HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REVIEWS SPECIAL PROCEDURES, EXPERT ADVICE AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251, which mandates the Council to review and rationalize the system of Special Procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure inherited from the former Commission on Human Rights. It heard presentations by the facilitators on the review of mandates, on the future expert advice body, and the complaint procedure.

The facilitator on the review of mandates, Tomas Husak of the Czech Republic, said that the Special Procedures, serving as independent experts, or as their working groups, were an essential instrument for the protection and promotion of human rights, while monitoring the thematic issues on the global scale as well as the situations in particular countries. Delegations had pointed out the need to strike a balance between civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural ones, as well as for improved financing and enhanced support for the Special Procedures from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Some participants had drawn attention to eventual additional thematic priorities and called for a greater synergy between these and the Council. Draft elements had also been compiled in order to structure future discussions.

Mousa Burayzat of Jordan, acting as facilitator on future expert advice, said the review of expert advice was an evolving process. Four options for the new name of the body had been explored: Expert Body; Advisory System of Experts; Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and Human Rights Commission. As to its structure, the options being discussed included a single well-defined formal structure, a plural, less formal or informal structure, or a roster of experts. Regarding its mandate, the discussions had treated all options, from a broad and general one, to a narrow and somewhat focused mandate, and similarly, they had contemplated a number of different relationships with the Council, including autonomous, semi-independent, or with Council oversight, and as independent of Government and non-governmental organization participation or including NGOs.

The facilitator on the review of the complaint procedure, Blaise Godet of Switzerland, said that the 1503 Procedure had constituted a useful basis for the Working Group's deliberations. Among its positive aspects was its universality – it encompassed all States in its purview and covered the full panoply of human rights. The requirement that all domestic channels of appeal had to be exhausted before complaints would be considered had sparked diverging opinions among States. Whereas some considered that criteria were irrelevant in cases of flagrant and systematic violations – which in themselves indicated a likely absence of the rule of law – others were in favour of the strict application of these criteria.

In the debate on the review of the mandates and mechanisms of the Special Procedures, expert advice body and complaint mechanism of the Commission, there were common themes that speakers raised. On the review of mandates, many speakers pointed to the necessity of striking a balance between the civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights, and a need of improved financing and enhanced support to the Special Procedures by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With reference to the future expert advice, it was important to establish a clear role for a professional group of independent experts, which should only undertake studies or initiatives that were directly requested from it by the Council. The future of the expert advice should focus on thematic issues and its work should be of practical benefit to all United Nations Member States. On the debate of the complaint procedure, Procedure 1503, Member States saw the merits of maintaining its confidentiality clause. Such a complaint procedure should address allegations of gross and systemic human rights violations, and that meant to encourage the cooperation of countries concerned through constructive dialogue.

Speaking this morning in the general debate were the representatives of Finland on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russian Federation, Cuba, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Canada, China on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, the Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Switzerland, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, Philippines, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, Tunisia, Thailand, Iran, Norway, Singapore, Chile, Colombia, and Palestine.

Also speaking this morning were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, Action Canada for Population and Development, Amnesty International in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Association for the Prevention of Torture, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights and Lutheran World Federation, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, United Nations Watch and International Federation of University Women in a joint statement with several NGOs1.

The next plenary session of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when the Council is scheduled to take up other issues, including initiatives, decisions, and resolutions.


Progress Reports by Facilitators on Review of Mandates of Special Procedures, Expert Advice Mechanism, and Complaint Procedure

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic), acting as facilitator on the review of mandates, said he was presenting a progress report on the implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251, by which the Assembly decided that the Council should assume, review, and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, in order to maintain a system of Special Procedures, expert advice, and a complaint procedure.

There had been three rounds of informal consultations, Mr. Husak said. It was felt that the Special Procedures, serving as independent experts or as their working groups, were an essential instrument for the protection and promotion of human rights, while monitoring the thematic issues on the global scale as well as the situations in particular countries. Further recommendations addressed the needs of improving the submission of information, providing for invitations and acceptance of requests to visit, fulfilling recommendations, and enabling follow-up. Delegations had pointed out the universality of human rights, and the necessity of striking a balance between civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the need for improved financing and enhanced support for the Special Procedures by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Some participants drew attention to eventual additional thematic priorities, while emphasizing the role of thematic procedures, and called for a greater synergy between these and the Council, including through standardization of their working methods. Draft elements had also been compiled in order to structure future discussions.

The endeavours, Mr. Husak stressed, were driven by the aim of improving the prevention of violations of human rights and the protection of their victims around the world. This was why the Working Group, in cooperation with the Inter-Sessional Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group to develop the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, had contemplated all possible ways and means to improve, streamline and enhance the effectiveness of the Special Procedures. All participants were ready to spare no effort to continue to work transparently and inclusively to achieve consensus in this essential exercise.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan), acting as facilitator on the future expert advice mechanism, said the review of expert advice was an evolving process. First, he had conducted inclusive consultations and had produced a preliminary paper that he had shared with his colleagues two weeks ago. He had then solicited reactions from States. He wished today to highlight some of the points included in the preliminary paper that in his opinion the Council had to focus on.

Four options for the new name of the body had been explored: Expert Body; Advisory System of Experts; Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and Human Rights Commission. As to its structure, the options being discussed included a single well-defined formal structure, a plural, less formal or informal structure, or a roster of experts. The issue of size was still being discussed, ranging from as small as 8, to maintaining the same size as the old Sub-Commission, with 26 members. They had contemplated both the option of elections being done exclusively by the Council or that some role in elections be given to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Secretary-General. As to the eligibility of Experts, the criteria should be defined, but it was agreed that those experts should be independent, highly qualified and specialized. Regarding its mandate, the discussions had treated all options, from a broad and general one, to a narrow and somewhat focused mandate, and similarly, they had contemplated a number of different relationships with the Council, including autonomous, semi-independent, or with Council oversight, and as independent of Government and non-governmental organization participation or including NGOs.

Turning to the relationship of the expert body with other human rights mechanisms, it could be almost completely separate, interdependent, or involved upon request. It was contemplated that it could handle the complaint mechanism to insure credibility. With regard to involvement in the Universal Periodic Review, that mechanism could be undertaken by the Council only, with the assistance of expert advice, or be accomplished by experts only. On the functions of the body, the discussed options included advice, without legislative role; studies to deal with thematic issues only; studies including country studies; norm-setting; prepare the scene for the Council and ensure coherence with the human rights regime; legislative function; or some or all of the above.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), acting as facilitator on the review of the complaint procedure, said that the 1503 Procedure had constituted a useful basis for the Working Group's deliberations. If a number of delegations had expressed the desire to reform and improve the 1503 Procedure, they had also recognized its merits. Among its positive aspects was its universality – it encompassed all States in its purview and covered the full panoply of human rights. The consultations had allowed the facilitator to identify the areas that needed to be focused on, as well as to envisage possible options with regard to the reform of the complaint procedure. For example, the series of criteria which had to be established in order for complaints to be received, according to the 1971 resolution of the Sub-Commission - only communications that revealed flagrant and systematic violations, and for which credible evidence could be established, could be considered. In contrast, the issue of exhausting domestic channels of appeal sparked diverging opinions among States. Whereas some considered that criteria irrelevant in cases of flagrant and systematic violations – which in themselves indicated a likely absence of the rule of law – others were in favour of the strict application of this criteria.

Another issue, the facilitator noted, had been whether confidentiality had to be maintained throughout the entire procedure, in order to ensure an effective cooperation on the part of the State or, in cases where the State failed to cooperate, the process should be made public? With regard to the different stages of the mechanism – the initial examination of complaints by a group of experts and subsequent review by groups of States – that issue did not appear to raise any objections. However, the amount of time that the procedure had taken in the past had been judged too long, and ways should be explored so that complaints of human rights violations could be assessed within a reasonable timeframe. A number of delegations had insisted on the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to the 1503 Procedure, and had expressed the fear that the complaint procedure should not duplicate the work of other mechanisms, such as the Special Procedures or the treaty bodies. He recalled that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had recently indicated that significant headway had been made in avoiding such duplication in the past few years.

Debate on Future of Special Procedures, Expert Advice and Complaint Mechanism

LASSO KEISALO, (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the consultative process leading up to the establishment of the Working Group had been very helpful for exchanging views and setting the process in motion. The review process should equip the Human Rights Council with the most effective set of tools for fulfilling its mandate to protect and promote human rights. Transparency, predictability and inclusiveness, as well as allowing for the participation of all stakeholders, should remain the guiding principles of the process. In the review of the Special Procedures, it was important to identify ways to further strengthen and improve them, in particular the capacity and effectiveness of the system to effectively protect victims of human rights violations. It was also important to ensure a direct and ongoing engagement between the Special Procedures and the Council, and greater interaction and complementarity between the former and the entire United Nations system.

An effective independent expert advice function should serve the purpose of broadening and deepening the Council’s debates on specific human rights issues, and providing the expertise and guidance that the Council believed would improve the quality of its decisions. The Council should consider drawing on expert advice in new ways, and various options should be explored in that regard. There was also a need, in the framework of the Council, for a complaint mechanism that addressed and responded in an efficient and timely manner to gross and systematic human rights violations in any part of the world. This new mechanism should assist the Council in the fulfilment of its mandate relating to the prevention of human rights violations.

MASOOD KHAN, (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said that the two Working Groups should move along at more or less the same speed. The duration and mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 had been established until the end of the occupation. All thematic Special Procedures should focus on the situation of human rights in Palestine and the other Occupied Arab Territories.

Mandate holders should be elected taking full account of all regions, impartiality, expertise, and cultures, as well as of the different legal systems. There should be norms of accountability and guidelines for media interaction and country visits contained in a manual of operations. All allocations of resources by the Office of the High Commissioner should be done in a transparent manner. The role of the expert advice body should be to act as a think tank, and be subsidiary to the Council. Its composition should reflect equitable geographical representation, and Council members should elect its members from their own nationals. The work of the expert body should be normative – including studies and reports – but not legislative. It should offer research and analysis at the request of the Council. Confidentially should remain a main feature. The capacity and needs of the country under review should also be borne in mind.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation supported the reform process undertaken by the Council with regard to the Special Procedures. The system of Special Procedures required reform, and the review should be guided by the rule of impartiality and cooperation with Member States. The Special Procedures should deal with all kinds of rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and sufficient extrabudgetary resources should be made available for their work. As a general rule, the procedures should not allow politicization and double standards by individual experts involved in them. The experts should be governed by and guided by a rule of conduct in their approach.

The creation of new procedures should focus on improving cooperation with States and improving the human rights situations. The selection of the Special Procedures should be compared to the previous ones, so that the old procedures would not be repeated. Regional protection mechanisms of human rights should also be taken into account. The Council should distance itself from the type of mechanisms that had negatively impacted on the Commission.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba’s position would be reflected in the statement to be made by China for the Like-Minded Group. It was all very well to make fine speeches and submit fine texts, but fundamentals were being avoided: there was a need for a case-by-case review of each Special Procedure, in order to rationalize and eliminate those procedures which were the result of politicization, selectivity and double standards. No one should expect the old rotten system of country procedures to prevail and remain as it was. Cuba was not prepared to transfer to the Council the old politicized practices that had brought down the Commission – such repulsive spectacles as those witnessed last week in the presentations of various country Rapporteurs should have no place in the new world that was being built.

Cuba, with a great display of flexibility and sense of balance, had agreed to the automatic extension for one year of these mandates, but its patience would not extend beyond these precise limits. Cuba aimed to end politicization, selectivity and double standards. The special country procedures had no place within this forum. With regard to the thematic procedures, there were no major difficulties, but the representative of China would address those later.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) underlined the importance of the review process and the possible rationalization of mandates. He saw the present debate on the implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 not as an exercise unto itself, but within the overall context of reform. The final assessment should identify gaps in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner could contribute to the work of the Council by providing a comparative chart of existing mandates to offer a more scientific approach to this exercise.

With reference to the independent advisory body that would replace the Sub-Commission, Argentina said that it should play a crucial role in the 1503 Procedure, as well as in preparing individual cases for the Universal Periodic Review. The future independent advisory body should be composed of qualified independent experts, which should be elected by the General Assembly, with candidates being submitted by States, the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner.

RODRIGO LABARDINI (Mexico) said Mexico attached great importance to the general guidelines under operative paragraph 6 General Assembly resolution 60/251, which required the reform of the Special Procedures. Mexico supported the work of the Special Procedures for their universal character and independence. The procedures should first focus on how to protect victims of human rights violations. The Council should establish Special Procedures that would examine communications on urgent appeals. The Council should also focus on the issue of follow-up, once the 1503 Procedure had been applied. The Sub-Commission had played an important role in examining human rights violations. Advisory services should be recognized in the advancement of the Special Procedures and their applications. The work entrusted to the working groups would consolidate the Special Procedures.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the pace of the Working Group on the review of mandates, as compared to the one dealing with the Universal Periodic Review, had been slow, and it should pick up speed. Both Groups should work in tandem to eliminate duplication and to rationalize the human rights machinery. The Asian Group felt that the mechanisms of the human rights system were of crucial importance in promoting and protecting human rights. The Special Procedures thus shouldered a heavy responsibility to ensure that at all times they fulfilled their mandates with the highest standards of independency, impartiality, objectivity, and lack of politicization, taking a non-adversarial approach.

The Special Procedures system should be comprehensively reviewed in such a way as to avoid politicization and to enhance the credibility of the Council. Closer attention should be paid to capacity-building, and the technical assistance needs of developing countries whose cases were being considered under the complaints procedures, upon their request and based on their needs assessment. An expert advice mechanism should advise the Council on the whole range of human rights issues. It should also provide input upon request to the Council in the form of studies, reports, and its work should focus only on thematic issues.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that the review and rationalization of mandates of the Special Procedures had two distinct aspects which needed to be taken up in parallel. The first aspect related to improving the functioning and working methods of the Special Procedures, inter alia, by reforming the procedure for appointment of mandate holders and developing a code of conduct and guidelines for their work. Simultaneously, the Working Group had to commence the process of rationalization of those mandates. As there had been a proliferation of Special Procedures in recent years, the Working Group should comprehensively review them, individually as well as collectively, based on their merit, with a view to either retaining them, merging them with another mandate or terminating them. In the process, India said that the Working Group should also identify gaps in protection and address them by creating new mandates.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the Special Procedures, the Sub-Commission and the complaint procedure were the three essential elements of the UN human rights system. Those mechanisms played a significant role in the promotion and protection of human rights, and all three should be retained as integral parts of the Human Rights Council. However, the mechanisms needed to be further strengthened and adapted to new realities. There was scope to improve those systems by fostering a greater sense of coordination among stakeholders, collegiality among mandate holders and harmonization of working methods. The Special Procedures were critical for monitoring observance of human rights standards and addressing violations. The mandate holders had a solemn responsibility to ensure the highest standards of professionalism, lack of which would raise many questions that needed to be addressed.

The system needed to be fine-tuned, looking at the appointment procedures, working methods and framework of their operations. The criteria for appointment of a mandate holder should be his or her professional qualities, expertise, integrity, independence and impartiality. The mandate should be nominated by States, and elected by the Human Rights Council. Due regard should be given to equitable geographical representation. The 1503 complaint procedure served as an important channel for individuals and groups to express their concerns of alleged human rights violations. The procedure should remain confidential. The objective of communications should be consistent with the relevant principles of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other applicable human rights instruments.

WIWIEK SETYAWATI (Indonesia) said the implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251, specifically the review of mandates, was a key issue in terms of the sense and significance of the Council’s objectives and mission. There was some concern that the Working Group on the review of mandates had been losing ground and was now lagging behind. A brisker pace was therefore called for at this stage to allow the two Working Groups to work in tandem.

The Council should further develop the draft manual of operations, and it should be submitted to the Working Group as one of the contributions for its consideration. The 1503 Procedure had proved its value and had served its purpose well, and it should therefore be further improved and strengthened, while maintaining the elements that worked. A successor expert mechanism to the Sub-Commission was essential to assist the Council in its task of developing and setting human rights standards and other thematic human rights studies, but care should be given, when establishing the respective mandates of the future advisory mechanism, to avoid any kind of duplication and overlapping in the work of the various human rights mandate holders.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said that it was necessary to speed up the pace of reform. The Council had to seize the opportunity for innovation and make effective use of new communications technology to facilitate the work of the human rights machinery. Synergy could also be promoted, and experts and Special Rapporteurs should be appointed based on their competence and independence. A stakeholders committee should set up the criteria for the appointment of expert advice. The overall goal should be to ensure an ongoing engagement of Special Procedures to promote human rights worldwide. Cooperation by States was key, and it was also important to overcome shortcoming and other factors that might interfere with the States’ commitment to open up to honest dialogue.

On expert advice, Canada saw merit in streamlining it with a roster of experts that could be used on an ad hoc basis. With reference to the 1503 Procedure, a renewed complaint system should be comprehensive and contain provisions of confidentiality, time limits and transparency, and also give a greater role to the Office of the High Commissioner.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking on behalf of the Group of Like-Minded States, said that the most serious flaw – which was based on selectivity and which had led to the greatest amount of politicisation – was the country mandates that had proliferated under agenda item 9 of the erstwhile Commission on Human Rights. There were a number of reasons that compelled the Like-Minded States to make the case for considering removing all country-specific mandates from the agenda of the Council. Their position also found resonance and support among other members of the Council. Most country mandates were set up by resolutions adopted after intense and bitter negotiations and divisive votes. Consensus was not the basis of such decisions. Countries concerned summarily rejected some country mandates. Country mandates had thus been the product of excessive politicization, double standards and selectivity. They did not conform to the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue that should be the basis of the work of the Council if one had to break away from the practices of the Commission.
Most States had expressed their desire to maintain the confidentiality of the 1503 Procedure. That confidential procedure, with some improvements, would help adequately dealt with gross and systematic violations of human rights and could make recommendations thereon. Country mandates, over the years, had proved to be dysfunctional, unnecessary and controversial. The Council should not repeat the mistakes of the Commission lest it would lose its credibility. The Like-Minded States supported and reiterated the decision of the Council that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinians Territories occupied since 1967 did not fall in the category of country mandates, as it dealt with the situation of a people under occupation – the worst form of human rights violation. That mandate was relevant and important, and was different from the country mandates set up under the Commission’s item 9.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said Special Procedures had played a key role in the protection and promotion of human rights in the United Nations human rights machinery, and they should be further strengthened in the Human Rights Council. The credibility and efficacy of Special Procedures lay in their independence, impartiality and expertise. These fundamental principles should be upheld in future deliberations on the various aspects of the Special Procedures mechanisms, such as the selection process, working methods, and a follow-up mechanism. The basic structure of Special Procedures, both thematic and country-specific mandates, should be maintained.

The work of the Special Procedures should be guided in such a way as to ensure more systemized operations, and more efficient and cooperative interaction between them and the States concerned. It was important that the review of working methods should proceed in close consultation with the Procedures themselves. The review of each mandate should proceed in an open-ended, transparent and inclusive manner. The Council should continue to benefit from an expert advice mechanism, and the new mechanism should provide expertise and guidance, as did its predecessor. It should also be devised to work in a more efficient, expertise-oriented manner. The individual complaints mechanism should be improved in order to better ensure the impartiality and objectivity throughout the process.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said that the 1503 Procedure played an important role in investigating human rights violations. Implicit in that procedure was the Council’s responsibility regarding the complaint mechanism. The 1503 Procedure had to be based on confidentiality and reliability of information so as to safeguard the credibility of the system. Ecuador expressed concern over the admissibility requirement that all domestic remedies had to be exhausted, in cases of frequent complaints of human rights violations, and asked for a careful and responsible handling of the 1503 Procedure. The complaint procedure would supplement the analysis that would be offered by the Universal Periodic Review.

NATHALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) said that Switzerland was of the view that the coordination among procedures should be improved in order to avoid duplication and particularly to fill in the gaps and to cover a large scope of human rights aspects, including civil, political, economic, social or cultural rights. The idea of creating a group of thematic procedures depending on the different of human rights protected seemed of interest. With regard to the county-specific Special Procedures, the future of such procedures should be reconsidered. The negotiations undertaken so far had shown that there was divergence on the issue of whether to avoid or to maintain them. Switzerland supported the transformation of the Sub-Commission into an advisory board of the Council, composed of independent and competent experts.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said with regard to the Special Procedures that it was important to ensure a proper balance between economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights within the mandates. The African Group was particularly attached to the Special Procedures, in particular those related to poverty, racism and racial discrimination, food, the right to development and education, international solidarity, the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967, intolerance, and a score of others. All Special Procedures should be rationalized, avoiding or eliminating overlapping and duplication between the different mandates whenever possible and necessary. In delivering their mandate, procedures should demonstrate professionalism, competence, objectivity, impartiality, good will and independence from all pressure at all times.

The African Group considered that the Sub-Commission had played an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights, both in normative and institutional terms. The expert body replacing the Sub-Commission should be a subsidiary body to the Human Rights Council, charged with reflection, analysis and expertise, and its studies, reports and recommendations should be submitted to the Council. The new body would have to play a promotional role in the progressive development of human rights principles; it should not deal with any country-specific situations.

JUNEVER MAHILUM WEST (Philippines) said that the review of all mandates and mechanisms should be conducted in an open, constructive and cooperative manner. With reference to Special Procedures, more trust had to be built between the system of Special Procedures and Governments. The work of Special Procedures should help concerned countries fulfil their human rights obligations. Country visits and reports of Special Procedures should aim to improve national human rights protection systems in a professional and helpful manner, giving States objective, practical and credible expert advice.

On expert advice, the future body should only undertake studies or initiatives that were directly requested from it by the Council. The expert advice should focus on thematic issues and its work should be of practical benefit to all United Nations Member States. Regarding the 1503 Procedure, the Philippines saw the merits of maintaining its confidentiality clause. Such a complaint procedure should address only allegations of gross and systemic human rights violations, and should encourage the cooperation of countries concerned through constructive dialogue.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said that the recent series of open-ended informal consultations on the review and rationalization of mandates, expert advise and complaint procedures had been useful, but further deliberations were still required on other important elements of the review. Given the time limit of one year for the working group to review mandates, it was necessary that the consultations be structured. The Council should as much as possible establish mandates through consensus decisions. Mandates should not be the result of polarization or controversial manoeuvring. There should be clear guidelines on the rationale and criteria for establishing new mandates, and the necessary resources should be allocated to all mandate holders in a transparent and balanced manner.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the future function of all the mechanisms under discussion should consider the results of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. Duplication with the Universal Periodic Review should be avoided, but the Review could also play a crucial role in putting emphasis on conclusions, recommendations and requests made by those procedures and their follow-up. The two Working Groups should work in tandem and with a high degree of interaction between them. Special Procedures had proliferated in the last years, and it was important to identify possible overlaps and gaps, and to promote adjustments. In that regard, a comparative framework of the mandates would be helpful to provide an overview of the whole process.

The review of the mandates of the Special Procedures should be seen as part of a whole process, not only to determine how each mandate connected directly or indirectly with each other, but also to see how the Special Procedure system itself should interface with other human rights mechanisms of the United Nations system. Synergy between the whole human rights system should be included in any proposal on human rights reform. The independence and expertise of the review process should reinforce this main idea. The 1503 Procedure was important as the main mechanism of complaint not subordinate to any Convention, but it needed improvement. Since Experts would be involved in the Universal Periodic Review, a close relationship between the future expert advice body and the Universal Periodic Review was envisaged.

ELIANA BERAUN ESCUDERO (Peru) said that Special Procedures played a central, practical role in the enjoyment of human rights, and constituted a fundamental element of the Council. Special Procedures had played a key positive role in the Americas during the 1980s in the promotion of democracy, in particular the Working Groups on forced disappearances and arbitrary detention. The review of the Special Procedures should work towards establishing procedures that were independent and autonomous, and free from State interference. In carrying out their work, Special Procedures had to be provided with adequate financial and technical assistance so that they were able to help victims of violations of human rights. In addition, it was important to strengthen the early warning system to improve the protection and defence of victims. Appointment of Special Procedures should take into account the freedom of conscience, independence of opinion as well as professional standing and expertise of candidates, which should be appointed with due regard to geographical representation and gender equality.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said Tunisia believed that the establishment of the Special Procedures would contribute to the effective functioning of the Council. It was important to promote impartiality, universality and non-selectivity in the application of all Special Procedures and mandates. An advisory expert body, whose members were elected on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, should be strengthened to assist the Council in its effective functioning. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 could only be terminated when occupation was ended.

CHAIYONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said in reviewing and rationalizing all the human rights Special Procedure mechanisms and mandates, a balance should be found, and equal importance should be attached to civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. All mandate holders should be directly elected by the Human Rights Council, based on nominations by States or regional groups, with equitable geographical distribution. Guidelines or codes of conduct on working methods and interaction with media, as well as specified and uniform terms of office, should be clearly elaborated.

An advisory body, consisting of independent experts, was an indispensable mechanism of the Human Rights Council. It should be a subsidiary body of the Council, and its composition should reflect the geographical representation of the regional groups in the Council. The 1503 Procedure, or complaint mechanism, should consider only a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations in individual countries. A clear set of criteria for admissibility of complaints and allegations should be laid down, and the confidential nature of the proceedings should be strictly upheld.

MAHMOUD KHANI (Iran) said with reference to the system of Special Procedures, one of the primary reasons for the credibility deficit in that regard was that States had no role in the selection of mandate holders. The election of mandate holders should be left to the Council. Its composition should reflect geographical representation, different legal systems, and various cultural and religious values. Further, equal weight must be given to civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The Council should set out the scope of the mandates carefully. The system should be subject to accountability. Iran also supported streamlining and merging overlapping and duplicate mandates.

With reference to the expert body, it was important to improve the existing election process and operations of the expert body. On the topic of a complaints mechanism, confidentiality and a set of criteria for admissibility of complaints were positive features of the existing 1503 Procedure.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said Norway welcomed all initiatives aimed at the strengthening and empowerment of the Special Procedures, their mandates, and their activities. A key feature and fundamental strength of the system of Special Procedures should be preserved in the review process: to be effective and credible, it was critical that the Special Procedures remained independent, impartial and autonomous. Those were the criteria that should guide the Council's deliberations on the nomination and appointment of procedures, as well as on their working methods and their relationship with Governments and the UN system. In that connection, the Special Procedures were best placed to look critically and constructively at their own working methods, and Norway would welcome their participation in the inter-sessional working group.

FAITH GAN (Singapore) said the proposed schedule of formal meetings of the Working Group on the review of mandates and mechanisms was welcomed. Both Working Groups should proceed in parallel with a view to an enhanced and coherent human rights system. The question was whether the Coordination Committee should be working in isolation from the Working Group on the review of mandates. That the deadline was set before the expected conclusion of the Working Group also begged the question of whether the Coordination Committee was pre-judging or pre-empting the mandated review.

Some delegations had argued that the need to preserve the independence of mandate holders precluded any possibility of States being involved in their selection. One of the reasons many States did not respond to mandate holders was because these were seen to lack credibility and legitimacy. If mandate holders were elected by States, then there would be no question of their legitimacy to do the job they were elected to do. There was emerging consensus that the burgeoning number of mandates needed to be streamlined to enhance the effectiveness of the Special Procedures.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said it was important to identify the basis upon which the Working Group on the review of mandates should operate, including a clear definition of the objectives, principles and central elements. It was important to set up a calendar of meetings that took into account the five existing working groups of the Council. Chile thought that it was premature to present draft decisions before this current session that could prejudge the results of ongoing discussions that needed time and tranquility to reach consensus.

MIRZA GNECCO (Colombia) said the mandate of the Council to examine, improve and rationalize all the mandates of the Special Procedures should be carried out in parallel with the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review procedure. It was important to maintain the coherence of the system and avoid duplications, which so affected the Commission. Colombia hoped that the outcome of their review would give rise to a more organized and coordinated system that would emphasize dialogue and cooperation as a way of strengthening national capacities to deal with human rights, and developing relationships of trust between the mandate holders and the States.

The interactive dialogue that took place last week was useful because it gave the opportunity for Council Members to see how each of the experts had interpreted and developed their own mandates. Colombia underscored that the credibility of these procedures and the efficiency of their mandates with reference to outcomes would be greater if experts focused on studying those issues being assigned to them by the Council and suggested plans of action. The necessary independence of the experts would not be in contradiction with the necessity of periodically evaluating their work, or the possibility of cancelling their mandates were the experts not fulfilling the requirements of impartiality, objectivity and transparency as specified in their mandates. Colombia also underlined the importance of the realization by States of their commitments undertaken through human rights conventions. At the same time, the mandates of experts should not go beyond the area of competence established by the respective convention or committee setting the parameters of their mandate.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) thanked all the delegations that had affirmed that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was until the end of the Israeli occupation, and also that he was not an Special Rapporteur on a country, but on an occupation, which was the worst form of human rights violation.

ANNE-MARIE GARRIDO, of International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions of Human Rights, encouraged the Council to give due attention to information submitted by national human rights institutions in their monitoring of States’ compliance with recommendations adopted by the Council in relation to particular situations; give national human rights institutions the right to present recommendations, suggestions and reports relating to the promotion and protection of human rights; and give national human rights institutions the right to comment on any reviews initiated by the Council of its procedures or effectiveness.

SANDEEP PRASAD, of Action Canada for Population and Development, said that since sexuality was central to human being, sexual rights should be among the first issues to be addressed by the new Special Procedures. Sexual rights encompassed, among other elements, the right of every person to sexual health, sex education, and bodily integrity, as well as the right to have control over and decide freely on all matters regarding sexuality, reproduction and gender. While some of those components of sexual rights had received attention from Special Procedures, other issues had not. Part of the reason for that was that many of those issues fell into protection gaps within the system of Special Procedures.

INNOCENT SAMA, of Amnesty International in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Association for the Prevention of Torture, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights and Lutheran World Federation, said the central contribution of the Special Procedures to the work of the Council had been illustrated in interactive dialogues, which should be built on further. The mission and follow-up reports of the Special Procedures identified concrete steps to be taken to strengthen human rights protection. Communications reports recorded the Special Procedures’ interventions on behalf of individuals in response to alleged violations, and these showed the need for a system to respond rapidly to credible reports that a violation was imminent, was occurring, or had taken place. For urgent appeals and communications to be effective, they should be answered.

RAYMOND G. MERAT, of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said, with reference to item 2 concerning the promotion of peace, it was important to note article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, as it provided a good or even better lesson than the General Assembly resolution 60/163 and the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/56. Article 9 stated that "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and threat of use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish [that] aim, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the State will not be recognized."

LITAL BENDRIHEM, of United Nations Watch, asked what the victims of the use of chemicals would say to the Commission’s decision to take a vote of no-action with regard to the actions taken by one Middle East country. That resolution had asked for the immediate halt of the use of the chemicals by the State. The leader was now being tried in his own country for using chemicals against his own people.

CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women in a joint statement with severals NGOs1, said that, since the creation of the United Nations and the adoption of the Universal Declaration and Bill of Human Rights, women had been struggling for the protection and promotion of their rights. The implementation of existing international legal instruments had been undermined due to various factors. It was essential that all Special Procedures mandates included a gender-equal perspective as a prescriptive concept, and to test for gender bias. They should include gender-specific awareness raising, sensitivity factors, impact assessment benchmarks, and evaluation measures with timelines.

1Joint statement: International Federation of University Women, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association, Women's International Zionist Organization, Women's World Summit Foundation, International Council of Women, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Zonta International, Worldwide Organization for Women, African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations, International Alliance of Women, International Federation of Business and Professional Women, World Movement of Mothers, International Women's Rights Action Watch, Solar Cookers International and Women's Federation for World Peace International.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06056E