4. HOW TO APPLY?

5. Under the substantive requirements of the 1503 procedure: The complaint had to describe the facts about gross human rights violations. accompanied by evidence. The complaint had to indicate the ‘purpose of the petition’, name of action, and indicate the rights that were violated. A series of communications on violations in a country could, taken together, (consistent pattern of violations). The procedural requirements of the 1503 procedure included that: 1) the complainant had exhausted all available remedies in his/her country. 2) submitted the complaint within a reasonable time. 3) the State against whom the complaint had been made was not being examined under any public procedure of the Commission. 4) the subject matter did not fall within the mandate of any of the Commission’s special procedures. 5) it was not possible for the complainant to submit the complaint under an individual complaints mechanism set up by a treaty, 6) the complaint was not politically motivated. 7) the complaint was not anonymous and did not rely exclusively on mass media reports.

6. STEPS BY THE COMMISSION.

7. Complaints that satisfied these requirements were forwarded to the concerned States, requesting them to reply within 12 weeks. The complaint had to then go through two stages of review: (a small number of situations that were referred to the entire Commission) * At the first stage: the complaints were reviewed by the Working Group on Communications to assess whether it reliably to the next stage of review. It could also keep some complaints pending till the following year to get more information. * The second stage of the review would be carried out by the Commission’s Working Group on Situations. That would decide which situations, the Commission should take up and make recommendations, and what course of action to take on each situation. The process could take 18 months or longer from the time the complaint was submitted till it reached the Commission. * The concerned State would be informed that the situation had been transmitted to the Commission and would be invited to submit any additional information and participate in the proceedings at the Commission.

8. The complainant was not informed or given any opportunity to submit information. The Commission would finally consider the situation in the countries referred to it by the Working Group on Situations in closed meetings during its annual session. The Commission could enter into a discussion with the concerned States, which could participate in the meeting and be present during the adoption of the final decision. The Commission could decide on one of the following four courses of action. WE SHOULD KNOW:

9. 1)to discontinue reviewing the matter; 2) 2) to keep the situation under review and wait for further information from the State or which may reach it through the 1503 procedure; 3) keep the situation under review and appoint a country special procedure mandate to monitor the situation and report back to the Commission; and 4) refer the matter to the public 1235 procedure, under which it could discuss the situation in the country publicly and take a variety of actions, such as adoption of a resolution, appointment of special procedure mandates, etc. The Commission could also make recommendations to ECOSOC. The Commission did not provide any direct remedies or order the payment of compensation for the complainant or other victims under this procedure. After the initial notification that the communication was being processed under the 1503 procedure, the complainant did not receive any information about the proceedings or outcomes. The entire process of the consideration of complaints was confidential. Since 1978, the Chairperson of the Commission started announcing the names of countries that had been examined under the 1503 procedure as well as those which had been dropped but did not provide any other details of the discussions or outcomes.

10. Its main advantages were that: 1) it acted as a channel to submit information to the Commission and to bring their concerns about human rights violations. 2) the submission of information often helped lead to the Commission setting up a public procedure to deal with some issues. 3) it was part of a technique for increasing pressure on offending governments. 4) it was one of the few forums available to submit complaints regarding governments. 5) the prospect of being named under the 1503 procedure could be embarrassing for the concerned government. WHAT WERE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE 1503 PROCEDURE?

11. Its main disadvantages were that: 1) the lack of remedies or even information about outcomes to victims. 2) the Commission has only responded to violations of only a limited range of civil and political rights. 3) violations of economic, social and cultural rights have never been examined seriously. 4) at the level of both the Sub-Commission and Commission, political considerations have led to a failure to act on serious country situations and against some governments. 5) selectivity and double standards in the choice of countries that were referred and in its decisions led to the Commission. 6) it was time-consuming, slow, had complex procedures, and unequal participation in assessment to complainants. 7) the secrecy of the proceedings worked to the advantage of the concerned states.

12. THE END OF THE COMMISSION.

13. The commission had come under repeated criticism from the United States for(( its unwillingness to address real human rights concerns)). In 2002, the United States was kicked off the commission by the other member states, many of whom have been criticized for their human rights violations. In 2003 Syria put forward a proposal to discuss US war crimes in Iraq. One criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks.

14. The Commission was also criticized for bias against Israel. In 2002 Anne Bayefsky, a professor of international law at York University in Toronto, wrote that "commission members seek to avoid directly criticizing states with human rights problems, frequently by focusing on Israel, a state that, according to analysis of summary records, has for over 30 years occupied 15 percent of commission time and has been the subject of a third of country-specific resolutions”. On April 15, 2002, the Commission approved a resolution affirming the "legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self- determination”. In so doing, the Palestinian people was declared "fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations". Of the 53-member commission, 40 countries voted yes, five voted no, and seven abstained. Although widely reported that the resolution condoned resistance to Israel by "all available means, including armed struggle", the resolution itself does not contain those words. Alfred Moses, a former United States ambassador to the commission and now chairman of the monitoring group UN Watch, said that "A vote in favour of this resolution is a vote for Palestinian terrorism”. In a letter to the UNHRC on November 15, 2002, following an attack by Palestinians on Israelis in the town of Hebron, Nabil Ramlawi, the permanent observer for Palestine at the U.N., appealed to the resolution as justification for the attack. The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva on March 27, 2006 and was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council in the same year.

15. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.

16. The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It meets at the UN Office at Geneva. The Council is made up of 47 United Nations Member States which are elected by the UN General Assembly. The Human Rights Council replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

17. The Council was created by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by resolution 60/251. Its first session took place from 19 to 30 June 2006. One year later, the Council adopted its "Institution-building package" to guide its work and set up its procedures and mechanisms. Among them were the Universal Periodic Review mechanism which serves to assess the human rights situations in all United Nations Member States, the Advisory Committee which serves as the Council’s “think tank” providing it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues and the Complaint Procedure which allows individuals and organizations to bring human rights violations to the attention of the Council. The Human Rights Council also works with the UN Special Procedures established by the former Commission on Human Rights and now assumed by the Council. These are made up of special rapporteurs, special representatives, independent experts and working groups that monitor, examine, advise and publicly report on thematic issues or human rights situations in specific countries. CREATION.