HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DEBATE ON THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM, DISCUSSES WORK FORMAT OF PANELS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, during which many speakers raised concerns relating to the speakers’ lists and the translation of documents into the six official languages of the United Nations. It then held a panel discussion on objectives and modalities of panels, during which speakers stressed the importance of panels and the need to continue to utilize them as an instrument to provide detailed information, build consensus and provide action-oriented solutions to the challenges the Council faced.

Speakers in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review said that the Universal Periodic Review proved to be a useful mechanism which brought the protection and promotion of human rights to the forefront in both domestic and international agendas. Speakers expressed concerns over the lack of translated texts in the official languages of the United Nations, which was a major handicap to the Universal Periodic Review process, and that the process to be registered onto the speakers’ lists was daunting and ineffective. Both States participating in the dialogue and the States under review must refrain from politicizing the questions and recommendations put forward as this seriously undermined the objectives of the Universal Periodic Review. For the Universal Periodic Review to be of great value, it was necessary to ensure follow-up and to gage and access progress on the recommendations that were accepted. It was also important that the role of civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights was recognized and respected. A speaker suggested that in the absence of a clear response to the recommendations, the Universal Periodic Review for those States should be regarded as incomplete.

Speaking in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism were Ukraine, Japan, Slovenia, Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan, China, Turkey, Georgia, Austria, Organisation Internationale de la francophonie, Denmark, United States, Sri Lanka, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Colombia, Chad, Armenia and Morocco.

A representative of the National Human Rights Institution of the Philippines took the floor as did the following non-governmental organizations: Arab Commission for Human Rights, United Nations Watch, Commission to Study the Organization for Peace, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Service for Human Rights, Jubilee Campaign, World Peace Council, Amnesty International and Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru.

Sri Lanka spoke in a right of reply.

Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, President of the Human Rights Council, introducing the panel discussion on the objectives and modalities of panels, said it was his belief that this modality was useful, and could be utilized more often than was the case in the Council's regular sessions. By the end of this session, the Council would have had five panel discussions. The use of panels as an instrument of furthering the work in the Council was characterized by two main objectives: the enhancement of dialogue; and the purpose to achieve mutual understanding. The participation of panellists, therefore, would aim at providing the elements of the discussion, with a view to facilitate, in the future, an informed mutual understanding. The ideal outcome of a panel was to enhance mutual understanding of an issue/subject. It did not necessarily lead to the adoption of a formal document with an agreed text.

In the discussion on objectives and modalities of panels, speakers wished for a more innovative organization of panels so that real interaction would be possible. Speakers observed that the number of panels was increasing and noted that maintaining a manageable amount of panels during one term was necessary. There was a need to ensure equitable regional and gender-balanced representation of panels. Panels were convened to give more visibility to one issue but the results were mixed: some panels received much attention with long speakers’ lists and others less. Therefore, the criteria of the convening of panels should be reviewed. The guiding principle on the convening of panels should be the broadening of the understanding of a specific issue and should not be a precursor to future action. Two years from now, when the Council would revise the institution-building text, it would define what issues would be debated and who should be chosen as a panellist.

Speaking on the objectives and modalities of panels were Czech Republic, Philippines, India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Switzerland, Senegal, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, United States, and Algeria. A Representative of the non-governmental organization Arab Commission for Human Rights also spoke.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Monday, 15 June, when it is scheduled to first hear an address by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, and then take up its agenda item on follow-up to Special Sessions.

General Debate on Universal Periodic Review

SVITLANA HOMANOVSKA (Ukraine) said States under review should use a more analytical approach to the situation in the field of human rights in the country, and should pay more attention in their national reports to the impact of the relevant national institutions’ activities, or adopted legislation on the protection and promotion of human rights. During the session of the Working Group, the possibility of participating in the interactive dialogue should be given to all delegations, and their recommendations should be included in the report; this would provide universality of the Review including in terms of State participation. During the adoption of the final reports, priority should be given to those countries which wished to declare their position with regard to unaccepted recommendations.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said that Japan appreciated that the Universal Periodic Review had stimulated active interactive dialogues on each country’s human rights situation through five Working Group sessions so far and corresponding discussions in plenary sessions. At the same time, there were some issues or challenges which needed to be addressed appropriately, such as the translation of reports and the excessive registration on speakers’ lists. Taking into account the universality enshrined in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, Japan was of the view that the reports adopted at the Universal Periodic Review Working Group should in principle be translated into all official United Nations languages.

BOSTJAN JERMAN (Slovenia) said that the Universal Periodic Review process was now in full swing and had proven to be, if not perfect, nevertheless a very important mechanism for non-selective assessment of the human rights situations in United Nations Member States. However, to fulfil the expectations, all States had to be genuinely committed to its objectives and principles. For real progress in human rights situations on the ground some further improvements would be beneficial. During the fourth and fifth sessions of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review the delegation of Slovenia – as many others – could not make oral statements with regard to States under review due to long lists of States wishing to present their statements. Consequently, Slovenia’s questions and recommendations to these States were not reflected in the Working Group reports, despite the fact that the delegation of Slovenia had sent written statements to the secretariat. Slovenia was of the opinion that in such cases the Universal Periodic Review process was proceeding against the principles and objectives set out in the Council’s resolution 5/1, especially the principles of objectivity, non-selectivity and equal treatment of all States.

KIM PIL-WOO (Republic of Korea) said the Universal Periodic Review had given all an unprecedented opportunity to take stock of the human rights situation in their entirety in 80 countries. The Council decided to set up a single Universal Periodic Review Working Group - this was the right decision in order to offer the States under Review the insightful advice and recommendations of as many countries as possible, while ensuring equal treatment, universality and transparency in the Universal Periodic Review interactive dialogue. It was regretful that there was a situation where many delegations were not able to make their contributions either in the Working Group or in plenary. Various possibilities to remedy this were suggested, including inviting all delegations taking the floor to tackle directly their main points, comments or recommendations, avoiding time-consuming routine introductory remarks.

EMIL AGHAAHMADOV (Azerbaijan) said that from its own experience and after having served seven times as a troika member, Azerbaijan could say that one of the main difficulties the Council faced was how to include all views, remarks and recommendations within the existing word limit. The word limit for the replies for recommendations was another topic that needed to be discussed. In Azerbaijan’s opinion, the existing word limit created difficulties for the State under review to fully express its opinion on the recommendations, especially to those that did not enjoy its support. Another of the concerns was the fact that 13 of the reports adopted by the Working Group at its fourth session including Azerbaijan’s had not been translated into all United Nations official languages. Difficulties in inscription to the list of speakers were another concern that needed to be resolved.

KE YOUSHENG (China) said that China congratulated all the States, including China, who successfully completed the Universal Periodic Review at this session, as each Member States demonstrated a serious and constructive attitude in doing so. Up until now the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had been conducted smoothly, and in order to ensure its positive development, relevant sides needed to abide by the principle of objectivity. This process could be improved; however, there were many causes including the situation at present on the issue of inscribing to the list of speakers, in which this procedure was decided by consensus in the Council, and thus was not the secretariat’s mistake in this regard. China wanted to look at this issue in a more positive manner, and said that sometimes some people who could not be inscribed on the speakers list blamed the secretariat which was not fair as it was not their fault. With regard to some interns who tried to get on the speakers list, China said that they respected their work and that they were hard working. The most important thing for all was to remain objective, fair, and not to try to politicise the issues; this should be discussed in a positive and objective manner. In terms of the translation of reports, this was also a concern, China said, and it was hoped that it would be addressed as soon as possible.

FAITH ULUSOY (Turkey) said the Universal Periodic Review proved itself to be a useful mechanism through which the protection and promotion of human rights came to the forefront in the domestic and international agendas. Besides raising awareness on human rights issues, it had created a positive working environment in which States extended voluntary commitments and discussed their challenges in a self-critical manner. It was crucial to maintain the sense of ownership - the continuation of positive and constructive engagement, non-selectivity and prevention of politicisation of the process were key to that end. In order to improve the effectiveness of the process, attention should be paid to its follow-up and the implementation of the recommendations. For those solutions where the institution-building text did not include any provision, the international community should be able to work together and produce solutions in a flexible manner.

LLIA IMNADZE (Georgia) said that it was an unquestionable fact that any State under review had the freedom to reject any recommendations, but to Georgia’s strong belief, the rejection should be correct and legally justified. Georgia was pleased that its vision regarding this issue was also shared by the representatives of some honorable States. Secondly, midnight queuing to be registered on the unofficial list of speakers outside of the United Nations building during this session deprived Georgia of the right and chance to make a statement. This was a violation of principles of universality and objectivity. A vivid example of double standards was when a State that had no pledges and commitments when it became a member of this Council, on one hand in general supported the principle of territorial integrity and fight against separatism, and on the other hand, undermined the territorial integrity of Georgia and supported separatism and forced half a million of Georgians to become internally displaced persons.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said that the Universal Periodic Review had proved its universal character with 50 States reviewed thus far. Already the process of compiling national reports had in many cases started fruitful dialogues on a wide range of human rights issues within the respective States and between Governments and civil society organizations, thereby re-invigorating public debate and States’ efforts in living up to their human rights obligations. The national reports, as well as the compilations and summaries provided by the Secretariat proved to be valuable sources of information and had given a clear picture of the human rights situation in the States under review. Austria thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work in this regard. Austria also thanked national as well as international human rights non-governmental organizations for their often informative and helpful contributions. Austria renewed its call on all States to take all necessary steps to implement the recommendations and pledges expeditiously and to voluntarily report on their efforts to the Human Rights Council and the wider public as early as possible.

LIBERE BARARUNYERETSE, of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, said this mechanism was intended to carry out a universal periodic review on the basis of objective, reliable information on how each State complied with its duties in human rights in order to ensure universality in action and equal treatment for each State. It was an enterprise based on dialogue and cooperation and the involvement of the country under consideration. There was concern for the growing problem with regards to multilingualism - the lack of translated texts was a major handicap to the Review process. Everything should be implemented to resolve this situation, which was a major handicap to the work of the Council.

ARNOLD SHIBSTED (Denmark) said that Denmark was increasingly concerned with what it saw as attempts by some countries to undermine the Universal Periodic Review process as well as to undermine the universality of human rights. It was of utmost important that the State under review addressed all recommendations in an objective manner and with due respect for the universality of all human rights. Both States participating in the dialogue and the States under review must refrain from politicizing the questions and recommendations put forward as this might seriously undermine the objectives of the Universal Periodic Review. All States under review had the right to reject any recommendations. However, Denmark encouraged all States to only do so after serious consideration. Further, any rejection of a recommendation should be based on the content and not the source of that recommendation.

MARK CASSAYRE (United States) said that the spirit of the Universal Periodic Review – indeed the Human Rights Council as a whole – was to alleviate suffering by examining and resolving human rights abuses as they occurred worldwide. The United States was hopeful about the prospects of the Universal Periodic Review process, and encouraged by the example set by many Governments that had undertaken the review process with the utmost respect, seriousness of purpose, and sincerity. If implemented objectively and with maximum transparency and active non-governmental organizations participation, the Universal Periodic Review could become a useful mechanism in the Council for monitoring adherence to human rights obligations. The process encouraged all to work more closely with non-governmental organizations, to promote human rights on the ground, and to fulfil commitments to improve the ability to implement human rights obligations. The United States commended those Governments that had participated in this review with open minds and who had used this as an opportunity for serious introspection.

RAJIV WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) said the Universal Periodic Review shared some characteristics with democracy as properly understood, as it sought to empower on the basis of equality. Too often was the debate on human rights hijacked by a few, with partisan agendas, and it was salutary that the Member States had here a mechanism that enabled them to explore their strengths in all areas of human rights with a view to building on them, and to examine weaknesses in order to improve. The Council was about development through cooperation and a mechanism that avoided the tendentious finger-pointing of the self-righteous, or at least allowed for some correctives to such destructive behaviour, which was welcome. There should be a mechanism to restrain those non-governmental organizations that believed that progress was achieved by saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of context. If they could be allowed into the plenary only if they had something novel and constructive to say, perhaps much time could be saved.

MIRANDA BROWN (Australia) said that Australia was pleased that the Universal Periodic Review was now an established regular feature of the Council. Australia supported a strong and credible Universal Periodic Review mechanism which if approached in good faith would be a significant step in protecting and promoting human rights in all States. Each State’s appearance before its peers was difficult. But the Universal Periodic Review was an important mechanism through which to consider their challenges and achievements with giving effect to their human rights obligations and reflected on those they could continually improve how they went about it. Australia believed that it was important that the role of civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights was recognized and respected.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said that the United Arab Emirates welcomed the Universal Periodic Review process which was a model for States and the Human Rights Council to work from. It was important to uphold the universality of human rights. The United Arab Emirates submitted its Universal Periodic Review report with the participation of all stakeholders, and participated in all sessions in accordance with all relevant conventions and mechanisms. The Government of the United Arab Emirates aimed to improve the conditions for migrant workers and in this vein struck an agreement with the Philippines and India. The cooperation made with the Philippines and India resulted in the formation of a model law on the contractual work conditions of migrants. The United Arab Emirates planned to document best practices in this regard, and they would be circulated in Geneva. The law aimed at achieving more transparency with regard to the work and arrival of migrants in the United Arab Emirates. In addition, the Government of the United Arab Emirates also worked closely with the International Labour Organization, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in this regard.

ALVARO AYALA (Colombia) said the Universal Periodic Review was a valuable tool in the protection and promotion of human rights, allowing Governments to engage in thinking and stocktaking with regard to the domestic human rights situation, and assessing programmes and challenges. The development of the Universal Periodic Review could have a positive impact on the State under review as well as other States, helping to develop a constructive approach to different human rights situations. For the Universal Periodic Review to be of great value, it was necessary to ensure follow-up, to gage and access progress in the recommendations that were accepted. Among the progress made in Colombia following the Review was the invitation extended to four special procedures.

ANGUI AWADA (Chad) said that the Universal Periodic Review was created to improve the human rights situation and that all States adhered to that noble objective. However, two things were deplorable: concerning the registration for the speakers’ list, it had been communicated to the missions that inscription opened fifteen minutes before the beginning of the meeting. Inscription worked well the first day, but the second day another procedure had been adopted. Some States had pre-inscribed themselves. This was to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. Regarding the non-translation of documents, Chad said that in some countries languages other than English were used. In Chad for example, Government officials worked in French. The non-translation limited the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia) expressed total disagreement with the way speakers signed onto the speakers’ list. The practice applied did not conform with the principles of the United Nations and the Human Rights Council specifically, and undermined its effectiveness and legitimacy. The very success of the Universal Periodic Review process depended on States’ acceptance of flaws in the system. The Universal Periodic Review was a process which presupposed common effort and responsibility, each segment constituted a message for States that had yet to go through the process, and thus this message should be one of a positive experience.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said with regards to translation of documents, there was an imbalance in the opportunity provided to each and every delegation to have documents in their working languages, allowing for more depth in the debate, and for a substantive interactive dialogue, properly documented on the basis of official, officially-translated documents. This was starting to become endemic, and could thwart or sully the success of the Universal Periodic Review. The language rights of all Member States should be protected. The necessary financial resources should be allocated to the Human Rights Council to ensure translation of documents into all official languages.

KATHARINA ROSE, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, said that the Commission had actively engaged with treaty bodies, namely the Committees on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on Migrant Workers and the Committee against Torture. The Commission looked forward to continuing engagement by providing the perspective of the national human right institutions in the treaty reporting process. The Commission awaited the Philippine Government’s positive response to various requests for visits of the Special Rapporteurs, particularly on human rights while countering terrorism, right to adequate housing, right to food, human rights defenders and the Working Group on enforced disappearances.

ABDEL WAHAB HANI, of Arab Commission for Human Rights, welcomed the good practice of States presenting their reports under the Universal Periodic Review one year after it had been adopted. The Arab Commission for Human Rights welcomed that last March the status reports of Tunisia and Bahrain were received, and now the United Arab Emirates, and encouraged all States to follow suit. The Arab Commission for Human Rights supported the unanimous proposals made in the Council today for all reports to be made available in all the official languages of the United Nations, and urged that the Council wait to adopt the report of Israel until this State gave follow up on the recommendations made.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said today the Universal Periodic Review process was being reviewed - critics said it had failed to live up to its objectives, but it was clear that they were wrong. Evidence showed that the reviews had respected the principle to take into account the specificities of countries. The evidence also showed that reviews had followed the non-confrontational principle, and that they had respected the cooperation principle between Member States. Were the modalities of the United Nations Review of human rights records conforming to the principles set out in the institution-building package, the speaker asked, and was the system working - the answer was yes, exactly, as the majority of the Council intended it to work.

STEPHAN CICCOLI, of Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, said that States under review many a time lacked the clarity in their responses to the recommendations of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. The institution-building text was clear that the recommendations that enjoyed the support of the State concerned would be identified as such and that the other recommendations would also be noted. In the absence of a clear response to the recommendations, the Universal Periodic Review for those States could only be regarded as incomplete. The organization therefore proposed that prior to the adoption of the outcome report, States clearly identified their position on each recommendation so that this might be reflected in the outcome report to be adopted by the Council, as required by the institution-building text.

GUSTAVO GALLON, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said that the Universal Periodic Review report of Colombia in 2008 had been noted and reviewed. However there was grave concern not over the individual recommendations that had not been implemented, but towards the contradictory attitude of the Government towards human rights. A total of 16 recommendations were formulated to ensure protections of human rights as well as protections for journalists and union workers, many of whom had been murdered in 2009. Since 2004 there was an operation in place which systematically affected human rights defenders. The Government impeded a law in congress to provide compensation to victims; however victims of the armed forces were not entitled to such compensation. It was hoped that the Government of Colombia would live up to its commitments.

PETER TUBMAR, of International Service for Human Rights, said the Council established the Universal Periodic Review mechanism with the clear purpose of promoting the universality, interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights and improving the human rights situation in all countries. There was concern about sustained attempts by several States to undermine these fundamental human rights norms and standards. All States should demonstrate greater respect for the letter and spirit of the institution-building text. All States should refrain from making recommendations that contravened the principles and objectives of the process, or rejecting recommendations to comply with their existing obligations. All States should use the observations provided by the treaty bodies when framing their recommendations or answers. Clear departures in established procedural practice called into question the Council's respect for equal treatment underlying the Universal Periodic Review and violated the Council's mandate to provide for the most effective participation of all stakeholders.

TINA RAMIREZ, of Jubilee Campaign, said that it was now clear that the Universal Periodic Review failed to address the true human rights situation in the States under review. For instance, in several reports, information by non-governmental organizations was not included in the final reports. For example, a new religion law that was not considered in line with international law by several NGOs was not noted in the final report of one country. States had used the Universal Periodic Review to justify their restriction on freedom of expression. In order to bring justice to human rights victims, it was necessary that these issues were addressed by the Council.

MARIANNE LILIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said that the fifth session saw the Universal Periodic Review Working Group conduct most of the 16 reviews in a business-like manner, focusing on human rights challenges in each of the countries reviewed and on measures to address these. The discussion in the Working Group demonstrated once again that no State had a perfect human rights record, but that there was room for improvement in the human rights protection in all States. Amnesty International suggested that Ambassadors should be authorized to sign the speakers list for States. Amnesty International suspected that with this innovation, other arrangements would soon be found to address the bewildering waste of human life spent in queues to inscribe on the speakers’ lists.

LAZARO PARY, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and victims had had considerable hope for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism which could address the excess of human rights violations in too many countries, and provide solutions. However, as soon as it began, victims and civil society saw their hopes dashed, and felt they were witnessing arrangements that had already been struck, and spent their time listening to pre-agreed issues. There was a need for objective and critical analyses of the entire human rights situation around the world - this did not mean to ignore human rights situations around the world, or that States that committed crimes could pass through the Universal Periodic Review without criticism or comment. The lack of transparency in the Working Group was hard to reconcile with the resolution establishing the Review process. The Council should apply resolution 1996/31 of the Economic and Social Council - and the Secretariat had violated this. The credibility of the Council was on the line.

ERIC TISTOUNET, Secretary of the Human Rights Council, said that the Secretariat was respecting both the letter and spirit of the institution-building package regarding the inscription on speakers’ lists. Measures that had been taken had been taken transparently and had been communicated openly. Instead of speakers’ lists opening in the morning, they were now opening at midday. Everything was in conformity with the texts that governed this Council. For the second cycle, a few suggestions had been developed by the Secretariat which would be circulated.

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHUMOIBHI, President of the Human Rights Council, said the Universal Periodic Review process showed great promise, and in the process of discussion all had developed a sense of ownership. Many recommendations made during the process enjoyed overwhelming support, by States and other stakeholders. There were also some areas of concern and worries, in particular with regard to translation of documents. All documents should be duly and speedily translated into all languages, thus there would be full compliance with United Nations requirements. All had to be honest, accepting that they had responsibilities with regards to shortcomings. The Council should stick to the rules it had adopted, unless it wished to change them - until it did so, it remained totally not without blame for any shortcomings experienced.

Right of Reply

RAJIV WIJESINHA, Sri Lanka speaking in a right of reply with regard to the statement made by United Nations Watch, said that United Nations Watch displayed a rather sad effort of sarcasm as it denigrated the Universal Periodic Review process. The structure of the United Nations recognized that countries did work in self interest but endeavoured to meet the ideals they were founded on in common interest. It was the case that some of the non-governmental organizations origins, funding and basis were unknown to the Members of the Human Rights Council, and it was sad that they were able to function in the work of Council without any accountability or transparency. Sri Lanka urged the Human Rights Council to address this issue as soon as possible.

Introduction to Panel Discussion on the Objectives and Modalities of Panels

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI, President of the Human Rights Council, said it was his belief that this modality was useful, and could be utilized more often than was the case in the Council's regular sessions. By the end of this session, the Council would have had five panel discussions. The provision for the use of panels as an instrument of furthering the work in the Council was made in paragraph 115 of the institution-building package.

A careful look at the paragraph could lead to the conclusion that panels, as well as the other work methods mentioned therein, were characterized by two main objectives: the enhancement of dialogue; and the purpose to achieve mutual understanding. The participation of panellists, therefore, would aim at providing the elements of the discussion, with a view to facilitate, in the future, an informed mutual understanding. Panels were an intermediate work format between a seminar and round table.

The ideal outcome of a panel was to enhance mutual understanding of an issue/subject. It did not necessarily lead to the adoption of a formal document with an agreed text. The absence of the need to negotiate, reach compromise and make proposals on the basis of a concrete text were elements which gave the desired flexibility to this working method. However, it should be noted that the limits of panels as a working method in the Council were also mentioned in the institution-building text.


Questions that could arise included: could the Council decide to convene panels outside regular sessions; could the Council decide to convene a panel on the specific human rights situations which were not urgent and did not constitute consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms; could a certain State propose a resolution to convene a panel on its own internal situation of human rights; and could there be any follow-up on the discussions held during a panel.

Discussion

In the discussion on the work format of panels, speakers wished for a more innovative organization of panels so that real interaction would be possible. Speakers observed that the number of panels was increasing and noted that maintaining a manageable amount of panels during one term was necessary. There was a need to ensure equitable regional and gender-balanced representation of panels. Panels were convened to give more visibility to one issue but the results were mixed: some panels received much attention with long speakers’ lists and others less. Therefore, the criteria of the convening of panels should be reviewed. The guiding principle on the convening of panels should be the broadening of the understanding of a specific issue and should not be a precursor to future action. Two years from now, when the Council would revise the institution-building text, it would define what issues would be debated and who should be chosen as a panelist. Speakers suggested that since there was no singular method for the organization of panels, each panel should be organized as was best for the discussion of the subject at hand.

Concluding Remarks

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI, President of the Council, in concluding remarks on the panel discussion, said as was mentioned by some delegations, this debate could be considered a first step towards the improvement of this mechanism in 2011, in the context of the review of the institution-building text. Panels were an important tool - all agreed on the importance of panels and on the need to continue to utilize them as an instrument to provide detailed information, build consensus and provide action-oriented solutions to the challenges faced by the Council in the protection and promotion of human rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09085E