HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPENS FIRST SESSION
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning held the first meeting of its first session by hearing statements by the Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the Human Rights Council and by electing its Chairperson and Bureau officers.
The 18-member Advisory Committee elected Miguel Alfonso Martinez from Cuba as Chairperson. Elected as Vice-Chairpersons were Mona Zulficar from Egypt; Vladimir Kartashkin from the Russian Federation and Chung Chinsung from the Republic of Korea. Also elected as Rapporteur was Emmanuel Decaux of France.
Kyung-Wha Kang, Acting United Nations High-Commissioner for Human Rights, said that it gave her a great pleasure to open the first session of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. Today marked a significant step forward in realizing and completing the Council’s institution-building process. It was also an important moment for the international community as this new human rights mechanism charted its future course within the United Nations’ comprehensive human rights system. Addressing the Experts, Ms. Kang said that, over the course of the next two weeks, they would have an arduous task to undertake as they laid the foundations and developed the working methods to enable this new body to effectively provide expert advice and perform the required “think-tank” functions for the Council.
Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, President of the Human Rights Council, underlined that the Committee had to work as an independent expert body. He mentioned a number of specific requests which the Council had already made to the Committee. Further solicitations would follow and the President was convinced that the Advisory Committee would contribute to the advancement of these expectations by providing an independent and objective point of view. The Advisory Committee had to be mindful of the legacy of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It had left behind a substantial body of studies of varying status. Suggestions as to how these studies should be addressed by the Council would be of great value.
Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that he was very moved at the trust that had been placed in him by the various groups. Being the first Chair of this new body in the hypersensitive area of human rights was a great privilege for him. This was the most emotionally moving experience he had had. The difficulties lying before this body were crystal clear for him. This body was in some way a continuation of the Sub-Commission but, at the same time, it could not be a simple carrying over of the former body. They could not address issues not pertaining to the Council’s mandate but they could still single out areas that they felt were important for the Council to tackle.
Pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, composed of 18 experts, was established to provide expertise in the manner and form requested by the Council, focusing mainly on studies and research-based advice. The Advisory Committee replaces the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whose main functions were to undertake studies on human rights issues and to make recommendations concerning the prevention of discrimination of any kind and the protection of minorities.
The scope of the Advisory Committee’s advice is limited to thematic issues pertaining to the mandate of the Council, namely, the promotion and protection of all human rights. The Committee is not mandated to adopt resolutions or decisions, but may propose to the Council, within the scope of its work as set out by the Council, suggestions for further enhancing its procedural efficiency, as well as further research proposal within the scope of the work set out by the Council. Member States and observers, including States that are not members of the Council, the specialized agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations, shall be entitled to participate in the work of the Advisory Committee based on arrangements and practices observed by the Commission on human rights and the Council. The Advisory Committee is empowered to convene up to two sessions for a maximum of 10 working days per year.
Speaking in general statements this morning were the delegations of Indonesia and India.
The Advisory Committee is scheduled to reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its work and discuss its working methods.
Opening Statements
KYUNG-WHA KANG, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that it gave her a great pleasure to open the first session of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. Today marked a significant step forward in realizing and completing the Council’s institution-building process. It was also an important moment for the international community as this new human rights mechanism charted its future course within the United Nations’ comprehensive human rights system.
Addressing the Experts, Ms. Kang said that, over the course of the next two weeks, they would have an arduous task to undertake as they laid the foundations and developed the working methods to enable this new body to effectively provide expert advice and perform the required “think-tank” functions for the Council.
Recalling a few key elements guiding the framework of the Experts’ work, Ms. Kang noted that the Advisory Committee was to provide the Council with expertise focusing mainly on studies and research-based advice upon the Council’s request and under its guidance. The Council also had decided that the Advisory Committee should be implementation-oriented and that the scope of its advice should be limited to thematic issues pertaining to the mandate of the Council, namely the promotion and protection of all human rights. It might also propose, for the Council’s consideration and approval, suggestions for further enhancing the Council’s procedural efficiency as well as further research proposals, within the scope of the work set out by the Council.
As was the case with any new body, the Advisory Committee was met with high expectations from all sides: the Council, civil society, victims of human rights violations and all stakeholders, in particular those who had been actively involved in the work of its predecessor, the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. In building this new body, one should reflect upon and refer to the work of the Sub-Commission. Ms. Kang said she was confident that this new body would not only draw lessons from the challenges and difficulties faced by the Sub-Commission, but would also build on its strengths and achievements with a view to enhancing the human rights system at large.
One such strength had been the Sub-Commission’s contribution to standard-setting and the development of international human rights law. Ms. Kang highlighted that it had helped to elaborate international treaties and instruments. It was thus encouraging to note that this important function would continue as the Advisory Committee had already been tasked, by the Council, to prepare a draft declaration on human rights education and training and to formulate a draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Another strength of the Sub-Commission had been its ability to address relevant contemporary and evolving human rights needs. It was also encouraging to note that the Advisory Committee had been requested by the Council to consider potential recommendations, for its approval, on possible further measures to enhance the realization of the right to food. In light of the gravity and scale of the global food crisis, the request was not only timely but also of crucial importance. A further strength of the Sub-Commission had been its unique characteristic as a forum for the voice of civil society organizations. This characteristic had been preserved by the Council and the Advisory Committee was urged to establish interaction with a broad range of stakeholders.
Ms. Kang said that it had to be recognized that the Human Rights Council had built upon the work of the Sub-Commission and had ensured the continuation, and the strengthening, of a number of its mechanisms, mandates and studies. The Council had thus established several mandates and new mechanisms to continue the important work of the Sub-Commission. The Council had also adopted resolutions which requested further action on various studies and documents that had remained pending before the Sub-Commission.
Ms. Kang said that it was now in the hands of the Experts to propose to the Council any other pending studies and mandates of the Sub-Commission that should be concluded or completed in the course of their future work. The fast changing and evolving world presented new human rights challenges and made existing ones more pressing. To effectively address these challenges, the Council had been requested to review, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission.
Ms. Kang was confident that the Committee would greatly benefit from the variety of expertise, experiences and backgrounds that were residing among its members. The Committee could thus become an effective and efficient “think-tank” and could provide expert advice to assist the Human Rights Council. As the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be celebrated on 10 December 2008, everyone had to renew their commitment to the Universal Declaration’s ideals and principles of justice and equality for all.
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI, President of the Human Rights Council, recalled Kofi Annan’s words on 19 June 2006 saying that human rights constituted the third of the three pillars on which all the work of the United Nations must be based. It was to address the urgent lacuna in the global human rights system that the UN General Assembly established the Human Rights Council as a replacement for the Commission on Human Rights. Now, the Council must be marked by a break from the culture of naming and shaming, of aggressive inquiry and name calling, of finger pointing in all directions that seemingly pointed nowhere – hallmarks which characterized the era of the Commission.
Mr. Uhomoibhi outlined the main elements and achievements of the Human Rights Council as the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, the Special Procedures and the new mechanisms created by the Human Rights Council. The success of the Universal Periodic Review predicated upon the willingness of Member States to abide by its provisions and to uphold the principles of universality, periodicity, inclusiveness and its cooperative nature.
The mandates that had been transferred to the Council by the Commission were subject to review, rationalization and improvement, a process which had just about reached an advanced stage of completion. Also new mandates had been created and the Council now adhered to new modalities for the appointment of mandate holders.
New mechanisms had been created, such as the Social Forum that was due to meet at the beginning of next month. Also, the expert mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be convened in October, while the Forum on Minority Issues would meet in December 2008. These mechanisms were now directly accountable to the Council which gave them more leverage and significance. This changed the individual status of the Working Groups of the Sub-Commission into veritable organs of the Council.
The President underlined that the Council had to work as an independent expert body. He mentioned a number of specific requests which the Council had already made. Further solicitations would follow and the President was convinced that the Advisory Committee would contribute to the advancement of these expectations by providing an independent and objective point of view.
The President reminded the Advisory Committee to be mindful of the legacy of the Sub-Commission. It had left behind a substantial body of studies of varying status. Suggestions as to how these studies should be addressed by the Council would be of great value.
The President concluded by drawing attention to the various human rights commemorations taking place this year. He encouraged Member States, civil society and members of the Advisory Committee to reflect on where they stood at the universal level concerning the implementation of human rights and to which areas they needed to devote further attention.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that he was very moved at the trust that had been placed in him by the various groups. Being the first Chair of this new body in this hypersensitive area of human rights was a great privilege for him. This was the most emotionally moving experience he had had. He was committed to the task in an objective and realistic fashion. It was not the first time that he was chairing a United Nations body. He felt that it was important for the Chairperson to represent all schools of thought. The difficulties lying before this body were crystal clear for him. This body was in some way a continuation of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights but, at the same time, it could not be a simple carrying over of the former body. One needed to be realistic about the fact that it was not an easy exercise; it was a complex task. He hoped that at the end of the second week, others could say “Alfonso has done his work”.
Turning to this morning’s speeches, Mr. Martinez said that they had provided great food for thought. It was not entirely right to say that the Advisory Committee was not going to have any initiatives. Nobody said that they could not enjoy this right, and this had been cleared up in the statement by the Acting High Commissioner; they could work and they could produce as many recommendations as they liked. They could not however address issues not pertaining to the Council’s mandate but they could still single out areas that they felt were important for the Council to tackle.
Concerning their working methods, Mr. Martinez noted that they had 10 working days at their disposal per year. One matter to discuss was whether they wanted to meet two weeks in a row or if they should meet twice a year for one week. Further, although they had many benchmarks and reference points they could refer upon, rules of procedures governing their work such as speaking times were also needed.
Mr. Alfonso Martinez said that he was very eager to work with his colleagues and underscored that they had to stand together in their work.
General Statements
WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said after congratulating the elected members of the Bureau that the Advisory Committee would serve as a think tank to the Human Rights Council and would take up issues like the right to food, education, leprosy and missing persons. Since the world faced a major food crisis, preparing principles and guidelines on the right to food was crucial. Indonesia hoped that in its work, the Advisory Committee would provide useful instruments for the provision of human rights.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) congratulated the Chairperson and the Bureau members for their election. India was confident that this important body would thus have a smooth beginning. It was very important to have an effective human rights advice mechanism. The Council had already identified several tasks to be tackled by the Advisory Committee. As a think-tank, the Advisory Committee should have flexible methods of work and be open to other stakeholders. One should guard from overloading the Advisory Committee. Turning to the pending work before the Sub-Commission, India said that the Council was issuing the specific guidelines of the Advisory Committee and it was for the Council to decide which pending issues of the Sub-Commission should be taken on board by the Advisory Committee.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC08002E