HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONSIDERS EXPERT ADVICE BODY TO REPLACE FORMER SUB-COMMISSION

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the progress report on the expert advice body, hearing a presentation by the Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body. During the discussion, delegations raised such issues as the composition of the body and how experts should be nominated, the tasks of the new body, and what its features should be.

Mousa Burayzat, Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body, said nobody had spoken against election for the membership of the body – the text of the report indicated that there was no consensus on this matter, and here consensus should be interpreted in a broader way, as to not mean unanimity. It was important for the Council to address the issue of the selection process, which was the most important issue, and one where delegations views were not without merit. Every suggestion was valid, but at the end of the day a compromise had to be reached, including on the size and function of the future body. The views of delegations would be taken into account in writing the working non-paper.

With regard to structure, delegations held diverging opinions as to whether the advisory body should have a permanent structure or should be more of an ad hoc group. A majority appeared to agree that a permanent structure, which met collectively at least once a year, would maintain the necessary visibility in the United Nations system, and would facilitate direct interaction with non-governmental organizations, mandate holders, and treaty bodies. Others, however, did not wish to institutionalize an expert body, favouring instead the establishment of either a roster or other ad hoc body that could be convened at the request of the Council in order to respond to specific tasks.

While the size issue was somehow linked to the functions and role of the future expert advice body, many delegations thought that whatever the final agreed number was, the membership should take account of equitable geographic distribution, broad legal and cultural diversity and gender balance. The future expert advisory body should have a clearly defined structure, and existing geographical imbalances should be corrected. On election and selection of experts, various opinions were expressed, including that the Human Rights Council should elect the members of the expert advice body from experts nominated by States, and that the High Commissioner should have either an advisory role in this regard, or could also nominate experts for election.

It was generally agreed that the new body should have a clear mandate, which was adaptable, and would include economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. The mandate should be broad and general, with attention paid to studies and research, as well as providing expert advice to the Council. Some delegations said the main function should be that of advice, which should revolve around protection and promotion of human rights. However, others stated that it should not be involved in protection issues. The areas of advice should focus on all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development. Many delegations also said the group should deal with thematic issues, rather than specific situations. Delegations were widely divided on the issue of whether there should be a link between the expert body and the Universal Periodic Review, and some held that for that reason it should not be contemplated, at least for the moment.

Speaking this morning were the delegations of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Russian Federation, Pakistan (speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Malaysia, Indonesia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, China, Republic of Korea, India, Tunisia, Morocco, Japan, Canada, Peru, Cuba, Ecuador, Philippines, Thailand, United States of America, Iran, Sudan, Norway, Colombia, Nepal, and Venezuela.

Also speaking were : International Commission of Jurists; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples (in a joint statement with Europe-Third World Centre; Movement Against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom); United Nations Watch; Pax Romana; International Federation of University Women, in a joint statement with International Council of Women; and Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action.

The next formal meeting of the Council will be on Friday, 8 December at 10 a.m., when it will begin to take action on draft resolutions tabled at the current session, as well as one text carried over from its previous session.


Presentation by Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body

Mousa Burayzat, Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body, said he would not make a detailed statement, as all had been said by the facilitators on the complaints mechanism and on the review of mandates. Nobody had spoken against election for the membership of the body – the text of the report (A/HRC/3/6) indicated that there was no consensus on this matter, and here consensus should be interpreted in a broader way, as to not mean unanimity.

Mr. Burayzat stood by everything he said in the paper. It was important for the Council to address the issue of the selection process, which was the most important issue, and one where delegations' views were not without merit. Every suggestion was valid, but at the end of the day a compromise had to be reached, including on size and function of the expert body. The views of delegations would be taken into account in writing the working non-paper.


Statements on Presentation by the Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body

LASSE KEISALO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that they could not accept that there was consensus in on a number of issues in section 1 of the preliminary conclusions paper. In particular, the name of the entity, the question of appointment, and the formation of working groups were all issues on which there had not yet been any agreement. It was also the European Union’s understanding that a majority favoured experts holding consultations with civil society, including non-governmental organizations. A substantial number of delegations also supported the appointment of experts by the High Commissioner.

The European Union subscribed to the view that the primary areas where more in-depth and detailed discussions were needed were those regarding the character, status and structure of the expert advice body; its functions and mandate; and the selection and nomination process of the expert advice system, as outlined in the facilitator’s preliminary conclusions. They also recognized that, among those delegations that favoured the establishment of a body to serve the expert advice needs of the Human Rights Council, there were emerging consensus views on issues relating in particular to the term of membership and the composition of a possible expert advice body. Nevertheless, the European Union wished to stress once again that before making any decisions or further conclusions, it was important to have a through discussion on the various options for the expert advice made available to the Council.

YURI BOYCHENKO (Russian Federation) said that, in forming the new expert body, there should be a systematic approach, bearing all different bodies in mind. The recommendations of the Sub-Commission itself should not be ignored. The name of the new expert body was not an issue of importance. The successor to the Sub-Commission should be a body assisting the Council, and the way of forming it should be retained – as this was the most democratic way – through a secret vote in the Council itself. That would create a mechanism with broad expertise in different spheres. There should be no changes in the number of members of the body, nor should its representivity change.

The format of the treaty bodies, in which the Experts were elected for subsequent periods, should be borne in mind. Experts should not accumulate mandates, including on the special procedures. The members of the new body could carry out individual studies, hold debates, and consider issues, exclusively in the framework of formal sessions. The right of initiative of the body should be maintained, and its agenda not set by the Human Rights Council. It should be a preliminary body to examine complaints, as was the Sub-Commission. It should be a platform for dialogue, open to civil society and non-governmental organizations, as well as all representative bodies.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the Islamic Conference had repeatedly called for the retention of an advisory body or a think-tank of the Human Rights Council comprising independent experts. Regarding structure, it supported a single, well-defined formal structure on the pattern of the Sub-Commission. The Sub-Commission could not be replaced by an ad hoc arrangement of a roster or pool of experts to be maintained by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for conducting studies.

On size, their preference was to retain the same number of experts as the Sub-Commission. Equitable geographical representation in accordance with the formula agreed for membership of the Human Rights Council should be strictly adhered to in the composition of the future expert advice body. All terms should be for three-year periods. The Conference had also considered the proposal of limiting membership to two terms on the pattern suggested for the special procedures. The Human Rights Council should elect the members of the expert advice body from experts nominated by the States. They did not see the merit of the High Commissioner or the Secretary-General appointing experts to the new body.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the advisory body should have a permanent structure that would enable it to meet collectively at least once a year. That way, it would maintain the necessary visibility in the United Nations system, and would facilitate direct interaction with non-governmental organizations, which had been an essential element in the work of the Sub-Commission and which should be maintained. The new body should have a clear mandate, which was adaptable, and would include economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. The mandate that the Sub-Commission had had should be used as a basis for the new agenda. Among the main functions that the expert body should have would be the preparation of specific questions and issues on the Universal Periodic Review.

The expert body could play an important role in the individual complaints procedure, in particular on the confidentiality issue. It should be more efficient than the Sub-Commission had been, with equitable geographical distribution, and representing different legal systems and cultural diversity. It should be composed of between 10 and 18 experts. The issue of selection was a crucial one if the work of the advisory body was to improve. States and the High Commissioner should be able to nominate experts; it should not be left to States alone.

MARAT KANGARLINSKI (Azerbaijan) said that Azerbaijan believed there was a need for a representative independent expert advice body composed of highly qualified human rights experts who, on the one hand, would serve in their individual capacity and, on the other, would be able to think collectively, free from specialized mandate constraints and political considerations. There was general agreement that the Sub-Commission had done a lot of good work, so they should try to fix those parts of it that were not broken, retain the positive elements of the Sub-Commission, and further improve areas that called for rationalization.

On the issue of structure of the expert advice mechanism, Azerbaijan favoured a formal, single and well-defined structure, as was the case with the former Sub-Commission. While the size issue was somehow linked to the functions and role of the future expert advice body, Azerbaijan thought that whatever the final agreed number was, the membership elected by the Human Rights Council should take care of equitable geographic distribution, broad legal and cultural diversity and gender balance.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the Sub-Commission had worked as a think-tank for the Commission, and had made significant contributions in the understanding of complex and varied human rights issues, with studies on a variety of topics, and should be retained as an advisory body of the Human Rights Council. Substantial progress had been made, but gaps remained between States on the status, selection process, and other issues. The format, size, composition and methods of selection should remain as they were. The Sub-Commission had done good work. Minor adjustments could be made in adapting it to the new Council.

The future expert advisory body should have a clearly defined structure. Existing geographical imbalances should be corrected. There should be two terms of three years and experts should be elected by the Human Rights Council from persons with the highest level of experience and integrity in human rights. The mandate of the advisory body should be broad and general, with attention paid to studies and research, as well as providing expert advice to the Council. The body should conduct studies on thematic issues only. There was no role for the body in the Universal Periodic Review – the Council was widely divided on that issue, and it was therefore premature and uncalled for.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil understood that some issues listed as consensual, although they reflected the position of most delegations, were not really so, and thus they deserved further consultation. Among issues that deserved further consultations, Brazil said that a majority of delegations were in favour of a single, well-defined structure with a standing nature, as was the case with the former Sub-Commission. With reference to functions, in addition to its essential functions of providing expert advice and studies on thematic issues only, the expert advice body should have a “duty to initiate,” expressly stipulated to raise relevant issues for the consideration of the Human Rights Council.

Brazil was quite flexible on the issue of the size of the expert advice body. However, they would prefer a body with at least 12 members, which seemed a reasonable size to provide the new body with efficiency and also satisfy demands for study, research and advice.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had made an immense contribution that the Council should recognize. On the establishment of the expert advice body, the subjects of high quality and independence of experts should be given priority. Equitable geographical distribution and gender representation should also be taken fully into consideration. As to the function of the expert advice body, it should carry out the tasks entrusted to it by the Human Rights Council. With regard to the size of the body, it had been suggested in the preliminary conclusions that it should be medium-sized, with members varying from 12 to 16 experts. The Council could have the possibility to establish ad hoc bodies as required. As to the duration of the terms, it would a three-year term with regional rotation was preferable. The expert advice body could carry out studies and establish norms as required.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said, as regarded the expert advice body's status, a simple, well-determined structure was favoured. Complications could arise if there was a permanent body, as the majority of experts would live outside Geneva. The body's main function should be that of advice, which should revolve around protection and promotion of human rights. In the sphere of protection, the advisory body would have to suggest remedies and identify problems. The areas of advice should focus on all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.

On the selection process, as it was a subsidiary body of the Council, members should be selected by the Council, although the High Commissioner could play a role in a preliminary screening process.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, favoured a single, well-defined structure for an expert advice body that should function as a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council. The expert advice body would work as a think-tank with the primary responsibility of providing advice to the Council in the area of the promotion of human rights. It should not be involved in protection issues, and also not be involved in the Universal Periodic Review. It should submit its studies directly to the Council. On composition, it should be composed of 26 members reflecting equitable geographical distribution. Members of the body should be elected for three-year terms with the possibility of being re-elected once.

The Human Rights Council should elect members to the expert advice body based on proposals made by its member States. The selection criteria should ensure the impartiality, independence and professionalism of candidates. On methods of work, the body might deliberate in plenary or in groups, and might also be able to participate in intersessional working groups with other stakeholders to deal with such issues as transnational corporations, economic, social and cultural rights, non-discrimination, and social development.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had played a great role in undertaking studies and establishing norms on human rights issues. The future work of the expert advice body should reflect the wishes of the Council and should be a single structured body. It would provide advisory services on thematic issues as required by the Council. The size and the composition of the body should reflect equitable geographical and gender representation. It should not be too small, and should have at least 18 experts. The members should be experienced and independent. Experts should be elected directly by the Council; the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should not be burdened with the selection of the experts.

SUNU MAHADI SOEMARNO (Indonesia) said the new body should be strengthened and sharpened, in line with the other new bodies of the Council. The efforts of the facilitators and participants of the working group tasked with reviewing and rationalizing the Council's mandates and mechanisms should have led to one single clear-cut document. That said, the positive result that was recorded in the facilitator’s conclusions were welcomed. The expert group should deal with thematic issues, rather than specific situations. There should be gender balance, as well as representatives of the main legal and cultural traditions on the body. The criteria of equality, transparency and representivity should be reflected in the body.

With regard to the selection process, many had announced a preference for election, which was the better choice, as it ensured fair and impartial representation. One essential aspect of the future body was that it should replicate the positive aspects of the Sub-Commission. It should be a tool at the disposal of the Council, and be ready to assist the Council in forming objective opinions. The mandate of the body should be narrow and focused, and defined by the Council. The expertise of the Members should serve to clarify issues where the Special Procedures were missing, and should elaborate new ideas, norms and standards. The method of work should be preferably collegiate, including in Working Groups. The number of Experts should be similar to the Sub-Commission.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said that, on the title of the new body, Switzerland's preference was “Expert Advice”. Regarding the primary function of the expert advice body, Switzerland would like to add protection to the definition, which currently only covered promotion of human rights. On status, Switzerland was not in favour of institutionalizing a body as a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council. It would support, instead, a roster of competent experts to be entrusted whenever needed to carry out some functions at the request of the Human Rights Council. The Council could ask such a body to draft new human rights standards, and also deal with emerging issues. Experts should be elected by the Council. Switzerland suggested reaching a compromise by having a pre-selection of competent experts with the participation of the President of the Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Member States and non-governmental organizations. There was also a need to maintain an international forum in which indigenous peoples and minorities could have a platform for dialogue with Member States.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that, as had already been made clear, the European Union did not support the creation of a new expert advice body. The most effective system for the Council would be a roster of suitably qualified and independent experts. The United Kingdom recognized that many delegations did not necessarily supported a roster system. But some delegations, besides those within the European Union, remained undecided. Many of the statements in the working group tasked with reviewing and rationalizing the Council's mandates and mechanisms had seemed to suggest that what one should do was to re-establish the Sub-Commission, perhaps with some minor tinkering around the edges. However, by the time of its final session, the Sub-Commission simply did not work; and its contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights was at best minimal.

When one looked at the final years of the Commission, it was clear that member States had already concluded that the away to secure the best expert advice was in fact to entrust such tasks to specialized exerts appointed on an ad hoc basis and not to use the Sub-Commission. The Human Rights Council should build itself on the best practices of the old Commission on Human Rights and should not repeat its mistakes.

KE YOUSHENG (China) said that it was necessary to establish an expert advisory body for the Human Rights Council. In order to keep consistency and stability, the new body should be a well-defined, formal and standing subsidiary organ of the Council, and be overseen by it. It should continue to play the role of a think-tank and advisory body, and should focus on thematic research, provide advisory opinions on the whole range of human rights issues, and provide input to the Council in the form of studies, reports and recommendations on the subjects requested by the Council. It should not duplicate what had been done by other human rights mechanisms.
The advice, reports and studies of the new body should reflect the development of human rights, taking into account diversified cultures, histories and religions. The size of the body should remain that of the Sub-Commission – 26 experts – as that size would be in a better position to reflect the equitable geographical distribution and balance of gender, culture, and legal systems. The experts should be independent and highly qualified with a strong professional background. Their selection should be based on the nominations of States, and they should be elected by the Council.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said that “Expert Advice Body” was an appropriate name, which adequately captured the main characteristics of the new expert advice system. The Republic of Korea agreed with other States that the Human Rights Council should be fully equipped with an efficient expert advice body to fulfil its maximum potential. They believed that primary emphasis should be placed on the functions of the expert advice body, rather than its status, size and selection process. The role of the new expert advice body must clearly be to provide advisory services to the Council on the promotion and protection of human rights. At the outset, it was not recommendable that the advisory functions be limited to any particular areas or thematic issues, as it would inevitably look into specific situations when necessary.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said the future expert advice body should exclusively carry out tasks assigned to it by the Council. It should be a compact body, with equitable geographical distribution. The terms of members should not exceed three years, and should be renewable only once. The expert advice body's role should be advisory, and not a legislative one. Members could carry out individual and collective work to be submitted to the Council.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said that Tunisia supported the consensus that had emerged during consultations. There was a need for an expert body that would support the Council. The body should be independent and collegial, and its function should be to provide advice whenever the Council required. It should create studies for the Council, and that would provide added value to the Council. The Experts should be elected, on the basis of balanced geographical distribution, as well as equitable distribution between genders and specializations. The main legal systems and civilisations should also be taken into account.

The Member States of the United Nations should be empowered to nominate members to the body, who would be elected by the Council. It would be up to the working group tasked with reviewing and rationalizing the Council's mandates and mechanisms to give further thought to the composition of the body and determine its parameters.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that the new body that was to replace the Sub-Commission should have the status of a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council. It should be composed of independent and competent experts, to be nominated by Member States. Member States had particular responsibility to put forward candidates. The candidates should be elected by the Council and reflect fair geographical representation, while not disregarding gender balance and the representation of main legal and civilization traditions.

On the mandate and duration of the expert advice body, members should sit for a period of three years. The body should work in the area of promotion of human rights, and its contribution should be addressed directly to the Council. A social forum should also be part of the expert advice body. The body should deal with thematic issues, and should not deal with country specific situations

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that Japan was open to both of the options that had been put forward for the structure of the new advisory body, whether it was to be a permanent body or a roster of experts. With regard to its functions, the expert body should focus on studies on thematic issues, or carry out studies on country issues at the Council's request. As to size, probably half the size of the former Sub-Commission would be preferable. Considering the fact that the parent body of the Sub-Commission, the Commission, had been streamlined to establish the Council, the successor mechanism of the Sub-Commission should also be streamlined. Japan was also flexible on the question of the selection process for members, only stipulating that if it was to be done by appointment of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the necessary consultations would need to be undertaken with the Council and the regional groups before doing so.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said that the preliminary conclusions were a good basis for future work. The Council could follow two different models: a roster or pool of experts to be called upon; or a body that would conduct its work in a single annual session. Canada supported a combination of those options: a pool of experts that could be called upon by the Council to carry out a task, such as thematic studies, to meet once a year to discuss and finalize issues. The Human Rights Advisory Body should be its name.

A much smaller body, of about 10 experts, would promote efficient, responsive, collegial and collaborative efforts. That would allow representation of the different legal systems, genders, and geographical balance. There should be a term of three years, renewed only once. States and non-governmental organizations should be allowed to nominate candidates. Candidates should be screened, and have the highest possible expertise in human rights. They should be independent, and not hold any other United Nations mandate at the same time, nor have already served on the Body. Members should be appointed by the President of the Council from a pre-approved pool.

ELIANA BERAUN ESCUDERO (Peru) said that the expert advice body should have a role in the elaboration of norms at the request of the Human Rights Council. In addition, the expert advice mechanism should act as a forum of dialogue to provide advice to the Council in the area of the promotion of human rights. In addition, the body should include among its functions the protection of victims of violations of human rights based on received communications. It should thus incorporate a complaint procedure – something that had not been alien to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights. The expert advice body should also participate in the Universal Periodic Review. The Council should be responsible for electing capable and independent experts.

YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba) said that he wished to express his conviction of the fact that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had played a positive role in formulating human rights norms and carrying out thematic studies. The future body of the Council should be able to fill in the existing vacuum. As to the composition of the future body, the term “equitable” should be used to qualify the geographical representation instead of the term “fair”, which in the past did not reflect the equitable representation. The number of members in the expert body should be between 18 and 28 experts.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said the positive legacy of the Sub-Commission should be noted, and there was support for the consensus points listed in the report. On the character of the body, it should have a clearly determined structure and mandate. On its functions, it should serve to advise the Council, contributing to the progressive development of human rights. It should not have legislative functions, but should be able to take initiatives to submit to the Council.

The new expert body should comprise between 10 and 18 members, allowing for an equitable presence of the regions and legal systems of the world. On the selection process, there should be two phases: a selection phase, involving the High Commissioner and non-governmental organizations, among others; and a second phase, wherein the Council would pronounce itself on the selections.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) said the Philippines supported the issues in which consensus had been achieved. The preliminary conclusions did not state whether the new body would start with a clean slate or whether it would inherit the work done by the Sub-Commission. It would be useful to further reflect on the type of tasks and functions the new body would be entrusted with to better define the number of experts and periodicity of their meetings.

There should be more teamwork between the expert advice body and the Human Rights Council. The Council should exercise an overseeing function over the expert advice body, and the new body should be a research and advisory arm of the Council. The Philippines supported the proposal that the final composition of the expert advice body reflect fair geographical representation while not disregarding gender balance and the representation of the main legal and civilization traditions. The expert advice body could also play a key role in human rights education by indicating best practices; thus there was a need for a collegial approach to take into account different experiences and the sharing of expertise.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said the Council needed expert advice in the form of a network of independent, highly qualified and specialized experts which would function as a hub for action-oriented ideas and activities, as well as an instrument for reducing mistrust by promoting cooperation among States. Its mandate should focus on the equal importance, interdependence and equal value of all human rights, characterized by coherence, objectivity, transparency, non-selectivity in the promotion and protection of human rights, while avoiding fragmentation, duplication of efforts and political manipulation. The expert advice body should provide advice without any legislative role. The body should have a single well-defined formal structure, represent equitable geographical representation, and take into account gender balance.

JAN LEVIN (United States of America) said that the Council would be best served by a system of expert advice that was flexible, small, and responsive solely to the needs of the Council. Thus, the establishment of either a roster or other ad hoc body that could be convened at the request of the Council in order to respond to specific tasks was favoured.

An expert advice mechanism would have the greatest value in offering advice on the design of technical assistance programmes, which would best serve the needs of Governments seeking help to deepen and broaden the roots of human rights protections. In order to depoliticize the process by which experts were named to serve, and to ensure the highest possible levels of professionalism and credibility, its members should not be elected. They should be nominated by States, non-governmental organizations or regional groups, and selected by the President of the Council. Experts could work individually, but not through the Working Groups of the former Sub-Commission, which had largely outlived their usefulness.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said that the new expert advice body should have a single, well-defined formal structure. The body should reflect the principles of equitable geographical distribution, as well as different legal systems and cultural diversity. For that to happen, the size of the new body should remain close to that of the Sub-Commission. However, in order to ensure a fair distribution of seats, more seats needed to be allocated to the Asian Group.

Regarding terms of membership, Iran was in favour of a three-year term, renewable only once. The experts should be eligible for re-election or appointment to other mandates after a lapse of three years. States should have a key role in nominating the experts, as they did for the treaty bodies. Members of the body should also be independent, and the Council should elect them. As a subsidiary body, the expert advice body should be subjected to oversight by the Council.

IDRIS MOHAMMED ALI (Sudan) commended the role played by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, as well as the studies it had accomplished on thematic issues. The new body should also carry out thematic studies, without taking on country-specific human rights issues. The future expert advice body should deal equally with issues pertaining to economic, social and cultural rights, as well as those concerning civil and political rights. Experts should be impartial, independent and objective. There was no reason for the expert advice body to have any connection with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and it would be better if it did not do so in order to avoid duplication.

PETTER WILLE (Norway) said this was an important phase in the building of the Council, and should be passed by consensus, as it was important for the future of the United Nations, and not just the Council. Consensus had not been reached on the elements under this item. It was far too early to conclude that the expert advice function should take the shape of a body under the Council, and there was no need for institutionalizing such a body.

The expert body could provide more accurate background information, thus enriching the discussion in the Council, and improving decision-making. The selection of areas where expert advice was needed should be a Council-driven process. Those aims were best achieved by a flexible approach to the issue. There should be a flexible roster of experts, established by the High Commissioner. States, non-governmental organizations and individuals should be able to suggest candidates for the roster, and the President should appoint the experts in consultation with the Council.

RAFAEL ANTONIO QUINTERO (Colombia) was of the view that the expert advice body should have a formal structure, holding meetings at least once a year. It should have a maximum of 16 experts, comprising representatives of the main legal systems. The Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights should be able to nominate candidates based on eligibility criteria set up by the Council.

The experts might suggest matters of special interest to the Human Rights Council. However, the body should function under the Council, and only act at the request of the Human Rights Council. It should only carry out the tasks assigned to it by the Human Rights Council. It should not participate in the Universal Periodic Review.

BHARAT RAJ PAUDYAL (Nepal) said that the work done by the erstwhile Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection on Human Rights had to be maintained in whichever nomenclature was agreeable to all. The new body, as its predecessor, had to be an analytical brain, a critical think-tank and a standard-setting body under the Council. The structure of the expert advice system should be a formal, well-defined single structure as was its predecessor. Nepal was in favour of maintaining the current practice of electing the experts by the Council on the nomination of candidates by States. The expert advice body could be a standing mechanism ready to provide advice and expert opinion to the Council as and when required.

GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said the document on the expert advice body that was before the Council appropriately reflected, clearly and simply, the negotiations in the working group tasked with reviewing and rationalizing the Council's mandates and mechanisms. As regarded the elements pending for future consultations, on structure, it should be single, formal, and well-defined body. It should be a subsidiary advisory body to the Council, entrusted with studies on the progressive development of human rights, focusing on promotion activities. Many delegations had expressed a preference for between 10 and 18 members – the size should, however, be as large as possible in order to ensure equitable geographical representation with gender balance, and representation of the main cultural and legal traditions. The responsibility for nomination and election of experts lay exclusively with States.

MARIE LAURE BAZEROLLE, of International Commission on Jurists, said that the Human Rights Council should retain an independent, expert and collegial body with a mandate focused on studying unexplored, new challenges and areas of human rights, identifying gaps, addressing or clarifying specific thematic and country specific special procedures issues, formulating proposed new human rights standards and recommending special procedures or other mechanisms that the Human Rights Council should establish.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, in a joint statement with Europe-Third World Centre; Movement Against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; et Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said the new expert body should be a subsidiary body to the Council, with the character of a permanent body, in order to benefit from collegiality. It should be made up of independent experts with recognised expertise in human rights, elected by the Member States of the Council, independently from their origin and nationality. It should have as a main function to support the activities of the Council in protection and promotion of human rights, in particular by undertaking research activities and studies. It should preserve and promote the open and transparent nature of its methods of work, and ensure the participation of non-governmental organizations in its work.

LITAL BENDRIHEM, of United Nations Watch, said the Sub-Commission had helped to elaborate many important human rights standards. However, today’s human rights problems were due not to a lack of standards, but to a lack of implementation in specific situations on the ground of the standards that already existed. The resources necessary to maintain a standing body in Geneva would thus be better used to support human rights implementation in the field.

R. J. RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said that the preliminary conclusions were of a technical nature and provided adequate space for further elaboration, including the foundational elements on expert advice, particularly its purpose and objective as well as its scope and nature. More specifically, in the common search for coherence and consistency, any system of expert advice should be organic, incorporating the best practices of the Sub-Commission.

CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, in a joint statement with International Council of Women, said that, in their interventions, States had proposed a gender-balanced expert advisory body, and that was a good thing, as a gender-mainstreamed policy should be included. There were advantages in ensuring quality and effective functioning of the Council in that regard, as the mixture of genders would ensure symmetrical treatment. Men, while having theoretical specialization and sympathetic attitudes for the reproductive role of women, did not use the same perceptions as women due to their biological nature. Men and women should collaborate in order to bring a better order of all human rights in human lives.

LES MALEZER, of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said that the future expert advice body should focus on indigenous peoples. There was a strong resistance by some States to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous expertise should be included in any relevant future body.

Concluding Comments by Facilitator of Working Group on Expert Advice Body

MOUSA BURAYZAT, Facilitator on the Expert Advice Body, in concluding remarks, said that there had been a substantive discussion. He had hoped for more forthcoming views, but was satisfied with the efforts that had been made by delegations to come forward, and that was encouraging. The statements had helped to widen convictions and bring the delegations closer. There had been interesting suggestions from various delegations, as well as repetitions of entrenched positions, but there had also been efforts to reach compromise. If headway could be made on the selection process, that would be a positive step. There appeared to be no consensus on the name that would be given to the new body.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06085E