HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON REVIEW OF MANDATES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its discussion on the review of mandates, hearing from a number of delegations and non-governmental organizations, as well as concluding comments from the facilitator for the Working Group on the review of mandates.

Reacting to a number of comments and questions raised this morning and this afternoon, Tomas Husak, facilitator of the Working Group, said that on the question of divergence of selection and appointment of mandate holders, he had mentioned in his paper that further consideration should be given to this issue. In his non-paper, which would be produced soon, he would provide substantial comments on those issues. With regard to the mandates, none of the delegations had objected to the issue of country mandates and had concentrated on the objectives of the mandates. It had been agreed that there should be further improvements to the country mandates. Accountability had been the centre of attention in the discussions of the Working Group.

Mr. Husak also recalled that the issue of improvement of the mandates had been raised by many delegations. Standing invitations by States were a sign of cooperation by those States. The idea of scrutiny of States that did not cooperate with the Special Procedures had also been indicated in the document he presented. It was agreed that a standardization of the Special Procedures was essential to enhance cooperation among the mandate holders and the States.

During the general debate, some speakers saw room for improvements in the current system of appointing mandate holders. This included the elaboration of objective and reliable information criteria and a broader net for candidates through a transparent roster of experts. There was no need for a total overhaul of the system. The proposal of elections of mandate holders would open the door for politicising the nomination process and turning it into a market place with horse trading and deal making. Thus it would be very unlikely to achieve their objectives of highest expertise for the mandate in question, as well as geographic and gender balance.

Other delegations stated that the system of Special Procedures was significantly different from human rights treaty bodies: it consisted of individual mandates and mandate holders with different timeframes. Their renewal was a continuous and ongoing process and could not be subject to general elections. The high objectives for the nomination process were best met through the appointment of mandate holders by the High Commissioner. She was a United Nations official bound by relevant United Nations rules and regulations, including concerning geographic distribution.

A number of speakers considered that the aim of the review should ensure that Special Procedures must be professional and responsible in the performance of their mandates. Here, the Coordinating Committee played a key role. In this context, they welcomed the decision of the Coordinating Committee to give more time to delegations for comments on the draft Manual of Operation.

Some delegations said that reform of the Special Procedures, including country-specific mandates, in keeping with a new environment had been widely shared by the majority. However, some, who had gone so far as to attempt to maintain it as fait accompli, were treating country-specific mandates as immune to any changes. Instead of forceful arguments, objectivity and impartiality should serve a standard by which to determine the effectiveness or unfairness of the country-specific mandates.

Speaking this afternoon were the delegations of Sudan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Palestine, Denmark, Costa Rica, Austria, New Zealand, Armenia, and Venezuela.

Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of United Nations Watch, Human Rights Watch, Pax Romana, World Organization against Torture, Amnesty International, Movement contre le Racisme et pour l’amitie entre les Peuples, Reporters without Borders, Federation International des Droits de l’Homme, and International Service for Human Rights.

When the Council meets 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 December, it will discuss its complaint procedure.

Statements on Review of Mandates

IDRISS MOHAMMED ALI (Sudan) said the efforts made by the facilitator of the Working Group on the review of mandates and his efforts to reach consensus were appreciated. With regards to the observations on the paper under discussion, it did not reflect all the suggestions and deliberations of the Working Group, and therefore could not be called conclusions, and it should be referred to as a preliminary report by the facilitator. When the negotiations began next January, it was hoped that it would be possible to discuss all issues related to mandate-holders.

The Council should elect mandate-holders on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, taking into account the various legal systems, levels of development, and religious and cultural specificities. Country mandates had been politicised to a great extent, and thematic mandates should therefore be expanded, and certain matters relating to country mandates be specified, taking into mind that the Universal Periodic Review would cover the situation of human rights in specific States.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), said that reform of the Special Procedures, including country-specific mandates, in keeping with a new environment had been widely shared by the majority of Member States. However, some, who had gone so far as to attempt to maintain it as fait accompli, were treating country-specific mandates as immune to any changes. Instead of forceful arguments, objectivity and impartiality should serve as a standard by which to determine the effectiveness or unfairness of the country-specific mandates.

In the view of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the country-specific mandates were among the factors that contributed to the demise of the Commission on Human Rights, and had no future. The system represented an erroneous mechanism right from the beginning, having no relevance to human rights. Most of the country-specific resolutions that produced Special Rapporteurs, without exception, were enforced on the basis of political motives. An enforced resolution against the will of the concerned party was a confrontation that was incompatible with dialogue and cooperation. Maintaining country-specific mandates was tantamount to reinstating the politicisation, double standards and selectivity.

PITCHAYAPHANT CHARNBHUMIDOL (Thailand) believed that the task of assuming, reviewing, improving and rationalizing the Special Procedures system should begin with a clear vision of what the Council would like to achieve. A Special Procedures system that was balanced, independent, impartial and competent would be desirable by all. The system should be coherent to ensure its effectiveness. Most importantly, it should be more visible and accessible so that all rights holders could truly benefit from it. In short, Thailand would like to have a Special Procedures system that could truly make a difference for individuals on the ground.

Thailand was flexible on the selection of mandate holders as long as the nomination and selection process was transparent, inclusive and independent. It was vital to maintain a constructive and meaningful dialogue between the mandate holders and the Council. With regard to cooperation, it should be noted that it required efforts from both the States and the mandate holders.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said the mandate-holders should be elected by the Council as a whole. It was not long ago that the majority of the United Nations membership felt alienated in the appointment of non other than the High Commissioner. The responsibility for appointing mandate holders should not lie on this Office.

There should be full democracy in the functioning of the Human Rights Council - only in such a manner could the cultural narcissistic trance which seemingly afflicted some members who had a stranglehold on some human rights processes and used fig-leaf non-governmental organizations which confected falsehoods which victimised too many developing countries persistently be abolished. Some members believed their jurisprudence superior to other countries, and that their will should prevail. In the absence of consensus on these weighty matters of human rights, the will of the majority should prevail - and that majority was one of all humanity on the planet. A great deal of work remained to be done before Special Procedures mechanisms were achieved which served all with impartiality and without rancour.

BHARAT RAJ PAUDYAL (Nepal) said that on the criteria of appointments of mandate holders, it was important to take into account professional expertise, independence, impartiality, as well as gender balance and geographical distribution. In addition, candidates should enjoy wide acceptance from Member States and the Office of the High Commissioner. The system should be transparent. Proliferation of mandates should be avoided. At the same time, the Council should avoid politicisation and selectivity.

Country-specific mandates should only be set up in exceptional circumstances. With reference to the relation to the Human Rights Council, maintenance of transparency was vital. Through an interactive dialogue the Council should be able to monitor the work of the Special Procedures. In terms of reporting, accurate and well-founded information, and substantive evidence should be the rule. Replies by Governments should be given due attention.

NADINE HASSASSIAN (Palestine) referring to the decision of the Council adopted by the first special session on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said that the resolution had emphasized the need to maintain the mandate of the Special Rapporteur throughout the duration of the occupation. Despite the resolution of the Council, the human rights violations of Palestinians had continued. There was a strong need to maintain the mandate of the Special Rapporteur until occupation was terminated.
MICHAEL BRAAD (Denmark) said the efforts of the Working Group were appreciated. In the transition from the Commission to the Council, focus had been on the work of the Commission, and yet much good had come from that body, and these elements should be preserved. One of the most important innovations was the system of country specific mandates. Some of the crucial characteristics of Special Procedures which should be maintained and enforced were their independence, which should not be subject to politicisation; their impartiality; their expertise; and continuous work. The input of the Special Procedures should be relevant to other mechanisms.

Standing invitations should be extended, and States should stand by these invitations, allowing mandate-holders to visit freely. Special Procedures were cost effective, and carried out all tasks that were expected of them.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica), said that the document presented by the facilitator should serve as a basis for the Human Rights Council in its upcoming sessions to develop proposals. The goals of the Human Rights Council could be achieved if all Member States worked with flexibility, avoided overlapping and succeeded in rationalizing the mandates.

The appointment of mandate holders should be carried out taking into account equal representation of the different cultural and geographical groups as well as the different legal systems. Moreover, independence and a recognized expertise of the candidate should be also considered. The number of mandates should be rationalized. Each mandate should last no more than three years. A Manual of Operations or a Code of Conduct should establish the criteria on admissibility of communications, visits in the field, and procedures of transmission of questionnaires to the Member States.

BERT THEUERMANN (Austria) said that one important question was the nomination procedure of Special Procedures. Austria saw room for improvements in the current system of appointing mandate holders. This included the elaboration of objective and reliable information criteria and a broader net for candidates through a transparent roster of experts. There was no need for a total overhaul of the system. The proposal of elections of mandate holders would open the door for politicising the nomination process and turning it into a market place with horse trading and deal making. Thus it would be very unlikely to achieve their objectives of highest expertise for the mandate in question, as well as geographic and gender balance.

The system of Special Procedures was significantly different from human rights treaty bodies: it consisted of individual mandates and mandate holders with different timeframes. Their renewal was a continuous and ongoing process and could not be subject to general elections. The high objectives for the nomination process were best met through appointment by the High Commissioner. She was a United Nations official bound by relevant United Nations rules and regulations, including concerning geographic distribution.

The aim of the review should ensure that Special Procedures must be professional and responsible in the performance of their mandates. Here, the Coordinating Committee played a key role. In this context, Austria welcomed the decision of the Coordinating Committee to give more time to delegations for comments to the draft Manual.

Special Procedures needed to cooperate with States in a transparent and predictable manner. But for the system to work, they needed the full cooperation of Governments concerned.

Visiting mechanisms and reporting by such mechanisms were of great value to trigger domestic debate and better responses to important human rights issues.

The close relationship between the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures was essential. Therefore, they should report regularly to the Council. In addition to their annual report, they should be able to present additional reports throughout the year, in particular on field visits. This was the best way for the Council to engage regularly and periodically with the Special Procedures, including exercising oversight.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the participation of the mandate holders in the work of the Working Group should be encouraged. The primary objective in the exercise of reviewing the Special Procedures was to strengthen the system while preserving and building upon its best features. Key to strengthening the system was to ensure that one took decisions on institution-building by consensus. When reviewing the methodology of the system of Special Procedures, strengthening meant preserving the independence of the mandate-holders from all political pressures, and enhancing the transparency and cooperation between governments and the Special Procedures. An essential feature of enhanced coordination was improved cooperation. The Coordination Committee, which was set up specifically to address many of the concerns expressed today, should be given space to deliver its objectives.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia) said the Special Procedures were among the pillars of the Commission, and should be one of the pillars of the Council. Instead of erasing everything in reformatory and revolutionary zeal, only issues that were a source of controversy in the past should be addressed. The independence of the mandate holders was a key element in the success of Special Procedures. All the efforts to tame the Special Procedures would only diminish their importance and credibility. There should be an increase in transparency in the appointments process, but this should not be done at the expense of independence.

The main task of the Special Mandate Holders was to monitor the situation, and to gather information. Those mandate holders that had proved their usefulness and efficacy should be maintained. Country mandates should be preserved, even if only to address gross human rights violations, and there was no confidence that these could be addressed only by the Universal Periodic Review.

GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said that it would invaluable if the documents were organized into points of convergence and those points that required further discussion. The selection of mandate holders should guarantee impartiality and independence. This should be achieved through the election of the candidates by the Human Rights Council. The time was ripe to analyze each and every mandate of Special Procedures. In that sense, it was important to set up the guiding principles for such a process.

DONNA ADIRI, of United Nations Watch, hoped that the result of the ongoing review would be a strong system of qualified, independent and impartial mandate holders. It was essential that the Council should maintain both thematic and country rapporteurs. The proposal by some delegations to abolish all of the country rapporteurs except for one should be rejected. Doing so would severely limit the Council’s ability to promote and protect human rights effectively worldwide.

SEBASTIEN GILLIOZ, of Human Rights Watch, said the effort of the Working Group was welcomed. Five key points should guide further deliberations: the independence of the mandate-holders should be respected; the practice of using Rapporteurs to address the human rights situation in a particular country should be continued; mandate holders should be responsible for clarifying their working methods and professional standards; the review should address obstacles to the effectiveness of Special Procedures, particularly Governmental failure to cooperate; and overlap within the Special Procedures should be addressed through appropriate means.

BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, said the Special Procedures should be directed for the improvement of the existing arrangement, especially on the integration of recommendations of the reports to be considered in the discussions and deliberations of the Human Rights Council. The selection of the mandate holders should be based on their independence, capacity and expertise on the related theme, and transparency of the process of selection, taking into consideration the gender and regional balance. Pax Romana welcomed the idea of allowing no more than two consecutive terms of the mandate holders for each mandate.

ALEXANDRA KOSSIN, of World Organization against Torture, said discussions within the first session of the Working Group on the review of mandates had taken a worrisome direction, culminating with the adoption of a resolution by the Council mandating the Working Group to draft a Code of Conduct regulating the work of the Special Procedures. Some States argued that a Code of Conduct would be a great encouragement to States to further enhance cooperation and put forward standing invitations to Special Procedures. It should be recalled that among the 30 States that had voted in favour of the resolution, only three had issued standing invitations. On the issue of selection and appointment of mandate-holders, the World Organization against Torture supported the general consensus to preserve the independence, professionalism and expertise of mandate-holders. However, that should be ensured through a transparent appointment process. The current pool of selection should be improved to guarantee a wide and open range of highly qualified candidates, meeting pre-set criteria and ensuring gender representation and geographical distribution.

PATRIZIA SCANNELLA, of Amnesty International, said the proponents of elections for mandate-holders, who also supported geographic, gender, legal system and other criteria for balance, had not explained how this could be achieved practically through an election system. All States should consider carefully the likely consequences of initiatives to rationalise the system of Special Procedures. Ill-conceived initiatives would cripple it. History would remember each State that contributed to depriving rights-holders and victims of human rights violations of protection in the review process.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with Europe-Third World Centre, International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said that the mandate should be clearly balanced to pay close attention to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and particularly the right to development. The Human Rights Council should make sufficient space to deal with annual reports. On the relation of the Human Rights Council, Special Procedures and treaty bodies, the matter should be further clarified. To avoid ambiguities, the mandate holders should be elected by the Human Rights Council with the participation of non-governmental organizations and the Office of the High Commissioner. The drafting of a Code of Conduct was a useful procedure, but it should not be construed so as to create obstacles for the independent exercise of the mandate of mandate holders.

GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders, said that the freedom of expression of mandate holders could be at risk if certain ideas put forward for revising their Code of Conduct were pursued. The Special Procedures clearly should give priority to informing inviting governments of their findings. But they also had a duty towards voiceless victims of human rights violations. At times the pressure of public opinion, national and international, might be needed on their behalf. Reporters without Borders appealed to public opinion on a daily basis. Journalists targeted in armed conflicts, thrown into prison or taken hostage, could not wait for the Council to take action on their behalf.


SIMIA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), said the role of the Special Procedures should be reinforced within the framework of the reform and not weakened. The coverage of violations which they were mandated to assess should be broader and systematic, and the possibility of country missions should be increased. The methods of work should not be controlled, thus weakening the mechanism. Their independence and integrity should be preserved at all times. Special Procedures should maintain both country and thematic mandates.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, said that the Human Rights Council had replaced the Commission on Human Rights, as the latter had been mired by politicisation and selectivity. It was then vital that a new Special Procedures in the context of the new Human Rights Council should not eliminate country mandates, but create more. The independence and impartiality of mandate holders should be guaranteed. Nothing would politicise the system more than having mandate holders being elected by the Human Rights Council. Demanding that Special Procedures must cooperate with States was unbalanced, unless States were also asked to cooperate with the Special Procedures. The current discussion should ensure impartiality, independence, and non-selectivity.


Concluding Comments by Facilitator of Working Group on Review of Mandates

TOMAS HUSAK, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Review of Mandates, said that on the divergence of selection and appointment of mandate holders, he had mentioned in his paper that further consideration should be made on this issue. In his non-paper, which would be produced soon, he would provide substantial comments on those issues. With regard to the mandates, none of the delegations had objected to the issue of country mandates and had concentrated on the objectives of the mandate. It had been agreed that there should be further improvement on the issue of country mandates. Accountability had been the centre of attention in the discussion of the Working Group. On the issuing of a Manual of Operation or a Code of Conduct, it had been emphasized that further discussion was needed. The criteria to establish Manuals and Codes should be clearly identified and there was no agreement on this issue. How to improve the mandates was another issue raised by many delegations. The standing invitations by States was a sign of cooperation by those States. The idea of scrutiny of States that did not cooperate with the Special Procedures had also been indicated in the document he presented. It was agreed that a standardization of the Special Procedures was essential to enhance cooperation among the mandate holders and the States.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06082E