HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES RULES OF PROCEDURE AND METHODS OF WORK
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning discussed the implementation of section III of the Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 on its rules of procedure and methods of work. The Committee also concluded its discussion on the right to food.
Latif Huseynov, Advisory Committee Expert, introducing the document on rules of procedure and methods of work (A/HRC/AC/2/CRP.3), said that the Advisory Committee had decided to set up a drafting group on this subject. He thanked all the members of the drafting group for their valuable contributions. When drafting rules of procedures, the status of the Advisory Committee as a subsidiary body was discussed; and the status of the independent experts who served in an independent capacity. He also suggested that the methods of work should be as flexible as possible. The organization of the Committee, its position, role, status, and duties had been discussed. Special emphasis on the independence and impartiality of the Committee was stressed. The election of the President of the Advisory Committee and appointment of Committee members to the communications group which was based on the Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, was also discussed. Moreover, the Secretariat’s relationship with the Advisory Committee was based on the general rules set for all other UN Committees and treaty bodies.
In the general debate on the Committee’s rules of procedure and methods of work, Committee Experts said that the Committee worked in the context of the regulations covering the Human Rights Council, there were no specific regulations governing the Advisory Committee per se. What was very important in the drafting exercise was to try and find the right level concerning everything related to rules of procedure. The document prepared gave the Committee a basis for subsequent adoption of rules of procedure. The Committee needed to base itself on the rules that already existed in various United Nations bodies and especially the Human Rights Council.
In the debate on the right to food, which started yesterday, Committee Experts and others thanked the drafting group for the work they had achieved on the right to food. There was no big dispute on the subject of the right to food, and it was well established why the crisis existed right now. There had been uprisings in 33 countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa as a result of the rising food prices, which was a matter of life and death to the people affected. The right to food and the range of rights required for its full exercise was affirmed in a range of international instruments.
Advisory Committee Experts speaking this morning included Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Jean Ziegler, Purificacion V. Quisumbing, Vladimir Kartashkin, Mona Zulficar, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Latif Huseynov, Shiqiu Chen, Chinsung Chung, and Shigeki Sakamoto.
Also speaking on the right to food were the delegates of the Czech Republic, Brazil, Bolivia and Mexico. Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Food and Agriculture Organization also took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development and Indian Council of South America.
The Committee will reconvene at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon to continue its discussion on its rules of procedure and methods of work.
Discussion on Right to Food
DEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there was no big dispute on the subject of the right to food. It was well established why the crisis existed right now. He congratulated Mr. Ziegler on his pioneering work on this subject. He wondered whether or not the Committee’s report should make reference to Mr. de Schutter’s report. This would show the Committee’s awareness of this report. Looking at the conclusion, Mr. Seetulsingh said that Mr. Ziegler called on the Human Rights Council to take into account the most vulnerable groups, for example landless labourers. The Committee agreed on the causes, the evil effects of speculation and in his country people were fully aware of this problem. Small farmers were discouraged about labouring the land, there was a trend to give up cultivation of land and big farmers bought up land for small prices. In Mauritius, small farmers became brokers for goods imported from China. There was also a big trade of second hand goods. Mauritius was a small country and it once thought to engage in the production of ethanol from sugar cane. Fortunately, this project was not realized.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, thanked all the members of the drafting group for carrying out the study. The right to food was a problem which demonstrated that oil and cereals were products of strategic interest. The countries in the international system as a whole were affected by this, where according to UN studies 100,000,000 people were suffering as a result of this crisis. The food challenge was a challenge of the twenty-first century, she stressed. Quite recently there had been uprisings in 33 countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa as a result of the rising food prices, which was a matter of life and death to the people affected. Measures needed to be taken at the country levels. It was necessary for markets to be restructured at the regional level; a market reform structure was one way to achieve this, allowing market transparency to take place. Markets needed to promote competition and best guarantees for consumption.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, in a joint statement, said that the right to food and the range of rights required for its full exercise, was affirmed in a range of international instruments. Indigenous Resource Development strongly supported the recommendations of the Advisory Committee‘s drafting group on the right to food, in particular the recommendation that the implementation of the concept of food sovereignty should be considered. Food sovereignty for indigenous people was affirmed as a precondition for food security in the Declaration of Atitlan from the first indigenous peoples’ global consultation on the right to food and food sovereignty in Guatemala in 2002. This Declaration also affirmed that food sovereignty was a collective right based on rights to their lands, territories and natural resources, the practice of their cultures, languages and traditions, and was essential to their identify as peoples. They regretted to report that a range of factors, including treaty violations, failure to respect human rights including free prior and informed consent, imposed development, environment contamination and climate change were seriously impacting the right to food for indigenous peoples around the world.
KAROLINA LINDHOLM BILING, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), welcomed the Committee’s efforts to progressively develop international human rights law in a manner which enhanced the international framework for protecting the rights of those individuals whose rights were not being respected, protected or fulfilled by their home country and the Committee’s efforts to promote the implementation of existing standards, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 7/14. UNHCR welcomed the openness by which the drafting group had conducted its work, and the possibility the High Commissioner for Refugees had been given to offer advice on some particular points discussed. UNHCR looked forward to continued cooperation with the Committee, and reaffirmed its readiness to provide input, information and advice in regard to topics of relevance to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees mandate on which the Committee was working on. UNHCR was concerned about parts of the preliminary report of the drafting group on the right to food, with regard to “hunger refugees”, which mixed up asylum-seekers, refugees, migrants, persons forced to leave their homes for reasons of severe hunger and threats of starvation, as well as the legal frameworks and mechanisms for ensuring protection of those categories of persons. The report failed, among other things, to recognize that a person fleeing because his or her right to food had been seriously violated for reasons linked to one of the five grounds in the 1951 Convention refugee definition could receive refugee status.
MANZOOR AHMAD, of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), said that FAO fully affirmed its commitment to promote the right to food and the collaboration with the Advisory Committee. Since the political commitment made during the World Food Summit in 1996, a lot of work had been undertaken by the FAO regarding the right to food. One of the milestones was the adoption of the right to food guidelines by the FAO Council in 2004. FAO suggested that the Committee made specific reference to the Right to Food Guidelines as a useful, practical tool to address the numerous challenges that were raised in the report. FAO would also prefer further stress on coherence of governance of the fight against food insecurity at the international level. There was an international Committee on Food Security which had been in existence since 1974. This Committee needed to be revitalized to meet the current challenges. It could be reinforced by a network of high-level experts building on existing external advisory panels on crops, livestock, fisheries, etc. It should be supported by a global partnership on food security building on existing alliances which should be inclusive and country based.
BARBORA REPOVA (Czech Republic) thanked the Committee Experts who were part of the drafting group on the right to food for their work thus far. The current food crisis had many causes and was a complex issue as such. The Government of the Czech Republic felt that there were other more pertinent bodies to deal with this topic. They affirmed their commitment to cooperate with the Committee in fulfilling its mandate in this regard.
ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) said that this report was supposed to be a preliminary report and yet it was being discussed and amendments were being made to it. If it was to be presented in the form of recommendations to the Human Rights Council, more discussion was needed.
Brazil expressed its wish to interact with the Committee. There were weaknesses in the report concerning the balance, diagnosis and a selective use of sources. He agreed that protection was a burden and that there were cases that needed the support by the international community. Sometimes prices and distortions in international trade had to be corrected. But the report was clearly unbalanced regarding subsidies and bio-fuels, the latter had been mentioned more often. Brazil emphasized that bio-fuels were not a reason for the increase in food prices. Rising transportation costs and speculation had been the causes for this development and bio-fuels were clearly not to blame. Therefore, sugar cane should not be the subject of the report. Brazil asked from the Committee to produce a revised version of the report. Brazil reiterated that bio-fuels would raise a country out of food and energy insecurity and generated income and jobs in rural areas, as well as clean energy.
MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Bolivia) thanked Mr. Ziegler for the interesting work he had presented. Bolivia attributed great importance to the right to food. With respect to structural and financial means, Bolivia was surprised that there was no inclusion in yesterday’s statement of points from the presentation Mr. Ziegler made to the Human Rights Council on the right to food as Special Rapporteur. Bolivia recommended that the report presented by the Special Rapporteur Mr. Schutter and the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on external debt on human rights be taken into account when dealing with the issue of the right to food. A seminar in the last couple days had been held by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and it was important to have it included in this report. The Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, the fight against poverty, and external debt would greatly contribute to the preliminary report before the Advisory Committee.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he wanted to explain himself since various speakers had referred to his earlier statements. Concerning the Somalis arriving in Yemen, he specified that he had said that they was clearly a refoulement, but concerning other refugees arriving in Yemen, the Somalis were granted refugee status thanks to a special agreement. There was clearly a disaster, hunger refugees were sent back. Although Somali refugees were accepted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), others, such as Ethiopians, were rejected. Regarding Brazil, Mr. Ziegler underlined that attention was paid to precision in the working group to the Brazilian situation. The report spoke of staple foods, such as maize and rice. Brazil did not produce bio-fuel out of staple foods; sugar cane was not such a staple food. Also, the speculation was evidently a cause for the increase in food prices. That was crystal-clear.
As to hunger refugees, Mr. Ziegler said that UNHCR did not want the Committee to use the term. But the Advisory Committee was a human rights body. Mr. Ziegler understood that UNHCR had another problem to deal with, such as racism or xenophobia, also in Geneva. Mr. Guterres, the High Commissioner for Refugees, had urged the Committee not to extend the use of the term of “refugee” because it was already not used in a correct way in the European Union. However, Mr. Ziegler preferred to keep this term from a human rights perspective.
ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) said that Brazil did not say that Mr. Ziegler contradicted himself. Brazil fully understood the position of Mr. Ziegler’s paper. Sugar cane was mentioned as a staple food item in a Food and Agriculture Organization document, which was of concern to Brazil. Brazil wanted to see in written form all elements of the discussion.
KAROLINA LINDHOLM BILING, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that UNHCR was in no way opposing the development of new norms to cover gaps. The main point was to make sure to see what was already out there in terms of a strong legal framework and then identify gaps. UNHCR underlined that it was difficult to get States to agree on a new framework that would be as strong as the 1951 Geneva Convention. UNHCR had made remarks on the preliminary report because it was understood that the report would be annexed to the recommendations on the right to food.
PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, commended the drafting group for the work they had been able to complete, as the task was very big and very complex. It deserved the kind of debate that had been heard already. It was important to keep in mind that the right to food was looked at from a human rights perspective. The right to food went right into the essence of the right to life. She advised that the drafting group consider including mention of the right to life.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it was correctly stated that it was essential to prevent speculation in staples. In order to do this, it was stated that fixed prices should be established. Mr. Kartashkin questioned such a suggestion. If they were to establish fixed prices, these prices would lead to an increase in prices because products went where they were the most lucrative. Also, harvests differed from year to year and sometimes prices did not need to be increased but rather decreased. And what international body or agreement could be in charge of following such developments? In future, such an idea should be left out of the suggestions.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, thanked all who had contributed to the discussion, and the drafting group would take the comments into consideration. The drafting group and the Advisory Committee as a result of resolution 7/4 were mandated to complete this work. The work was not being completed solely by the drafting group. The work and recommendations would need to be approved by the Human Rights Council. The drafting group had not gone outside its mandate. The drafting group did not intend to undermine the existing mechanisms, and quite the contrary would reinforce the work of existing mechanisms. There had been focus on the general part of the recommendations, which were the general conceptual recommendations addressed to governments and international organizations. The drafting group’s study on the current food crisis was focused on defining the right to the food. Mention of peasants and refugees was meant to target gaps in current mechanisms to be addressed, without undermining any existing human rights instruments. This work had been extremely useful.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee Chairperson, concluding the discussion on the right to food, said that legal security also meant the creation of binding standards. New approaches were required as international development proceeded. In particular in the last eight years, international development had worsened instead of developing in a positive way. They could speak about soft law in the United Nations, non-binding-law, and they needed to think about the fact that sometimes if something changed the original was weakened. It was also clear that the creation of new standards within the United Nations had to go through a discussion process. When there was an attempt to change a binding document that meant tremendous work and could mean that if a convention was changed it was less binding later. The Committee was working in order that it could have international acceptance. The Chairperson recalled the reform of the United Nations Charter in this regard.
Document
The Human Rights Advisory Committee has before it a summary of the draft rules of procedure A/HRC/AC/2/CRP.3, which discusses the adoption of rules of procedure under part I on Organization of the Advisory Committee, which covers rules 1 and 2 on the composition and role of the Advisory Committee. Part II, focuses on the Members of the Advisory Committee, which covers rules 3 to 7 on duties of members of the Advisory Committee, incompatibility, calculation of term of office, solemn declaration and resignation. Part III, focuses on the Chair and Bureau of the Advisory Committee, which covers rules 8 to 11 on election of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the Rapporteur, functions, acting Chairperson, and bureau of the Advisory Committee. Part IV, focuses on the Appointment of Members of the Working Group on Communications, which covers rule 12 on the appointment of members of the Working Group on Communications. Part V, focuses on the Secretariat of the Advisory Committee and covers rule 13 on the secretariat and rule 14 on estimate of expenditure. Part VI, focuses on Functioning of the Advisory Committee, and covers rule 15 on the seat of the Advisory Committee, rule 16 on languages, rule 17 on submission of documents to the Advisory Committee, rule 18 on the Circulation of documents in the working languages, rule 19 on sessions, and rule 20 on the agenda. Part VII, focuses on the Participation of and Consultation with Observers, which covers rule 21 on participation of and consultation with observers. Part VIII, focuses on Public and Private Meetings, which covers rules 22 to 25 on general principles, private meetings, drafting groups and other arrangements, and hearings. Part IX, focuses on Records and Reports, which covers rules 26 and 27 on records of public and private meetings and report to the Council. Part X, focuses on Conduct of Business, which covers rules 28 to 40 on powers of the Chairperson, points of order, list of speakers, time limit on speeches, adjournment of debate, closure of debate, suspension or adjournment of the meeting, order of motions, submission of proposals and amendments, withdrawal of proposals and motions, decisions on competence, and reconsideration of proposals. Part XI, focuses on Voting, which covers rules 41 to 50, on voting rights, taking decisions by consensus, majority required, method of voting, explanation of vote, conduct during voting, division of proposals and amendments, voting on proposals, voting on amendments, and equally divided votes. Part XII, focuses on Amendments and covers rule 51 on amendments to the Rules of Procedures.
Discussion on Rules of Procedure and Methods of Work
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, introducing the document on rules of procedure and methods of work (CRP/3), said that the Advisory Committee had decided to set up a drafting group on this subject. He thanked all the members of the drafting group for their valuable contributions. When drafting rules of procedures, the status of the Advisory Committee as a subsidiary body was discussed; and the status of the independent experts who served in an independent capacity. He also suggested that the methods of work should be as flexible as possible. The organization of the Committee, position and role of the Committee, the status of the Committee and duties, with special emphasis on the independence and impartiality, the election of the chair and appointment of members to the communications group which was based on the Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, were also considered. Moreover, the Secretariat’s relationship with the Advisory Committee was based on the general rules set for other UN Committees and treaty bodies. On introducing amendments into the rules of procedure, he recommended that the Committee might add a possibility to suspend meetings in this section. The drafting group amended rule 5 on the duration of term of office, whereby the previous reading of the rule left a gap of time between appointment and end of appointment timeline, where previously Committee Experts were elected in August and terms ended in March. The amendment would address the gap between March and August in which if adopted would allow Committee Experts to continue to work in working groups until the new appointment in August.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said that it was the realm of the Advisory Committee to continue the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights regarding indigenous issues. The organization was concerned that those issues might fall through the cracks. On the rules of procedure, the organization submitted for the Committee to consider a permanent agenda item on indigenous issues. The representative also drew the attention of the Committee to a proposal to recommend to States where treaties with indigenous tribes and nations existed to include in all school curricula a course on treaties as part of on human rights education and training.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee worked in the context of the regulations covering the Human Rights Council, there were no specific regulations governing the Advisory Committee per se.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that with regard to the draft rules of procedure, the document was very substantive and allowed the Committee to make progress. The philosophy of the text was important to discuss. What was very important in the drafting exercise was to try and find the right level concerning everything related to rules of procedure. The rules of procedure for the Committee would be sandwiched between that of the Human Rights Council. From the point of view of the structural rules of procedure, some Council decisions had already been taken.
Mr. Decaux stressed the importance of looking at how the Committee worked outside the Council; it was useful to see the rules governing work with various stakeholders, to ensure clarity and deadlines. With regard to methods of work, a whole range of things fell under rules of procedure and some things needed to be spelt out. The philosophy of rules of procedure was very important. With the collective spirit it should lead the Committee Experts to fulfil their mandates. The Committee needed to be very realistic and careful in order to avoid paralyzing the work of the Committee. The Committee needed to be flexible, pragmatic, and language sensitive.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the document prepared gave the Committee a basis for subsequent adoption of rules of procedures. The Committee needed to base itself on the rules that already existed in various United Nations bodies and especially the Human Rights Council. It was not particular useful, when it came to elections, to keep the possibility of a secret vote. Should problems with elections arise, the Committee could sort them out in public voting. The Committee needed to draw the attention of the Council to issues and make recommendations and decisions. Any matter could be formulated very flexibly. The Committee needed to think over how far it was prepared to give itself this flexibility without going over the requests by the Council. The two sessions so far had shown that the Committee was only really working for three days and then had to present recommendations. Maybe the Council would grant them one or two days more. But this might go counter to the formulation of the Council. The rule that the Committee should meet for not more than 10 working days could be changed into “not less than 10 working days”. More rules of the Sub-Commission could be taken over into the rules of the Advisory Committee. For example, if Members were not able to attend a session, they should be able to send a deputy instead.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that as to the point on rule 5 on the term of office of a member elected to the Advisory Committee, she suggested that the amendment be withdrawn as it was under the privy of the Human Rights Council to decide. The Advisory Committee was responsible for conducting studies. The Committee Experts were not responsible for criticizing and examining roles of Governments. On paragraph 3 under rule 8, on the resignation of a Committee Expert, there needed to be specific reference to what geographical region the successor needed to come from, which should be the same region as his/her successor. With regard to voting rules, Ms. Warzazi, was surprised that it had been suggested that voting take place via secret ballot; it had never been this way before.
DEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, asked whether these rules of procedure would have to be submitted to the Human Rights Council. Was there the possibility of the members to appoint assistants or alternates in case they were not able to attend meetings? Independence and impartiality were already mentioned. It should not be added that instructions should not be accepted because the Human Rights Council gave instructions to the Committee.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he agreed with the Chairperson’s views that the document should be discussed, but that there should be no final decision for the time being. He joined other Committee Experts in expressing thanks to the authors of the document as well as his appreciation to them. Concerning point 43 on decisions being taken by the majority, despite others being present, perhaps the Committee should consider that mention of a Committee Expert’s presence and vote be included, because one could be present and not vote. Mr. Kartashkin mentioned that a member was able to bring an assistant to meetings, but the designation of his responsibilities to another person in his place was not acceptable. This was a policy issue that needed to be addressed.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee Chairperson, said that in the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, it was decided that there was no possibility to bring alternates. However, some members of the Sub-Commission brought assistants.
PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it was a delicate task to make a good body of rules of procedure. Experience was important, but innovation needed to take place as well. The Committee should be aware of what rules were used in other United Nations bodies. As to replacements, they should only serve for the rest of the term and should not establish a new membership of three years. Otherwise the rotation system would be confused. Regarding the solemn declaration, she thought this what not necessary at all. Ms. Quisumbing agreed that rules had to be flexible.
RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous Council of South America, said that they supported the work of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. There were ideas that needed to be recommended to the Human Rights Council that had been brought up in the Sub-Commission and could be continued. Moreover, they requested that the work started at the Seminar on Treaty Agreements, held in Alberta, Canada in 2006 be continued by the Advisory Committee. It was requested that a permanent agenda item on indigenous issues be adopted by the Committee. The Indigenous Council of South America welcomed the presented and adopted proposal by the Human Rights Council on self-determination.
JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) recalled to the Advisory Committee that it was a body of 18 experts elected by the Council and serving in their individual capacity as a think tank. He reminded the Committee that its role was to provide expertise to the Council.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she appreciated Mr. Huseynov’s work and contribution to the rules of procedure and methods of work. On the functionality of the Advisory Committee being considered a think tank, she said that this limited the functions of the Committee. She agreed with Mrs. Warzazi on rule 5. On the rule pertaining to working documents, the idea that a document would not be used unless translated into at least three languages before the Committee may consider it should be reviewed.
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, also referred to the issue of the election of a replacement for three years. He asked Mr. Huseynov what the special reasons were and why it had to be three years.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC09007E