HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES ITS METHODS OF WORK AND FUTURE AGENDA

The Human Rights Council this morning began its discussion of the methods of work and future agenda of the Council, hearing speeches from delegations, many of whom urged the Council to ensure that it would not repeat the mistakes of the defunct Commission, and to adopt an agenda and methods of work that avoided the pitfalls of politicisation, selectivity, and double standards. The work of the Human Rights Council should be organised around transparency and predictability, and it should become a shining example of inclusiveness, and promote and embrace the realization of human rights.

The agenda of the Council should provide the right framework for its work, delegations said. To be effective, it needed to be predictable and flexible, in order to ensure that the Council was able to respond effectively to developments on the ground and discuss issues of concern at an appropriate time. However, a delegation pointed out that it was perfectly acceptable to imagine a certain degree of flexibility for methods of work during the current transition period, but such flexibility should not become synonymous with a lack of organization or not providing for future developments.

Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights should be given prominence in the agenda, a speaker said. Other rights, such as the right to self-determination and the right to development in particular, should also be taken fully into consideration by the agenda. Delegations also suggested various ways of approaching the Universal Periodic Review. Certain items would have to be considered at each session, and reports, such as those of the High Commissioner, should also be heard at each session. A number of delegations said the range of human rights issues should be distributed over the year in a balanced manner to ensure effective participation and guaranteed attention.

However, a number of other delegations said the permanent nature of the Council would allow the debate of an issue to continue throughout the year. The yearly meeting of the Commission on Human Rights had been an obstacle for the discussion of certain themes, and in this regard, delegations suggested a range of options, including three sessions and a main session of a duration of no less than three weeks long, or a minimum of four sessions a year. The Council should also convene special sessions as required, delegations noted.

Speaking this morning were the delegations of Finland for the European Union, Canada, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Russian Federation, India, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Cuba for the Non-Aligned Movement, Bangladesh, Malaysia, China, Japan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Switzerland, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria for the African Group, Saudi Arabia for the Asian Group, Iran, Norway, Colombia, Chile, United States, Syria, and Palestine.

Also speaking were Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER); International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch; International Indian Treaty Council; and International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations.


The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will continue its deliberations on this topic.


Statements on Methods of Work and the Agenda of the Council

LASSE KEISALO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the agenda of the Council should provide the right framework for its work. To be effective, it needed to be predictable and flexible, in order to ensure that the Council was able to respond effectively to developments on the ground and discuss issues of concern at an appropriate time. It also needed to provide all stakeholders with an overview of the Council’s activities over the year. An agreed basic agenda would avoid the need for constant renegotiations. The three essential sessions of the Council should be March-April, June-July, and September. A one-week session in June 2007 was inadequate.

The goal of new working methods should be to make the Council more result-oriented and geared towards implementation and follow-up, rather than negotiating without apparent implications on the ground. The Council continued to work on the basis of resolutions, decisions, President’s statements and debates, but it should also make best use of other forms of working methods such as panel debates and seminars. The outcome of the debates should be as concise and operational as possible. Resolutions, decisions and Chair’s statements should not by default be repeated on a yearly basis. Focus should be given to the operational part of texts which for example created mandates, asked for reports, and recommended action by States or the United Nations.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) believed that the regular agenda of the Human Rights Council should be predictable and focused on implementation. It should also foster dialogue and cooperation. In Canada’s view, each session should have essentially the same agenda, although the main session should provide for a high-level segment and one session would need to be responsible for finalizing the annual report. Canada envisaged, therefore, an agenda constituted from the following components: update or report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; reporting and a structured dialogue with the Special Procedures; procedural decisions, including mandate extensions; consideration of the reports of the Universal Periodic Review; consideration of the reports from working groups and other consultative mechanisms; consideration of reports from the expert advice body and complaints procedure; consideration of HCHR and OHCHR reports; and implementation challenges such as roundtables involving States, the OHCHR, and other stakeholders such as national implementation mechanisms, United Nations agencies and NGOs, seeking to identify practical steps and cooperative measures for enhancing the implementation of human rights, and follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the Council should adopt a structured agenda so that it could function properly. The OIC looked forward to a comprehensive discussion on the agenda. When establishing the agenda, the issue of transparency should be given a priority to allow effective participation of the delegates. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights should be given prominence in the agenda. Other rights, such as the right to self-determination, should also be taken fully into consideration by the agenda. The agenda also should contain sections in which the subject of occupied territories would be discussed. The OIC was opposed to the inclusion in the agenda issues that would invoke country specific debates.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said the General Assembly resolution 60/251 left out of its approach certain points, including the methods of work for the Council, its agenda, rules of procedure and other issues that were all equally important. Today, as this body was being institutionally set up, this lack was felt even more strongly. It was perfectly acceptable to imagine a certain degree of flexibility for methods of work during the current transition period, but such flexibility should not become synonymous with a lack of organization or not providing for future developments. The view according to which the Council should have an empty sheet before it on its methods of work and rules of procedure was not agreed with, and the Russian Federation could not accept this tabula rasa approach.

The legal status of the Council was clearly defined in the General Assembly resolution, as an auxiliary body of the General Assembly, and it was as this auxiliary body that it should establish its working methods. Yet another important aspect was that due to its characteristics, the Council was of a delicate nature, whilst crucial, as its task was to protect and promote human rights. The Council should seize this opportunity of doing away with all the negative elements related to the methods of work that had become a characteristic of the Commission: politicisation, selectivity, double standards, etc. A lot would depend on the actions of States, non-governmental organizations, and all should make every effort to try to redress the approach when it came to reviewing the approach on providing protection and promotion of human rights. At the last session, a lot had been said on what the work of the Council should be, and there was a need for a clear agenda for appropriate planning, which should be defined over an extended period of time.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said the Human Rights Council should have a structured agenda for each of its sessions beginning the session in March 2007. However, given their preoccupation with the institution-building process in the first year, India would be open to operationalizing the new agenda from the session in June 2007. There would be certain items that would have to be considered at each session. In addition, the range of human rights issues should be distributed over the year in a balanced manner to ensure effective participation. On rules of procedure, India agreed with the Secretariat on the need to consolidate the currently applicable rules and procedures and the new ones in one single document, the absence of which caused avoidable confusion.

On informal consultations, India said that this area required their urgent attention. During previous sessions, a combination of open-ended informal consultations with consultations in smaller groups had been used. The basis on which these smaller groups were constituted remained unclear to India. On the other hand, India had rarely had the meetings of the elected Members of the Human Rights Council. India recalled the understanding that was reached before the first session of the Council. Member States had agreed by consensus that the Expanded Bureau would be replaced by the current bureau that would deal with only organizational issues and the Human Rights Council itself would address the substantive interaction issues. India stressed that any informal consultations in smaller groups by the President of the Council must be with full participation of all members of the Council. In addition to being consistent with the principles of inclusiveness, this would also ensure that the understandings reached at such informal consultations would not be reopened at the formal meetings.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the Council should have a clear agenda like any other body of the United Nations. The agenda of the Council should respect the balance between civil and political rights on one side and economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development on the other side. The agenda should be flexible to include new and urgent issues to be discussed at any time during its sessions. With regard to the methods of work, Argentina believed that predictability and transparency should be among the characteristics of the agenda. The almost permanent nature of the Council would give the opportunity to allow the debate of an issue to continue throughout the year. The yearly meeting of the Commission on Human Rights had been an obstacle in the discussion of certain themes. The Council should, however, respect the traditional practices of the Commission, which were the adoption of resolutions by respecting its mandate.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said Brazil welcomed the creation of the Working Group on the review, and had stressed the need to discuss the agenda and working methods of the Council in a separate Working Group. The sensitivity of these two issues deserved extra attention. On the proposals made for the future agenda, the setting of criteria of predictability and transparency were welcomed, but they should not conflict with an adequate degree of flexibility that delegations should have to present their initiatives. The exercise of allocating time for the consideration of initiatives was valid, but the Council, that would be meeting at least 10 weeks a year should promote the consideration of a wider range of issues. Therefore, the restriction of the presentation of issues before the March session was not supported, as this could impact on important new issues.

On the allocation of time, the Bureau should not have exclusive decision over this, and a consultation should take place. On the programme of work, the Council should have a structured agenda and programme of work at each session.

MOHAMMAD ANSHAR (Indonesia) said Member States were involved in this early stage in the construction of the Human Rights Council, including the establishment of its methods of work and the review of the mandates. Indonesia supported the widely accepted notion that it was imperative for the Council to have clear methods of work and a structured agenda. In addition, it was important to hold this discussion at this particular early stage in the development of the Human Rights Council. Indonesia recognized the need for the Council to develop a more focused agenda dealing with substantive interactive issues. It was necessary to consolidate the work of the Human Rights Council around transparency and predictability. The scope of discussions should also be cohesive and result in a functioning body. The Council should become a shining example of inclusiveness, and promote and embrace the realization of human rights. The principles of transparency and inclusiveness should be basic tenets of the Human Rights Council, including the participation of non-members of the Human Rights Council, such as national institutions, observers, and non-governmental organizations. Indonesia stressed the importance of objectivity and non-selectivity, and flexibility in the construction of the agenda.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Non-Aligned Movement was engaged in contributing to the constructive development of the Council’s agenda. The agenda should reflect an equitable repartition of the items among the three sessions of the Council. The right to development and the theme of poverty eradication should be reflected in the substantive agenda. The Millennium Development Goals should also have a place in the agenda. The Non-Aligned Movement would like to see the adoption of a structured agenda by the Council. The principles guiding the Council should be predictability, transparency and inclusivity. The agenda should allow the full participation of members in a transparent manner. The accountability of all stakeholders, including mandate-holders, should be stressed in the agenda. Interdependency and indivisibility of all human rights should be reflected in the agenda items. The issue of double standards, which had been among the Commission’s defaults, should be tackled. The spirit of cooperation and dialogue should reign in the Council. The Non-Aligned Movement would meet tomorrow to discuss a draft agenda that it would submit to the Council.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the agenda and methods of work were essential for the smooth conduct of meetings, and many of the problems at the last session were due to the lack of these. There were three working non-papers before the Council, and all of them were appreciated, as they would help the deliberations on these crucial issues. On the future agenda, a structured agenda would create productivity, but there should also be flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and pressing issues. The agenda should be balanced, and the issue of the right to development should hold its place therein. A high-level segment would be a good thing to have. Some items, such as reports or updates of the High Commissioner could be included in the programme for every session, but other items should be spread over the year to avoid duplication and ensure preservation of resources.

On the Universal Periodic Review, this was still being shaped, and depending on the outcome, should be given an appropriate place in the agenda. It should be considered only once in the year, and not in every session. On open-ended Working Group should be the place for further discussions on these issues and others.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia), with reference to the frequency and duration of the regular sessions, suggested holding three sessions and a main session of a duration of no less than three weeks long. The Human Rights Council should also convene special sessions as required. Malaysia agreed to hold inter-sessional meetings at these early stages of the building of the Human Rights Council. Malaysia stressed the importance of conducting these meetings in a transparent and inclusive manner. On the agenda, it should be comprehensive and balanced, and all human rights should be treated on an equal footing. The agenda should also cover the Universal Periodic Review. The agenda should be set up at the beginning of the year. In addition, Malaysia supported the proposal by the African Union on establishing an open-ended group on the agenda.

LA YIFAN (China) supported the proposal of the African Group to set up a working group to discuss a structured agenda. China also endorsed the non-paper suggestion presented by the Asian Group. The agenda of the Council should be a standard agenda that would reflect the debates of the three sessions. The agenda should also be predictable, inclusive and transparent. The participation of non-governmental organizations, particularly those unable to be present in Geneva, should be given a thought in the agenda. It was also highly necessary to be flexible to allow new changes. Based on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Declaration on the Right to Development, the agenda should reflect other categories of rights. Those rights should be put in the well-balanced agenda. The lack of balance in allocating time had been an issue that had been discussed in the past and this should not be the case in the present agenda.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) said these were important matters, and an intensive discussion was required on them, with the contribution of the results of the Working Groups on mandates and on the Universal Periodic Review. There was a need for a structured agenda, ensuring predictability, clarity and balance. However, it should not be cluttered. There should be four regular sessions every year, avoiding the gap between spring and autumn sessions. The option of discussing a specific agenda in each session should be examined. The human rights situation on the ground should be taken in every session.

The reports and interactive dialogues with mandate holders were the basic component of the work over the year, and the question of whether to spread them over the year or to have them in one session should be examined closely. Action should be taken on draft resolutions in accordance with subjects, without sacrificing the inclusiveness of the agenda.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the methods of work and agenda were essential elements to the effective functioning of the Human Rights Council. The Philippines underlined the importance of developing a transparent and predictable Human Rights Council. With reference to the large number of draft resolutions that had to be deferred during the second session, the Philippines said that there should a deadline for the consideration of draft decisions and resolutions. A mechanism to inform delegations on the status of draft decisions and resolutions under discussion should also be established. The informal consultations held earlier this month by the President of the Council could be used as an example to follow.

The Philippines supported the idea that the Council should have a structured agenda. Flexibility should be taken into account but it should not adversely impact on predictability. It was also important to avoid duplication of the work of the Council with other United Nations bodies, such as the Third Committee. The Philippines supported the creation of a third Working Group to look into methods of work.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the agenda of the Council should reflect the role of the Council in the promotion and protection of human rights. It should be structured in a manner that would reflect the effective participation of all stakeholders. The agenda should also reflect predictability and efficiency on the discussions of all substantive items. The agenda items should be divided into different sections reflecting the mandate of the Council. The Council should pay attention to the special mechanisms so that they were discussed throughout the year. With regard to the working methods, the effectiveness of transparency should be enhanced in order to ensure that substantive consultations were carried out among the members and other stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said this year the Council would be achieving its very important task of setting up its institutional capacity, as established under the General Assembly resolution. The Council had received the substantive support of the Human Rights Commission, which covered all the machinery set up, as well as all the agreements that were ongoing, and an important inheritance of the Council. It had been inevitable that in this year of transition, many delegations felt the need to come forward with their own traditional initiatives. A solution needed to be found on the best way to proceed with regards to the thematic developments of the future. It would be important to base the work on the understanding that all topics would have to be maintained, even if somewhat adjusted, so that they could be dealt with under the General Assembly resolution.

The number of sessions, topics and the format would have to be determined. The resolution establishing the Council granted it specific functions with regards to human rights, and these should be included in the basic agenda for the next year. The Council should maintain the broadness of the thematic agenda of the Commission, being able to cover each and every item and topic through its annual work programme. There were various possibilities in this regard. A first step in understanding was that every topic would have to be dealt with over the year, and the agenda could thus be examined from various points of view. Whatever approach was adopted, there was a possibility of having a good relationship between the agenda and the programme of work.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) thanked the European Union for their future agenda for the Human Rights Council. The non-paper of the European Union provided a good balance between transparency and predictability. It was important to have a structured, basic agenda that covered the mandates of the Human Rights Council. With reference to the point made by the European Union on urgent situations, Switzerland wished to add “or other issues” to the item. Furthermore, Switzerland suggested that the Human Rights Council should inform its Members seven days in advance prior to the holding of a special session to deal with an urgent matter. It supported Canada’s proposal on holding roundtables or seminars addressing particular issues with the participation of experts. Switzerland would be one of the co-sponsors of the non-paper on proposed ground rules on the holding of special sessions.

ABDUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said that the working methods of the Council should be based on inspirations of the commissions of the General Assembly. The interactive dialogue with the Special Procedures, which was adopted as a working method by the Council, should be renewed regularly. The Council should retain a space to discuss certain themes on an annual basis so that it would improve the quality of its debates. It was necessary that the methods of work should be elaborated in a transparent and inclusive manner with the view to establishing a positive dialogue, confidence and mutual understanding.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) believed that the issues under discussion were particularly relevant to develop a balanced and inclusive agenda, and meet the basic objective of the Council to protect and promote the enjoyment of human rights for all worldwide.
During this year of transition it was important to lay down the foundation of this body. The Council was trusted with ensuring universality and equal treatment of all human rights. Special attention should be given to the right to development. The Human Rights Council had to develop a predictable agenda, and a timely treatment of the matters. The agenda had to be set up so as to avoid confrontation and polarization. Each item of the agenda should have a broad consensus. Some of these items had to deal with the situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory, the rights of women, children, disabled, and migrants.

On the methods of work, there should be three sessions of 10 weeks per year, with a distribution making it possible for the Human Rights Council to meet throughout the year. The interactive debate should take place more than once during each session. Reports by the Secretariat and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should follow the same timetable. Morocco attached great importance to the participation by non-Member States, including national human rights institutions, and non-governmental organizations.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said there had been a foretaste this morning of the complex and sometimes arid nature of the issues that had been put forward on the agenda and methods of work. A lot of controversial issues as well as straightforward ones had been raised, and it would be more appropriate for the exercise to continue in a Working Group that would benefit from the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would provide back up. There had been some reference to the outcome of the work of the other Working Groups on Special Procedures, the complaint procedure and the Universal Periodic Review.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Asian Group was engaged in the institutional building of the Council. The Group had suggested how the agenda should be set up in the non-paper. It had also suggested the limitation of the open-ended Working Group contrary to the practice of the Commission on Human Rights. The Asian Group further emphasized that the predictability of the agenda should reflect the discussion of all issues pertaining to human rights. The agenda should also stress the themes that were of concern to the international community. The Asian Group would examine the non-paper to include other issues to be included in the agenda.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said in order to have a clear and predictable picture of the future work of the Council, it was indispensable to have a structured and standard agenda which reflected the priorities identified by the Member States of the United Nations concerning themes and concepts. This session of the Council should concentrate on laying the ground for adoption of a structured and standard agenda for the sessions over the next year. The items on the agenda should be allocated to each of the four annual sessions in an equitable and balanced manner, and also allow for effective participation of the developing countries.

Predictability, transparency, accountability, objectivity and non-selectivity, as well as respect for cultural and religious specificities, should be guiding principles for the drawing up of the agenda of the Council and the methods of work. It should respect an adequate balance of treatment of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development in particular. Agenda item 9 of the Commission should be eliminated, as it was the main cause of politicisation, double standards and selectivity.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said that a distinction should be made between the agenda and the programme of work. While a sufficient level of flexibility should be retained through the agenda, the programme of work should provide predictability to ensure that the discussions taking place in the Human Rights Council were well prepared, and that relevant stakeholders could participate. The Human Rights Council should hold at least three sessions every year, of which one should be the main session. Thus, it would be necessary to combine as they had for the first year of the Human Rights Council both an agenda that might be simple and generic and a programme of work for each of the sessions.

Norway indicated that the future sessions of the Human Rights Council should include three core elements: an update by the High Commissioner followed by an interactive dialogue; a consideration at each session of a number of reports of the Special Procedures to be organized in an orderly manner; and the possibility to take up at every session what was now called “other issues” regarding the promotion and protection of human rights.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said the agenda should be characterized by predictability and transparency. The agenda should be sufficiently creative to seek new projects and issues in order to enrich the quality of the debate. Such tendency would avoid routine lapses and constant repeating, which were the characteristics of the Commission on Human Rights. The organizations of seminars and conference should also be stressed.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said it was essential for the Council to begin promptly a structured discussion on methods of work and the agenda. The discussion should be conducted in the more informal context accorded by Working Groups, and therefore the formation of one was supported. The methods of work and the agenda should be functional and in keeping with the goals set with the establishment of the Council, which was strengthening further the human rights system. They should focus on providing greater predictability for the work of the Council so as to facilitate participation for all stakeholders in all sessions.

Stakeholders should have the responsibility of putting forward to the Council those matters that were their concern and care, and should have an opportunity to do so. The proposal of reducing the number of negotiations on resolutions during sessions would allow smaller delegations to participate in a greater number of negotiations, and deserved further attention. The proposal of the Asian Group had very interesting ideas, but the Council should not seek to re-invent the wheel, but rather to improve on it.

JAN LEVIN (United States) said that in order to enhance the work of the Human Rights Council, it was necessary for Council member, observers, and non-governmental organizations to have clarity and transparency to be able to prepare properly for Council sessions. Basic working methods must be outlined in advance and adhered to throughout the session. The United States would continue to look favourably upon proposals for new methods of work that would enable this Council to set aside the politicization and selectivity that had marked its work to date.

While United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled "Human Rights Council" provided that the Human Rights Council would work under the applicable rules of procedure of the General Assembly, Member States would soon need to develop complementary working methods that would allow the Human Rights Council to function as effectively as possible. This must include the participation of non-governmental organizations, national institution and observer States. Some of the suggested common elements that each substantive session should have included: statements and resolutions on issues of importance to delegations; an update or report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights; reporting and a structured dialogue with the Special Procedures; and procedural decisions, including mandate extensions.

RANDA RIZK (Syria) said the agenda should reflect the balance between civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. It should also reflect transparency and predictability. The issue of occupation, particularly the Golan Heights and Palestine, should continue to be reflected in the agenda.

NADINE HASSASSIAN (Palestine) said the statement made by Pakistan was supported. The occupation of Palestine and other territories constituted the gravest form of human rights violations, which should be considered by the Council. There should be a distinct agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER , said because the Council would be meeting several times a year, it needed three documents, rather than a single agenda. First, the overall agenda, which would enable the work, rather than dictating it, by being simple, generic, and functional, broad enough to cover any human rights issue, without being changed. Secondly, the Council needed an annual programme of work, which, once decided on, would not change without a positive decision to do so. This would set out the predictable activities of the Council over the year. Thirdly, a programme of work for each session would set out more specifically what reports and issues would be taken up at each session.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, supported the view that the agenda and programme of work should balance transparency and predictability. Predictability was particularly important for non-governmental organizations based outside of Geneva. The agenda should be simple, short and broad. It encouraged the Council to build its work upon cooperation and consensus building. The Human Rights Council should not remain mute in the face of dire human rights situations.

SEBASTIEN GILLIOZ, of Human Rights Watch, said the agenda should include themes to invoke country specific issues to discuss gross and systematic human rights violations. The condemnation of a country for its human rights violations was not enough by itself but dialogue would be a positive approach. The Council should also be able to take follow-measures following the outcome of its actions. When the situation of a country evolved into a positive improvement, the Council would be able to take further action to monitor the situation.

ANDREA CARMEN, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the global indigenous caucus had addressed the methods of work of the Human Rights Council, pertaining in particular to its consideration of indigenous peoples human rights. Indigenous peoples around the world were urgently and in many cases desperately waiting to see how their situations would be addressed and responded to by the Council. Indigenous peoples had high hopes for the central and respected work of the Council in the United Nations system, and were concerned for strengthening its capacity to respond effectively to pervasive human rights violations for indigenous peoples and all peoples.

JAN LONN, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, called upon Member States to ensure participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as was the case during the work of the Commission on Human Rights. On upcoming sessions, the Council should undertake the question of the Universal Periodic Review. On rules of procedures on NGOs participation, they should be transferred from the comprehensive rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council. At every stage, the Council should give equal treatment to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HR06074E