HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES PROGRESS REPORT ON REVIEW OF MANDATES

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the progress report of the Working Group on the review of mandates. Following a presentation of the report by the facilitator, Tomas Husak, delegates raised such issues as the methods of appointment of mandate-holders, accountability of mandate-holders, cooperation between mandate-holders and with States, and the contentious issue of country mandates.

Mr. Husak said the Working Group managed to elaborate on the principles of the review, as well as on its objectives and structure, and was also able to engage in a substantive and fruitful dialogue between the delegations and Special Procedures mandate-holders. Overall, it reached agreement on the need to further strengthen and enhance the Special Procedures to improve the enjoyment of human rights as well as protection and promotion against human rights violations. It was underlined that the coherence of the human rights machinery, including the Special Procedures, should be improved.

Among issues raised by delegates was the question of whether to appoint or elect mandate-holders. One point of view was that the High Commissioner for Human Rights should appoint the mandate holder, based on objective and reliable information criteria and suitability for the mandate in question, as direct elections of Special Procedures by the Human Rights Council would not be an effective way to ensure that the best possible candidate was appointed to the mandate.

Other delegations said the Council should directly elect mandate holders in the manner that members of the treaty bodies were elected, as this was the responsibility of the Council. The Special Procedures should reflect representation from all geographical regions, cultures, civilisations and legal systems, expertise, experience, independence and impartiality and gender balance.

The accountability of mandate-holders should be strengthened, speakers stated. It was important that the Manual and Code of Conduct became a self-regulating tool for the Special Procedures rather than being imposed by the Council. On the Code of Conduct, it was up to the Coordination Committee on mandate-holders to establish this, following consultation with States, delegations said. With reference to rationalization of mandates, overlapping should be analysed case by case. Cooperation, delegations said, was essential, both between mandate-holders, and between mandate-holders and Governments.

The review process should maintain the upholding of all human rights as a principle, delegations said. The basic principles of reviewing the Special Procedures should be based on international laws and cultural specificities of States. The balance of all categories of Special Procedures should be strengthened. Likewise, the level of protection under the purview of Special Procedures should be maintained.

Country mandates were highly politicised, some delegates noted, urging that country reports should be restricted to exceptional cases to which much stricter criteria would be applied than was the case in the past, with a view to preventing the politicisation of debates that was quite characteristic of the deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights. The Special Procedures should be able to consider country-specific issues in the context of their mandates, and carry out country visits in this context, a delegation said.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Finland for the European Union, the Russian Federation, China, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Algeria for the African Group, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Tunisia, Nigeria, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Brazil, Netherlands, Switzerland, Morocco, United Kingdom, Cuba, Canada, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Slovenia, Norway, Iran, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Belarus, United States and Colombia.

The discussion of the progress report will continue during this afternoon’s meeting, which will begin at 3 p.m.


Presentation by Facilitator of Working Group on Review of Mandates

TOMAS HUSAK, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Review of Mandates, said the Working Group held nine meetings during its first session from 13 to 24 November 2006. The dialogue benefited from lively, structured and rich exchanges which enabled progress in several respects. The Working Group managed to elaborate on the principles of the review, as well as on its objectives and structure, and was also able to engage in a substantive and fruitful dialogue between the delegations and Special Procedures mandate-holders. In overall, it reached agreement on the need to further strengthen and enhance the Special Procedures to improve the enjoyment of human rights as well as protection and promotion against human rights violations. It was underlined that the coherence of the human rights machinery, including the Special Procedures, should be improved.

As facilitator, Mr. Husak said, he had indicated several principles for the review before outlining its strategy, such as the significance of Special Procedures to the prevention and protection against human rights violations and assistance to their victims. Timeliness of action, accessibility to victims, independence of mandate-holders and their objectivity were also highlighted, and it was underlined that the enhancement of a system was conditional on the improvements regarding the cooperation by and with the Government and the interaction with a parent body.

The current differences, which were healable and could induce agreement, should not detract from the many precious points of convergence. A draft non-paper on the review of mandates would be presented that would be the basis for common endeavours during the second session of the Working Group. During this period, Mr. Husak hoped to take up comprehensive issues, such as the means of designation of Special Procedures in office, and criteria and focus for the operation of mandate-holders in thematic and country levels, including the functioning of thematic and country mandates in tandem. Among other topics, he wished to focus on the accountability of actors, the code of conduct and its contribution in this respect, the interaction between the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures and other essential means of improving coherence. All delegations should be guided by the purpose of endeavours, which were to strengthen and improve the Special Procedures.


Statements on Presentation by Facilitator of Working Group on Review of Mandates

SATU SUIKKARI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that to guarantee maximum independence and competence, the High Commissioner for Human Rights should appoint the mandate holder, based on objective and reliable information criteria and suitability for the mandate in question. She would of course also consult with all stakeholders and strive for a broad geographical balance, if enough qualified candidates were available. A well-publicized roster of experts would contribute to the availability of excellent candidates, provided this was based on clear, objective and reliable information criteria to establish professional experience, expertise and independence. The European Union was of the firm view that direct elections of Special Procedures by the Human Rights Council would not be an effective way to ensure that the best possible candidate was appointed to the mandate. From their experience of other elections, the European Union did not believe elections were the best way to ensure geographical and gender balance.

The European Union welcomed the efforts undertaken thus far by the Coordination Committee to enhance and strengthen their methods of work to carry out their mandates in the most effective way, as well as the openness and transparency of these efforts. The European Union believed that the review of working methods should be conducted predominantly by the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner. The Coordination Committee could strengthen the functioning of Special Procedures by taking up a role as a self regulatory body in keeping with practices of collective independent organizations such as the media or the judiciary.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the role of the Special Procedures was of great value to the work of the Council. However, they should be reviewed to better contribute to the good functioning of the Council. The basic principles of reviewing the Special Procedures should be based on international laws and cultural specificities of States. The balance of all categories of Special Procedures should be strengthened. All States should agree on the recommendations of the Special Procedures. In the past, Special Procedures had reflected double standards and politicization on the issues they were dealing with. An initiative to create new mechanisms should be limited. The methods of work of the Special Procures should be reviewed, taking into account their de-politicization.

It was also essential that an intergovernmental format should be adopted while reviewing the Special Procedures. Russia believed that the manuals of the United Nations on Special Procedures, including the code of conduct, should be the documents of reference. On the selection of experts serving in the Special Procedures, the Council should proceed to the election process based on fair geographical distributions.

ZHANG YI (China) said the discussions had been transparent and democratic. The preliminary conclusions presented were taken note of. Since the Secretariat had prepared a summary which duly reflected the discussion, there was no need for the Facilitator to compile a similar parallel document. This practice of this particular Working Group should not constitute a precedent. China could not agree to using the title preliminary conclusions - as any conclusions should be endorsed by the Working Group, and it had not done so for this document. The title of the document should be changed to Facilitator’s Preliminary Progress Update. The document should not be the basis for future negotiations. It should also give further account of the views of the different points of view of the delegations, as this was not the case.

On the selection of mandate holders, the document highlighted concerns over elections, but not concerns over appointments. When discussing country mandates, it had been reiterated by delegates that this was the most politicised aspect, but this point of view had not come through in the document. The accountability of mandate-holders should be strengthened. On cooperation between Governments and Special Procedures, this should go in both directions, and the latter should adopt a cooperative approach when dealing with Governments. No country was obliged to extend a standing invitation. The document could be further improved.

AZAD JAFAROV (Azerbaijan) welcomed the preliminary conclusions of the Working Group. Azerbaijan said that cooperation was the essence of the whole process. It could not be one-sided; it was necessary to have close cooperation between the Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council. The mandate holder represented the Human Rights Council as a whole. Azerbaijan called the Working Group to further discuss the matter of cooperation during the next round of discussions.

Azerbaijan underlined that Special Procedures should not be seen in isolation but as interlinked and interrelated to other United Nations human rights instruments also aiming to achieve the full realization of all human rights. The specific nature of these mechanisms should not be overlooked, though. Therefore, Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council stood on their own vis-à-vis the treaty bodies.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the Special Procedures were the most important tools in monitoring and dealing with human rights violations. The resolution of the General Assembly on establishing the Council had called for the strengthening of the Special Procedures. The Working Group during its future sessions would deal with the review and harmonization of the mandates under the Special Procedures. The increase in cohesion and coordination of mandates would also be among the tasks of the Working Group. Other than the indepednce of the mandate-holders, their capacity and integrity should also be taken into consideration. The increase in consistency and cooperation should be the goal of the Council. Since the Council was meeting in a quasi-permanent basis, the issue of follow-up should be given special attention.

Non-governmental organizations from the developing countries that were not serving the interests of their respective governments should be allowed to participate when the situation of the States were being considered. In all cases, there should be reciprocal cooperation between the mandate holders and the States under review. States should also extend permanent invitation to the mandate holders of the Special Procedures. The development of good practices by the mandate holders would help the victims of human rights violations.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the intricate analysis that tried to capture preliminary discussions on the review of mandates required more time for assimilation and understanding. The two documents distributed did not contain any conclusions, even preliminary, but stray observations which were not compatible. In the analysis as well as the annexed topics for discussion, the most critical question, what was the relationship of the Special Procedures with the Council, had not been fully raised or adequately addressed. It was unclear whose opinions were being cited, as the text was without attribution, and some views were beyond comprehension.

The OIC, after careful deliberation, had given clear and unambiguous advice on the review of mandates, which merited reiteration. The Council should directly elect mandate holders in the manner that members of the treaty bodies were elected. The Special Procedures should reflect representation from all geographical regions, cultures, civilisations and legal systems, expertise, experience, independence and impartiality and gender balance. The election of mandate holders was the responsibility of the Council, and could not be assumed by any advisory panel or the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures should be drafted by the Council, and it should include a code of conduct and criteria of admissibility of communications, as well as guidelines for media interaction and country visits. The current review of the Special Procedures should rectify the lopsided emphasis placed so far on civil and political rights and bring protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, to a higher plane.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group wished to express its concerns regarding the method of making recourse to the preliminary conclusions, as an outcome of the discussions that took place within the framework of the inter-sessional Working Group. If these documents, it was true, had not been approved by the members of the Group, neither were they mere minutes of the deliberations. In the case of the conclusions on Special Procedures, however, these very conclusions went well beyond merely summarizing the debates, defending a position that was not actually shared by a large number of participants.

For instance, on the issue of the election or appointment of mandate holders, the proposed summary on the appointment of mandate holders, by the Chairman, the High Commissioner or the Secretary-General, based on a pre-evaluation by the Committee of Coordination on Special Procedures, was contradictory to the views of the majority of the delegations, who had declared themselves in favour of an election by the Human Rights Council itself; in addition to the fact that such an evaluation on the part of mandate holders themselves would bring about a conflict of interest. Neither was there any agreement to the effect that certain Special Rapporteurs should be simply appointed by the Secretary-General.

Concerning the priority areas, asserting that there was unanimity on the fact that “country focus” was essential was equally questionable. On the contrary, it was stated by the majority that country reports should be restricted to exceptional cases to which much stricter criteria would be applied than was the case in the past, with a view to preventing the politicisation of debates that was quite characteristic of the deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights.

ELIA SOSA (Mexico) believed that there was a possibility to reach consensus on the text under discussion. The effectiveness of the Special Procedures was the main issue at stake. The mandate holders should be experienced and independent so that they carried out their work properly. The Council was meeting throughout the year and this would allow it to underscore the importance of follow-ups. The debate should be focused on this issue. The mechanisms established by the mandate-holders themselves should be valued. Mexico stressed the importance of the independence of the Special Procedures in order to promote mutual cooperation between the mandate holders and States. The election of the mandate holders should be transparent and ensure their independence, and multiple mandates should not be attributed to one expert. The mandate holders should be experienced, with good knowledge of their respective areas of specialization. It was also important to have excellent coordination among the various mandates so that the Council could function effectively.

KIM MOON-HWAN (Republic of Korea) said the discussions in the Working Group had been fruitful. The various issues and views identified during the discussion would provide a good basis for further discussions and negotiations in the future. Independence, objectivity and expertise were the most important elements in the Special Procedure mechanism. To ensure the effectiveness of the mechanism, they should be distanced as much as possible from any type of outside influences, in particular political dynamics coming from the Council. The Experts should be nominated by the President, with a candidates' roster open for all stakeholders for recommendations, and with attention paid to equitable gender and geographical balance. There was a need for more transparency in this mechanism, and it should be addressed through genuine dialogue and mutual respect through stakeholders.
The cooperation between States and the Special Procedures was of paramount importance, and should be promoted on both sides. States had a critical role to play and duty to discharge in ensuring cooperation. The members of the Council should show a good example in this regard. Effectiveness in the mechanism depended in large part on cooperation between mandate-holders. The Coordination Committee should be recognised as an effective tool to enhance cooperation between the mandate-holders. It was important that the Manual of Conduct become a self-regulating tool for the Special Procedures rather than being imposed by the Council.

ALEJANDRA DE BELLIS (Uruguay) appreciated the work of the facilitator, in particular the preliminary conclusions. In accordance with the guiding General Assembly resolution, the Human Rights Council should review all of the mandates. Hence, it was important for Uruguay that this review process should maintain the upholding of all human rights as a principle. Likewise, the level of protection under the purview of Special Procedures should be maintained.

On elections and appointments of mandate holders, Uruguay stressed the importance of developing criteria that took into account, among other things, independence, impartiality, proper gender balance, and geographical representation. Bearing in mind that independence of the mandate holder was vital, Uruguay supported the appointment of mandate holders by the President of the Council or the High Commissioner for Human Rights in consultation with regional groups.

With reference to rationalization of mandates, overlapping should be analysed case by case. The fact that an issue, such as the right of the child and adolescent, was being considered by a number of mandate holders did not indicate that there was necessarily overlapping but rather that mandate holders were addressing different rights pertaining to one issue. On cooperation, Uruguay thought that cooperation extended by Governments to Special Procedures and follow up was essential.

ANDRE MARENTEK (Indonesia) said that given that the Working Group had already officially met, it should therefore be able to procure its own report. Indonesia recognized and appreciated the usefulness of the document before the Council but Indonesia was convinced that a single working conclusion by the Group, as per the established practice, was the best approach in the future. Similar concerns as well as clarifications on the matter had been put forward by several delegations, including Indonesia. One of the reasons for Indonesia’s view was the fact that the Working Group should seize that opportunity to come up with its own conclusions, rather than having to go into negotiation. Indonesia supported enhancing cooperation with all Special Procedures and would like to highlight the role that the Council could play securing cooperation and guarantee of States’ goodwill at an early stage.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said country focus was considered essential, and it had been agreed that the past controversy over some of them should not spill over to the Council. Delegations should remember Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s appeal made several days ago, that the great challenge for the Council was to find a way to embrace the universality of rights while at the same time addressing specific human rights situations. The Universal Periodic Review could not totally replace country mandates - the two were complementary.

On the selection and appointment of mandate holders, the procedure should be streamlined or unified wherever possible, but in doing so it should not be at the cost of maintaining diversity reflecting different cases, different histories, and the background of each mandate holder. Ambassador Husak’s suggestion of a “hybrid model” merited attention.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the facilitator for his leadership in the Working Group and for the preliminary report. The Human Rights Council should establish a harmonious system of Special Procedures to uphold human rights. Special efforts should be made to overcome diverging points. All delegations were convinced that a Special Procedures system was key for the promotion and protection of human rights. Mandate holders should be impartial and independent; there should not be overlapping of mandates; a code of conduct should be put in place; and close relations with the Human Rights Council should be developed.

On the appointment of mandate holders, Bangladesh supported elections as the best way to avoid politicisation, and select the appropriate expert. This process would not affect independence and neutrality of the functions of mandate holders but would ensure objectivity and accountability. On cooperation with the State, the relationship between mandate holders and States should be based on mutual respect and responsibility. It should be looked at from a broad perspective.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said that certain matters needed further clarification with regard to the review of the Special Procedures. As in the case of the Universal Periodic Review, the document on the Special Procedures should have listed the elements of convergence and divergence. Considering that the document was a preliminary one, Tunisia believed that certain elements still needed further reflection. With regard to the mandate holders, Tunisia would opt for their election in order to ensure their independence and to give them legitimacy. Tunisia was also of the view that thematic mandates should be strengthened. Equal importance should be given to the mandates concerning civil and political rights one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other.

ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) said in view of the emergence of convergence of opinion as outlined by the facilitator, emphasis should be placed on the elements that needed further discussion. Mandate-holders should be elected by the Council, from a list of experts compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which should establish independence, expertise, and track record on human rights. It should also ensure a gender balance. Country measures should be left in the field of the Universal Periodic Review. The acheivement of coherence and cooperation between the mandate-holders was vital. The Draft Manual for Special Procedures was approved. Some mandates should be rationalised to avoid duplication.

The Council should play a guiding role for mandate holders - and the latter should always ensure prompt submission of reports, as well as regular updates on their progress. Cooperation with Governments was a major element in ensuring success, and therefore mandate-holders should ensure that allegations were substantiated. All Member States should cooperate with mandate-holders, inviting them to visit, or other Member States would believe they had something to hide, and the Council would find other means to make them cooperate.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said that the Special Procedures were among the main instruments available to the Human Rights Council for the promotion and protection of human rights. The process of review and rationalization of Special Procedures should bear in mind the complementarity and mutually reinforcing nature of various mechanisms of the Council. The Council should have a direct say in the selection and appointment of mandate holders. The broad framework for the functioning of the Special Procedures should also have the Council’s endorsement. This meant that the Council should approve the Special Procedures Manual of Operations.

India welcomed the Human Rights Council decision to entrust the Working Group with the task of developing a code of conduct for the Special Procedures. With regards periodic monitoring of the work of individual mandate holders, India proposed a system of peer review among the mandate holders.

Country mandates created against the wishes of the country concerned had been the main source of controversy in the former Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council should be careful not to repeat the same mistake. In India’ view, the Universal Periodic Review would be the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing country situations in a positive and non-selective manner.
HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said the election of mandate holders should not be politicised and the criteria of their selection should reflect their respective geographical representation. Special Procedures should maintain country specific mandates and they should be accountable to the Council. They should carry out their country visits in a cooperative manner and not in a confrontational way. Other than Special Procedures, other thematic mechanisms should be emphasized to consider country situations. Between the Council and the Special Procedures, smooth cooperation should be enhanced. In addition, States should cooperate with the Special Procedures and invite the mandate holders on a permanent basis.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) said on the initial groundwork that had been accomplished, so far the Working Group had discussed the broad scope of the review, including conceptual questions. It had identified areas in which the system of Special Procedures could be improved and rationalised. Areas of consensus had been identified, and areas where further discussion was required. The Council and the Working Group should, as there was very little time, examine how to implement the review. Criteria for analysis and evaluation of different mandates should be established. The question of whether certain mandates had achieved the task they were intended for should be examined.

The objective of the review, to improve the system of reviews for all stakeholders, including Governments, should be borne in mind. Review should be done holistically, with protection gaps addressed. There should be a timely response to allegations and reports of human rights violations. Special Procedures, while serving in their independent capacities, should bear the stamp of the United Nations, and ensure wider, more legitimate and credible promotion and protection of human rights. The text of the report could be further clarified and simplified to address the points of view of all delegations, and this showed that much work remained to be done.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that the preliminary results of the Working Group constituted a solid basis for discussion. The principle of equal geographical representation, which was a common United Nations practice, should be taken into consideration in the selection of mandate holders. The Council should give special attention to keep a balance between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development.

On coherence, the manual of Special Procedures should be used as a guide. In addition, the Coordination Committee should assist in providing more coordination; the expert advice advisory body replacing the Commission on Human Rights should also assist in this matter. Brazil was open to the idea of a Code of Conduct in so far as it would promote a better climate between mandate holders and States. On cooperation, it was vital to stimulate standing invitations as a way of cooperating with mandate holders.

HANNO WURZNER (Netherlands) said the preliminary conclusions provided insight in what had the Council had achieved so far, and what still remained to be done. The Netherlands was concerned about the consequences of a prerogative endorsement by the Council of the proposal of the hybrid model of the selection of mandate holders, which was proposed by the facilitator. The model did not meet the main concern of the tension between the impartiality of Special Procedures on one hand and their dependence on States who elected them on the other. The Netherlands remained strongly convinced of the merits of appointment, proceeding by a thorough screening process.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the preliminary conclusions reflected the state of the work accomplished so far, including points of convergence, divergence, and negotiation. Switzerland was not in favour of the election of mandate-holders, as this did not necessarily indicate independence. The mandate-holders should be appointed following consultation with the main actors, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The hybrid model could be discussed, but only if it guaranteed the maximum amount of independence for mandate-holders.

On the Code of Conduct, it was up to the Coordination Committee on mandate-holders to establish this, following consultation with States. The Code should contain rules of conduct not only for the Special Procedures but also for States in their interaction with the mandate-holders. The system of Special Procedures should cover all rights, including civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Overlap was inevitable. The Coordination Committee could do its best to avoid this, but overlap was preferable than gaps. The Special Procedures should be able to consider country-specific issues in the context of their mandates, and carry out country visits in this context.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the review of mandates and the Special Procedures was an important and delicate task. By the end of this process, the Council should be able to consolidate the work of the Special Procedures and address existing gaps. With reference to the selection of mandate holders, they should be experts, impartial, independent, and follow an equitable geographical representation. The selection process should also bear in mind that mandate holders represented different legal systems, and that gender balance was also achieved.

On the criteria on the rationalization of mandates, the Special Procedures must fully carry out their mandates in full respect of the State. The right to development, the balance between civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and the universality of human rights should also be observed.

Greater coordination between mandate holders should be attained to avoid duplication, and ensure coherence. The Human Rights Council should also aim at enhancing communication and sharing of information to harmonize methods of work.

The relationship with the Human Rights Council must be harmonized, and the provision of information provided in a timely fashion. On the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it should support the Special Procedures and also ensure support of the promotion and protection of all human rights.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that Council was still a long way from consensus on the appointment of mandate holders. The United Kingdom strongly believed that the need to avoid politicisation should be fundamental in the Council’s approach on this issue. Some form of independent selection and appointment procedure for mandate holders was essential if this was to be achieved. Some delegations had proposed the direct election of mandate holders by the member States of the Council. However, the United Kingdom believed that election by States would inevitably lead to individual mandate holders, and eventually the whole system, becoming politicised. Independent appointments were in no way inconsistent with a democratic system. The Council simply needed to ensure that an adequate system of checks and balances was in place. Elections were also not the best way to ensure either equitable geographical distribution or gender balance. The Special Procedures also had to have a means of ensuring accountability if the system as a whole was to function effectively. The challenge was to find a system for accountability which safeguarded their independence. The Coordination Committee provided Member States with a credible way to ensure accountability of Special Procedures and develop good practices while maintaining independence.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said this was an essential element for the implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251. The same resolution gave guidelines for the work that needed to be done, namely to preserve, rationalise and promote the Special Procedures system. The current system had positive elements which should be preserved, but was also encumbered with harmful elements that had affected its credibility. It was important to strike a clear balance between the logical principles of analysis, as well as to analyse the details. The Working Group had an overview approach, and the fundamental danger here was that the details had been wrapped up. The main priority was thus to discard those items that had caused discredit to the system.

The Working Group should continue its analysis of particularities, case by case and mandate by mandate, in order to rationalise and put an end to those mandates that had been a basis for the partial discrediting of the system. New foundations should be established in order to ensure that the issues were de-politicised. The Working Group should analyse the mandates individually in order to be able to prune those that should be eliminated. There could be an Independent Expert who had great experience, integrity and recognition, but when they received a mandate that was spuriously based, if they did not have the ethical strength to reject the mandate, then bankruptcy of the cooperation system took place. There could only be mutual cooperation when the advantages of this type of system of relationships could be recognised.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said that the Special Procedures were one of the most important legacies of the Commission on Human Rights. Special Procedures were vital to provide independent information for the Human Rights Council to fulfil its primary goals. The Council should maintain the independence of Special Procedures and guarantee the universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States. Special Procedures should be entrusted with generating reports, and conducting field studies in cooperation with stakeholders, including national institutions and non-governmental organizations. They should at the same time function as an early-warning system.

It was essential to keep the independence of the Special Procedures. Canada supported appointing mandate holders by the President of the Council or by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure their impartiality and independence. The Human Rights Council must preserve the independence of the Special Procedures and strengthen cooperation with Member States. With reference to the work of the Working Group on rationalization and standardization of methods of work, a Manual of Procedures was an important element.

SUMDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka) said the mandate holders should be independent and non-political. Emphasis should also be given to the development of a balance between the various categories of human rights, such as civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. International technical and advisory assistance should be provided to the countries identified by country situation procedures. The question of the appointment of the mandate holders should also be given higher consideration. The Council should organize a session on the appointment of the mandate holders, who should be elected in a secret ballot, reflecting a fair geographical distribution.

FAITH GAN (Singapore) said there should be more in-depth discussions on the review at the next meeting of the Working Group. On whether mandate holders should be appointed or elected, the issue was how to guarantee independence and competence, whilst ensuring a democratic means of selection. States should be involved in the elections, as this would not necessarily compromise independence of mandate-holders. The question of competence was a non-issue, as a screening process would weed out those who did not fit the criteria.

The relationship between the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures should be discussed later, when the Universal Periodic Review itself was further clarified. On cooperation by and with Governments, some had said that invitations to visit were an instrument for safeguarding cooperation. Substance was more important than form, and focus should be on the human rights of States, rather than attention paid to peripheral issues such as whether a standing invitation existed.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that the efforts of the Human Rights Council should be focused on improving the effectiveness, independence, impartiality and quality of work of the Special Procedures. The nomination of mandate holders must ensure the selection of the most qualified candidate who fulfilled the fundamental criteria of independence and impartiality. This issue had been under much debate in the Working Group but Slovenia remained convinced that elections through the practices of lobbying and reciprocal exchanges of support were not disposed to secure this criteria. Elections were even less likely to ensure gender equality or the equal opportunity for candidates from small countries. The best way ahead was drafting of criteria on the basis of which selection of mandate holders would follow through a transparent, non-political process.

Mandate holders should strive in their work for good cooperation with the countries concerned. Good practice in this regard existed and was being further developed by the Special Procedures through their Manual. Cooperation though, as many delegations stated in the Working Group already, was not a one-way street. A number of States had, through the issuance of standing invitations and through timely responses to requests for visits and communications from Special Procedures, shown openness to constructive dialogue.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said that the review process should be built on a clear and shared understanding of the objectives of the Special Procedures as a system. The Special Procedures should be seen as an integral part of the UN human rights machinery and as am important part of the Council. They constituted a unique link between governments, national institutions, non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations. The Special Procedures would provide valuable analysis on key human rights issues, they could serve as a mechanism of last resort for victims and they could prevent serious abuses, through the system of urgent appeals. They could also serve as early-warning mechanisms to draw attention to human rights crises. The independent status of the mandate-holders was key to allow them to fulfil their mandates and report on human rights violations.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said the report should be called the Facilitator’s Progress Report. The report did not reflect the discussions during the session in a balanced manner. The Human Rights Council should have a straight-forward, direct role in the election of mandate-holders, which would not undermine their independence, but would bring more transparency to the system that would be an essential prerequisite to avoid politicisation. Mandate-holders should reflect different geographical, cultural and religious backgrounds.

The review should aim at improving the balance between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including right to development. The direct accountability of the mandate holders to the Human Rights Council was supported. The Human Rights Council should examine a review of mandate holders individually and collectively. The urgent appeals format should be standardised and unified, and criteria set. On the code of conduct, this should be approved by the Human Rights Council.

BART OUVRY (Belgium) supported scheduling submission of reports throughout different sessions of the Human Rights Council as a good way of making better use of resources, including those of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner. Belgium underscored the need to have independent Special Procedures, and saw convergence on this point by many delegations. Nevertheless, they had to make sure that the principle of independence was put into practice. Concerned countries should cooperate with mandate holders in such as way as to let them carry out their mandate free of any political pressure. On the Code of Conduct, any mechanism should respect the principles of independence and transparency.

ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) said that one of the issues that had been less satisfactory in the past was the cooperation between governments and the Special Procedures. Governments wished to see more predictability and reliability with regard to the work of the Special Procedures. A more standardized and harmonized format concerning the terminology, the conduct of visits and the reporting was indeed desirable and would contribute to more confidence on both sides. At the same time, the effectiveness of visits and their follow-up depended on the cooperation of both sides. Any further Code of Conduct or similar set of principles had therefore to provide the rules of governments as well. The Council would have to make sure that governments fully upheld those rules in the spirit of genuine dialogue with mandate holders and with the aim of ensuring equal treatment of all States when it would come to the conduct of and follow-up to country visits.

ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) said particular attention was given to country mandates, and the issue of country topics in the Council. It was necessary to clearly divide the two aspects in the Working Group. Because of their politicisation, the imposition of double standards and political models, these mandates were counter-productive, and the Working Group should discuss their abolition. The basic tool for the Council when considering human rights situations in countries should be the Universal Periodic Review, and the complaints procedure. Only in situations of mass and grave human rights violations should a special session be called.

Mandate-holders should be appointed with clear criteria, and should be independent. The United Nations General Assembly Third Committee had adopted a resolution entitled Encouraging Equal Dialogue on Human Rights, and this could provide the necessary basis for developing mutually agreeable standards on the topic of country situations in the Council.

JAN LEVIN (United States) said that the aim of the review should be to enhance the Special Procedures’ efficacy in promoting and protecting human rights. Human rights violations did not occur in a vacuum. Abuses or failures to protect happened in particular countries. The Human Rights Council needed to keep the most effective tools for addressing those violations; that meant retaining both thematic and country specific Special Procedures and country specific mandates. That also meant that the same rules should apply within the Council for the creation of new mandates, whether they were thematic or country specific.

As there were already more than forty Special Procedures and in light of the budgetary implications of this proliferation of mandates, the United States would favour combining existing procedures and the exercise of caution before creating new thematic and country specific Special Procedures mandates. In this regard, the United States also encouraged mandate holders to conduct joint visits and to issue joint communications when appropriate.

The appointment of independent, impartial and professional experts as mandate holders was essential to maintaining the credibility of the Special Procedures system. This could best be assured by having regional groups, non-governmental organizations and States nominate candidates from which the President of the Council in consultation with the Office of the High Commissioner would select the mandate holder.

RAFAEL ANTONIO QUINTERO (Colombia) said that the manner in which reports were presented by mandate holders were not fully reflected in the document under discussion. Any assessment should be substantiated by evidence and it should not be based on value judgements. The mandate holders should not deal with all subjects indiscriminately. Their actions should focus on the main theme to which their were mandated. The dialogue between governments and mandate holders was also essential in establishing the reports. The standing visits invitation by States to mandate holders should not be used without prior consultations with the respective governments. The mandate holders should always maintain responsible attitudes. On the other hand, States should be substantially informed so that they prepared their responses.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06081E