret ballots Eligible for two consecutive terms only Gross violators can be removed by two thirds majority vote of General Assembly

Membership criteria Take account of contributions to human right Voluntary pledges and commitments to be considered when standing for election But no disqualification criteria Members must uphold the “highest standards” in human rights and fully cooperate with the Council

Membership Africa 13 Asia 13 Eastern Europe 6 GRULAC 8 WEOG 7 Total 47

Meetings At least three meetings a year totalling at least 10 weeks 2006/07 schedule: 19 to 30 June 18 September to 6 October 27 November to 8 December Possibly one week in January 12 March to 5 April 2007 Able to hold special sessions on request of one third of members

Functions Broad mandate to discuss human rights issues Address situations of violations of human rights, including “gross and systematic violations” Universal periodic review of all States

Functions All “mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities” of the Commission transferred to Council for review, rationalisation and improvement within one year: A system of special procedures to be retained A system of expert advice to be maintained (Sub-Commission) A complaints procedure to be maintained (1503 procedure) Modalities: Informal consultations; Inter-sessional working groups.

1. Universal Periodic Review Universal periodic review of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments: Based on reliable and objective information; Universality of coverage (all States); Cooperative, based on interactive dialogue (not a judgement); Not duplicative of treaty bodies work. Issues to be decided: Terms of reference (standards to be used in the review): UN Charter; UDHR; Treaties? Other commitments and pledges; National human rights laws?

Universal Periodic Review Procedure: Working Group vs. Plenary States vs. Experts Periodicity (3 to 5 years) Preparation: Reports by State under review? Report by High Commissioner? Questionnaire? Simple oral statement? OHCHR database.

Universal Periodic Review Outcome: Country-specific resolution? Mere interactive dialogue? Recommendations? If review undertaken by WG, outcome forwarded to HRC? Decision by consensus? Only technical assistance? Referral to 1235? Follow-up: Next UPR round? Annual report on implementation of recommendation?

Universal Periodic Review Other issues: Participation of civil society: “full involvement of the country concerned”, including civil society; Link with other mechanisms Treaty bodies; Special procedures.

2. Special procedures Individual experts or group pf individuals (working groups) mandated to address specific country situations or thematic issues. There are currently 41 special procedures mechanisms: 15 dealing with country situations; 26 dealing with thematic issues; Special procedures: Carry out country visits; Receive individual complaints from victims; Report to the Council and the General Assembly about their findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Special procedures Issues to be decided by the Council: Example: Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus (Mr Adrian Severin) CHR 2002: debate CHR 2003: resolution CHR 2004: country mandate CHR 2005: renewal country mandate Issues to be decided by the Council: Rationalisation of mandates Overlap, number of mandates; Country mandates; Review used to terminate undesired mandated?

Special procedures Working methods Interaction with the media; Admissibility criteria for individual communications; “Code of conduct” for accountability in case of experts overstepping their mandate; Selection and appointment of experts Role of regional groups; WG with regional representation instead of individual experts; Disqualifying situations; OHCHR roster; Need to preserve expertise and independence.

3. Expert advice to the Council Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 26 independent experts elected by the Commission for 4 year terms (half elected every 2 years) Think tank for the Commission: studies, standard setting But was increasingly restricted: no country specific consideration, no initiation of projects without Commission approval, TNC Norms Met annually in Geneva for four weeks Council required to develop a system of expert advice

4. Complaints procedure ECOSOC resolution 1503 (1970): Gross violations of human rights; Pattern of widespread violation of human rights; Confidential procedure, it may result in: Public debate under ECOSOC Resolution 1235; Appointment of special procedure with country specific mandate. Council is required to maintain a complaints procedure. So far, during the Council session and informal consultations: Focus on other issues, not on 1503; Quest for more transparency; Clearer admissibility criteria.

Standard setting Standard-setting Working Groups were responsible for negotiating new legal standards in the area of human rights – i.e. declarations or treaties Standard-setting Working Groups of former Commission Draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Consideration of a possible Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Role of NGOs at the Commission ECOSOC accredited NGOs: Direct access to Commission and Sub-commission unparalleled in UN system Written submissions: unlimited number Oral statements: limited number at Commission Parallel or side events Lobbying and persuasion: General Related to specific resolutions Related to specific delegations

Role of NGOs at the Council During the reform process: fears that NGO access could be limited. However, arrangements and practices established under the Commission are carried forward to the Council. The Universal Periodic Review as new avenue of participation: To submit info on countries, highlight violations, ask for concrete action; Particularly important if country mandates are suppressed.

Accreditation 3 categories of NGO accreditation: General consultative status; Special consultative status; NGOs on the Roster; Applications to ECOSOC Committee on NGOs, meeting annually. Consultative status suspended or withdrawn: Abuse of the status; Funds from criminal activities; No contribution to UN work within any three-year period. Quadriennial reports on activities and contribution to NGO Committee.

Accreditation Politicisation of the accreditation process: example of LGBT organisations. Some form of participation for non-ECOSOC accredited NGOs? Example: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; Ad Hoc Committee on the Disability Convention

The Council’s first year Receive and respond to the outstanding reports of the Special Procedures Develop and establish the system of universal periodic review Review, rationalise and improve all mandates of Special Procedures Review the system of expert advice and establish its own system Review the system of individual complaints and establish its own system Develop its own rules of procedure, agenda and operating system Act on situations to avoid any protection gap