HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES ITS WORKING METHODS
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon discussed its working methods and listened to statements on this subject by its Experts, Observer States and non-governmental organizations.
Experts of the Advisory Committee underlined the special nature of the Committee, but there were differing views on what should be done about the studies left unfinished by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Some Experts said it was important to take onboard the heritage of the former Sub-Commission. Others said it was more important to tackle as soon as possible the work entrusted to them by the Human Rights Council. Priority should be given to this work and if time permitted they should look into the work of the Sub-Commission that had been left unfinished. Experts also discussed how best to deal with the short time – 10 working days - the Council had given them to conduct their work and whether they should ask for some extra time.
In general comments, States congratulated the Experts for their election to the Committee. The role of the new body was an important one, as it was the only standing expert consultative organ under the Human Rights Council. It was noted that there was quite a lot of work awaiting the Experts. The newly created body represented a form of continuation of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, but it was also slightly different from it. It was hoped that the Advisory Committee would avoid the shortcomings of the former body. The fate of pending studies left unfinished by the former Sub-Commission was raised. The Committee should play its role according to the provisions of the resolutions of the Human Rights Council which created it.
Non-governmental organizations said that Advisory Committee was the right arm of the Human Rights Council and as such it had to tackle all the current crises. Issues like discrimination of women and discrimination against indigenous people should specifically be tackled by the Committee.
The Experts speaking this afternoon were Emmanuel Decaux, Chinsung Chung, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Purificacion Quisumbing, Vladimir Kartashkin, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Jean Ziegler, Shigeki Sakamoto, Shiqiu Chen, Wolfgang Heinz and Mona Zulficar.
Also speaking were the delegations of China, the Philippines, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Thailand, Switzerland, Japan, Argentina, Mexico and Bangladesh.
The representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: the International Movement against Discrimination and Racism and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru and the International Federation of University Women.
When the Advisory Committee meets at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 August, it is scheduled to discuss its programme of work. The meeting tomorrow will take place in Room XVII.
General Discussion
ZHOU XIANFENG (China) congratulated the Experts of the Advisory Committee on their election and the holding of the first session of the Advisory Committee. China attached great importance to the work of this Committee, its role as a think tank was important for the work of the Human Rights Council. The Committee was the only standing expert consultative organ under the Human Rights Council; its role was thus very important. China was also glad to note that the Experts came from different parts of the world, representing a broad range of cultural backgrounds.
JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) expressed the confidence of the Philippines that the meetings of the Advisory Committee would be productive. The Advisory Committee was a significant step forward in the institution building by the Council with the goal of establishing effective mechanisms. As its first organizational task, the Advisory Committee should be given at least tentative deadlines. The Committee should also determine whether tasks should be dealt with in smaller groups. The Committee should focus on the tasks given by the Council.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, congratulated all the Experts for their election to the Committee. The African Group was aware that there was quite a lot of work awaiting the Advisory Committee. The African Group had always supported the work of the Sub-Commission; its achievements had been tremendous. The newly created body represented a form of continuation of the Sub-Commission, but it was also slightly different from the former body. The African Group hoped that the Advisory Committee would avoid the shortcomings the Sub-Commission had experienced.
LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said that the Advisory Committee’s work should be implementation-oriented and a set of practical issues pertaining to the mandate of the Council should be discussed. The Advisory Committee should establish an interactive dialogue with national human rights organizations, non-governmental organizations and other civil society entities. Also, the Advisory Committee should determine a specific timeframe for its tasks. This timeframe should not be too long and should be practical and realistic.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that Switzerland, as host country for the Human Rights Council, wanted to congratulate the members of the Advisory Committee for holding their first session. Switzerland was also pleased to see that the Committee had already looked at a balance between genders while taking its first decision, as it had applied a gender dimension when electing its Bureau members. A long list of tasks awaited the Experts. Civil society would be an important interlocutor in much of the upcoming work. Given the current context of the food crisis, Switzerland believed that special importance should be given to this issue. Jean Ziegler, the former Special Rapporteur on the right to food, had made a great contribution to this issue.
AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said that Japan attached great importance to the work of the Advisory Committee and hoped it would be able to play its role effectively according to the provisions of the resolution of the Human Rights Council which created it.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert and Rapporteur, underlined the special nature of the Advisory Committee and said that it was important to take on board the heritage of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The Advisory Committee needed to extract what was best from the Sub-Commission and they had to work in a collegial manner. As they were a body of 18 members, they were stronger than a single Special Rapporteur. Although their respective mandates were especially short, it did not mean that they could not have coherence in their work.
Another concern was that the Committee Experts had to be efficient. Their aim was not to draw studies for their own sake, but to further improve human rights worldwide. It was important for them to tackle the work entrusted to them by the Human Rights Council as soon as possible. It was also important for them to have a look at all the existing human rights instruments. This general overview could be an important exercise for the benefit of everyone, especially 15 years after the Vienna Conference.
Concerning the methods of work, it was very important for the Experts to work in an interactive manner. Mr. Decaux said he looked forward to get many contributions from a broad range of stakeholders. It was however a bit upsetting to see that the whole first week was reserved for organizational issues; they had to move as fast as possible to substantive work.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said concerning that there were three stages concerning the unfinished studies of the former Sub-Commission: they could be at the start of a study, in the middle or in the final stage of preparing a study. The Advisory Committee should request the Human Rights Council to take the appropriate steps on the various pending studies. Unfinished studies should be finished.
PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, urged the Committee to consider as a priority the issues and topics that had been assigned to it by the Council. Everything else should be secondary. Tasks left aside by the Sub-Commission should be taken up later on. The Committee should first bring results to the Council. National human rights institutions should also be actively invited to come and share what they saw on the ground.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Advisory Committee was facing a difficult task. Unlike the Sub-Commission which created work for itself by proposing studies, the Advisory Committee’s situation was new from a legal point of view. When trying to determine the amount of work it should do, the Committee should look at what could realistically be done. He drew attention to the fact that a third of the members had been elected for only one year, another third only for two years and only six for three years. Therefore the volume of work, especially during the first year, could not be big.
Mr. Kartashkin noted that he would like to continue working on his own work that he had submitted earlier, but he judged this as unrealistic. The Advisory Committee should now listen to the Human Rights Council and focus on the following issues: education, role of women, rights of persons with disabilities, food, and missing persons. He suggested distributing the issues among the Experts of the Committee. If there were volunteers, they could have additional work.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, wanted to draw the attention of the members of the Committee to a request by the Human Rights Council which they could simply not respond to. According to Council Resolution 6/10 the Advisory Committee had to do a report that had to be presented at the Council’s March session. How could someone present a draft progress report, when they were first requested to carry out consultations with all relevant stakeholders? They had to first discuss who to meet and when. The Chairman was asked to look into this matter.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it was unacceptable that the Advisory Committee only had one meeting a year for only ten days. The Advisory Committee should have an additional meeting in March, December or January. The decision to such an additional meeting should be taken now, because it would take four to five weeks to invite, for example, UNHCR experts from the protection division to a meeting on refugees or on the hunger situation. A special session was needed to focus on such an issue. This issue should be discussed now, because this determined the rhythm and the importance of the Committee.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina was particularly happy to take part in the first meeting of the Advisory Committee. As its predecessor, the role of the Advisory Committee was an important one. The Sub-Commission had carried out very important work in several areas, such as on the issue of involuntary disappearances. With regard to the lack of time to finish reports, Argentina noted that Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 included the right for Committee Experts to take initiatives and make substantive propositions to the Council.
JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said that apart from the institution building, there was also room for initiative from the Advisory Committee. As the representative from Argentina had already said, there were possibilities for research in certain areas, apart from the tasks and studies that the Advisory Committee received from the Council. The Advisory Committee’s mandate must be a broad one.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that Bangladesh had no doubt that the Committee had taken the right choice in electing the present President. Bangladesh was also happy to note the mixed composition of the body, as some of its current members had been members of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This would strengthen the work of this renewed body. The former Sub-Commission had worked as a think-tank for the Commission; it had undertaken studies that had helped in norm-settings. The Advisory Committee should continue on the same line. Further, the Advisory Committee had to faithfully implement the tasks entrusted onto it by the Council, but Experts should be free in deciding the methods of work of the Committee.
Concerning the programme of work, Bangladesh supported that the mandate given by the Council was of first importance. If the Committee Experts felt that they were not able to do some of their work in the given timeframe, the Council should understand the logic. While taking resolutions, the Council could not always foresee time requirements. The Advisory Committee could also submit an interim report.
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, pointed out the unique character of the Advisory Committee. They had new mandates, new methods and new functions, which were different from the Sub-Commission. On the other hand, there was a substantial body of various studies in varying stages from the Sub-Commission. Those reports could now be tackled by the Advisory Committee that had new members with good ideas and old members with a lot of experience.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, asked what they should do about the unfinished reports of the Sub-Commission. He proposed that the Secretariat should put forward a list of all the unfinished reports of the Sub-Commission, so as to see what they could do and take over the work, maybe based on the importance of the subject.
WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, underlined the importance of an in-depth look at the state of the studies which had already been started by the former Sub-Commission. After a report on the status, a decision had to be taken on which of the studies should be continued. There was no necessity that the Advisory Committee followed-up on every study. Whether a study should be continued or not should be decided according to the topic and the personnel available.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, turning to the question of additional meetings, asked the Chairman if he had rightly understood that they depended on the Human Rights Council in order to have more days, because it was one of its resolutions that had established the maximum length of meetings and that it was the task of the Bureau to decide whether a request for more time should be submitted to the Council.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, President of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, answered that the Bureau was not able to take a decision of substance on the issue of the length of the session. Further, it would be difficult to ask the Council for more time, right at the end of their first session. They should first have a broad discussion before taking such a decision for a request.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, reminded the Committee that having an advisory role did not mean not having any influence. She said that priorities had to be considered carefully since less time and resources were available. The urgency of the studies had to be taken into account and the decisions should clearly be action-oriented. The methods should be reconsidered and focused on inducing change. Ms. Zulficar proposed the method of model laws that could be helpful for countries to adopt, as well as live cases of victims.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in her view the first thing to do was to take up the tasks entrusted to them by the Council. It would be difficult to take up the work done by other persons. After taking up the work entrusted to them by the Council, they should then decide over important issues the Advisory Committee should tackle. Only then, and if time allowed, they should have a look at the Sub-Commission’s unfinished studies.
GEORGINA STEVENS, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), said that one of the key criteria for judging the success of this new body must be whether this new architecture ensured that existing work to address gaps in the protection and promotion of human rights was not undermined or neglected in the transition. The Movement therefore urged the Advisory Committee to address the pending work of the former Sub-Commission, clarifying for the Council the state of completion of each of the studies listed in the report of the final 58th session of the Sub-Commission. The Advisory Committee should indicate its recommendations to the Human Rights Council and ensure appropriate follow-up on this completed work.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said that they felt that the Advisory Committee was the right arm of the Human Rights Council. The elected President had a long history in defending indigenous people. The Committee needed to reconsider the work that had not been concluded by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Further, there were currently mushrooming crises: there was the global food crisis, the housing crisis, the environmental crisis, the oil crisis and others. A response was needed to these. One could not talk about civil and political rights if people had no food or housing. The Committee could provide very important advice to the Human Rights Council on these matters.
Turning to the problem of racism and racial discrimination against indigenous people, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru said that it was far from being over. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had not solved any of the problems linked to indigenous people. It was absolutely vital for Governments to implement the Declaration; it could not remain a dead letter. Governments had to put its provisions into practice and respect them.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of the International Federation of University Women, clarified that human rights were only a basic common denominator and that dominating paradigms had to be taken into account such as gender or globalization. She called attention to a working paper by Ms. Cheng written for the Social Forum on gender discrimination. Regarding gender discrimination there were five aspects that had to be considered: access, opportunity, treatment, accessibility and choice. All five elements had to be in place at the same time, because one could not be available without the other. She reminded the Committee that gender equality had to be the goal of the process since globalization had a negative impact on women’s access to education and the labour market.
JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they were facing a huge intellectual challenge while starting the work of the Committee and wondered where the heart of the Committee lay. Looking at history, when this body had been created, it had had a rather clear mandate; it had been set up in order to fight discrimination. It had been a pillar in the prevention of discrimination. The name of the mandate of the Sub-Commission had later been changed into “promotion and protection of human rights”, this had launched the idea of the indivisibility of rights. Many studies had been done on the aspect of prevention by the Sub-Commission. But where did the Advisory Committee’s center lie? This Committee could not be like an Internet search engine where one entered a request or a question and the Committee reacted to it. There was a need for a clear framework. It was felt that it was important to set time aside in order to have an interactive dialogue on the development of human rights. There was a need for an agile and efficient agenda. They could not simply react to incoming demands. The Experts were urged to have an in-depth reflection about their own Committee.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, President of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that the sphere of competence of the Advisory Committee was well defined: the thematic field was the same as the Council’s field. Regarding the decision on studies that had already been started, the Committee’s decision would have to be backed up by the Council. Apart from that, the question had to be answered who would conclude those studies. Could that be someone who used to be a Member of the Sub-Commission but was not a Member of the Advisory Committee? Mr. Martinez reminded the Committee that there was not much room to maneuver since 10 days was not much time and financial resources were needed as well. Since there was limited time, there had to be a limited range of issues.
VLADIMIR KARTASHIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they should first decide on how they would respond to the requests of the Council to submit a report to it by March and send two draft resolutions. Further, they could not only limit themselves to the work the Council asked them to do, the Advisory Committee also had to look at all the work done by the Council. Thus, they should get facilitated access to all the documents produced by the Human Rights Council.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC08003E