HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ELECTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND APPROVES A NUMBER OF NEW SPECIAL PROCEDURES MANDATE HOLDERS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon elected 18 experts to make up its new Advisory Committee. The Council also approved candidates for its Special Procedures on the right to adequate housing, the right to food, human rights of indigenous people, sale of children, effects of economic reform policies, human rights in Myanmar, human rights in the Palestinian territories, human rights and extreme poverty, contemporary forms of slavery, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, people of African descent, human rights in Somalia and human rights defenders.

The Advisory Committee replaces the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Functioning as a think-thank, the Committee will provide the Council with expertise and advice and conduct substantive research and studies on thematic issues of interest, at the Council’s request.

The number of candidates in three regional groups corresponded to the numbers of seats available in each of these groups; consequently those members were elected by the Council without a ballot. These were, from the African Group: Ms. Mona Zulficar (Egypt), Mr. Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya), Mr. Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Mauritius), Ms. Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco) and Mr. Baba Kura Kaigama (Nigeria). From the Asian Group: Mr. Shiqiu Chen (China), Mr. Shigeki Sakamoto (Japan), Mr. Ansar Ahmed Burney (Pakistan), Ms. Purificacion V. Quisumbing (Philippines) and Ms. Chung Chinsung (Republic of Korea). From the Latin American and Caribbean States: Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martínez (Cuba), Mr. José Antonio Bengoa Cabello (Chile) and Mr. Héctor Felipe Fix Fierro (Mexico).

With regard to the candidates from the Eastern European Group and the Group of Western European and Other States, the Council conducted an election in secret ballot. The two candidates elected from the Eastern European Group were: Mr. Vladimir Kartashkin (Russian Federation) with 42 votes and Mr. Latif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan) with 30 votes. The three members elected from the Western European and Others Group were: Mr. Jean Ziegler (Switzerland) with 40 votes, Mr. Wolfgang Stefan Heinz (Germany) with 24 votes and Mr. Emmanuel Decaux (France) with 24 votes.

After the election of the members of the Advisory Committee, the Council proceeded to determine the duration of membership for each member. The four members that will serve for a one-year term are: Ms. Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco), Mr. Shiqiu Chen (China), Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martínez (Cuba) and Mr. Mr. Jean Ziegler (Switzerland). The seven members that will serve for a two-year term are: Ms. Mona Zulficar (Egypt), Mr. Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya), Mr. Shigeki Sakamoto (Japan), Ms. Chung Chinsung (Republic of Korea), Mr. Vladimir Kartashkin (Russian Federation), Mr. José Antonio Bengoa Cabello (Chile) and Mr. Wolfgang Stefan Heinz (Germany). The seven members that will serve for a three year-term are: Mr. Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Mauritius), Mr. Baba Kura Kaigama (Nigeria), Mr. Ansar Ahmed Burney (Pakistan), Ms. Purificacion V. Quisumbing (Philippines), Mr. Latif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr. Héctor Felipe Fix Fierro (Mexico) and Mr. Emmanuel Decaux (France).

The Advisory Committee will hold its first session from 4 to 15 August 2008.


Also this afternoon, the Council approved the list of candidates for Special Procedures mandate holders proposed by the President of the Council, who chose them out of candidates proposed by the Consultative Group which the Council appointed. The list included Ms. Raquel Rolnik (Brazil), Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; Mr. Olivier de Schutter (Belgium), Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Mr. James Anaya (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; Ms. Najat M’jid Maala (Morocco), Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; Mr. Cephas Lumina (Zambia), Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; Mr. Thomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar; Mr. Richard Falk (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967; Ms. Maria Magdalenan Sepulveda (Chile), Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty; and Ms. Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia), Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences.

Also chosen were Mr. Malick El Hadji Sow (Senegal), Mr. Aslan Abashidze (Russia) and Mr. Roberto Garreton (Chile) to the Working Group on arbitrary detention; Mr. Jeremy Sarkin (South Africa), Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearences; Mr. Milton Nettleford (Jamaica), Working Group on African Descent; Mr. Shamsul Bari (Bangladesh), Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Somalia; and Ms. Margaret Sekaggya (Uganda), Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.

In the ensuing general discussion about the Special Procedures mandate holders, delegations raised various issues, including the fact that this process had some deficiencies. The Asian Group regretted that there was not enough geographical distribution in this process. Surprise was expressed over the non-inclusion of the Ecuadorian candidate by the delegations of Ecuador, Uruguay, Brazil and Bolivia. Delegations said clarification was still needed on the status of mandate holders that had reached the end of their three-year terms. These mandate holders should not be automatically renewed. Concern was also expressed over the candidate for the mandate on Palestine. The lack of clarity concerning the role and competencies of the President and the Consultative Group remained an issue that should be revisited.

Delegations speaking in the discussion on the Special Procedures mandate holders were China on behalf of the Asian Group, Ecuador, Russia, Uruguay, Algeria, Canada, Brazil on behalf of Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries, Turkey, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Israel, the United States, Italy, India, Morocco, Bolivia, Palestine, Switzerland, Chile and Pakistan.

Also speaking were representatives of Amnesty International, North South XXI and International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples.

When the Council meets on Thursday, 27 March 2008, at 10 a.m., it will take action on draft decisions and resolutions. The Council will conclude its seventh regular session on Friday, 28 March.


The Council has before it the note by the Secretary-General on Election of Members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (A/HRC/7/64 and Corr.1), reflecting the rules and procedures for election of candidates to the Council's Advisory Committee, as established by Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007. The Advisory Committee, consisting of 18 experts serving in their personal capacity and nominated by States members of the United Nations following States’ consultations with national human rights institutions and civil society organizations, shall be elected by the Council by secret ballot, from the list of candidates whose names have been submitted in accordance with the agreed requirements. The membership is subject to geographic distribution as follows: five members from the African States; five members from the Asian States; two members from the Eastern European States; three members from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and three members from the Western European and other States. Advisory Committee members will serve for a period of three years, and shall be eligible for re-election once. The technical and objective requirements for the submission of candidatures, as established by Council resolution 6/102, are also set out. These include recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights, high moral standing, independence and impartiality. The names and nationalities of nominated candidates are then provided by geographical group, and candidates' biographies follow in an annex to the note.

Comments Following the Approval of the List of Special Procedure Mandate Holders

ZHANG YI (China), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, noted that this was the first exercise of the Human Rights Council in selecting candidates in accordance with the mechanism established under resolution 5/1. This process proved more responsible than that of the Commission of Human Rights; however this process also had some deficiencies. The Asian Group was of the view that due consideration should be given to gender balance as well as geographical representation. The Asian Group regretted that there was not enough geographical distribution in this process. The Asian Group was underrepresented in the listing of candidates posed. However, the Asian Group had expressed its utmost compromise by accepting the list as such. The Asian Group suggested that the President hold further consultations in this regard.

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said that Ecuador had asked for the floor before the approval of the mandate holders. It was very surprised to note the communication from March 25th in which the Ecuadorian candidate was excluded from the list as a potential mandate holder. This Ecuadorian candidate was a very distinguished person and had been selected by the Advisory Committee for her impressive credentials. The Ecuadorian Government was well aware of the need for transparency and reiterated its feeling that the holders of mandates should be appointed on the basis of their qualifications. This was not a good precedent to establish and it was fearful that the Council was heading back to its old ways of selectivity and politicization.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) expressed the gratitude of the Russian Federation over the list which the President had drafted. The President’s list included the candidates that had essentially been proposed by the Consultative Group. As a member of the Consultative Group himself, he stated that the group had paid attention to the qualification and experience of individuals, taking into account geographical and gender balance. The majority in the group had felt the need to present only one candidate for each post. The President had requested more choice and thus the Consultative Group had proposed two and sometimes three candidates for one post. He underlined the fact that the names in the first list of the Group had had the support of all members of the Group. Not all candidates of the final Presidential list had received full support from the members of the Consultative Group. The Consultative Group was by no means only there to prepare a short list. It was very difficult and demanding work. He agreed with what China had said that fundamental principles such as geographical distribution had not been respected. Next time, the preliminary list should be discussed with the President and the Consultative Group. This would render the process more productive.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ (Uruguay) expressed Uruguay’s serious concern with regard to certain elements in the list. Referring to the statement of Ecuador, Uruguay said it had supported the nomination of an Ecuadorian for the post of Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights defenders. The list presented today did not have the name of the candidate in question to the surprise of the Uruguayan delegation. Uruguay also regretted that pressure from another group had affected the GRULAC candidacy and deprived GRULAC from having a candidate from its region nominated.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that 50 per cent of the mandate holder suggestions were turned down by the Consultative Group. This reflected that members of the Consultative Group were voting on personal bias rather than professional qualifications. There was definitely something wrong with a system which reached this kind of situation. Algeria had still not received clarification on mandate holders that had reached the end of their three-year terms. These mandate holders should not be automatically renewed. To do so would be in violation of the Council’s rules, as stipulated in Article 15 of the Human Rights Council’s Code of Conduct, which said that mandate holders were accountable to the Council. How could mandate holders be held accountable if they were automatically re-elected at the end of their appointments? Those mandate holders, who had reached the end of their terms and who were left out the list, should be included in the second list.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that the appointment of this slate of Special Procedures mandate holders marked an important milestone in the development of the Council. The Special Procedures had been referred to as the crown jewels of the United Nations human rights system. The efforts which had gone into the presentation of this list were fully appreciated. Canada hoped that Members could respect the integrity of the agreed process, in which no State should have a veto over candidates. However, based on the writings of one of the candidates, the nominee for the mandate on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Canada expressed serious concern about whether the high standards established by the Council would be met by this individual. Therefore, Canada dissociated itself from any Council decision to approve the full slate.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) expressed the concern of GRULAC over the decision related to the appointment of the Special Representative for human rights defenders. GRULAC was concerned over the fact that in a subsequent letter sent by the Presidency, the name of the Ecuadorian candidate, who had dual nationality with Uruguay, was omitted from that list. GRULAC said that incidents such as these would not add value to the consolidation of the Human Rights Council.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said that for the first time since the adoption of the institution building package, the Council had approved today the appointments of new mandate holders. Turkey congratulated the candidates and wished them every success in carrying out their mandates. Turkey commended the members of the Consultative Group for the excellent job they had done in the meticulous examination of files for more than 200 candidates. However, the process leading to the appointment of mandate holders during this session of the Council had not been entirely satisfactory. The lack of clarity concerning the role and competencies of the President and the Consultative Group remained an issue that should be revisited. Moreover, Turkey believed that it was important to reach a common understanding on which grounds the candidates recommended by the Consultative Group could be replaced with others in the next stage of the process.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group appreciated the work done by the President in appointing candidates for the Special Procedures. The decision taken today by the Council was understood to be final. The African Group would however welcome any proposals about the unresolved issue about the future and the non-inclusion of Special Mandate holders that had served three years and were not enjoying a renewal of their mandate.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that as the list of candidates for Special Procedures mandate holders was put forward today, he was overwhelmed at the profound sense of lost opportunity. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories was hopelessly unbalanced. This mandate was redundant at best and malicious at worst. It was impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates, the eminently wise members of the Consultative Group honestly had made the best possible choice for this post. In a recent article, the proposed candidate stated that he did not think it was “an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity”. Someone who had publicly and repeatedly stated such views could not possibly be considered independent, impartial or objective, as was explicitly required in the institution building text. The Human Rights Council was rapidly moving away from its raison d’être. The members of the Council were missing an opportunity to show the world that this Human Rights Council genuinely sought improvement, the chance to make a difference, and the prospect of laying the groundwork for better cooperation with Israel.

WARREN TICHENOR (United States) said that the Special Procedures, including country mandates, allowed the Human Rights Council an opportunity to view, monitor and help certain countries develop and improve their human rights situations. The United States respected the integrity of the procedure to elect candidates but expressed its concern on the mandate holder selected for the task of assessing the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This had long since been a particularly sensitive mandate and he hoped that it would not be conducted with bias and partiality. That being said, he wished the other new mandate holders the best of luck in their new appointments.

GIOVANNI CARACCIOLO DI VIETRI (Italy) said that due to the issues linked to the personal profile of some of the candidates, a stronger consultation should take place, in order to achieve a stronger process.

RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) expressed concern over the inadequate representation of Asia in the list of Special Procedures mandate holders. There was also a lack of clarity about the role of the Consultative Group. The issue of following a uniform appointment procedure also needed to be addressed. It was hoped that the President would hold further consultations to take up these issues.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that Morocco endorsed the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Morocco welcomed the fact that the selection procedure was transparent. The Consultative Group had drafted a comprehensive list of qualified experts and had also considered gender balance in its selection criteria. It was entirely legitimate that certain questions were being asked and that some of the delegations were frustrated with the final list of mandate holders. He was certain, however, that the future would show that the work of the Consultative Group had been successful and balanced.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia) said that Bolivia had recognized two good candidates in the draft list, one of those had been the Ecuadorian candidate. Bolivia endorsed the statements by Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay on this issue.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said it was ironic that Israel which claimed to be representing Jews everywhere was campaigning against a Jewish professor who had been nominated for the post of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The candidate was the author of 54 books on international law. Palestine doubted that those who had campaigned against him had read that many books. The candidate’s nomination was a victory for good sense and human rights, as he was a highly qualified rapporteur. If Israel was concerned about human rights it would have ended its prolonged occupation.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said that he was proud to be a member of the Consultative Group and that they had done everything to provide the President with a comprehensive list of qualified potential candidates. The Consultative Group could be proud of the work and the results that had been submitted. There were of course some questionable outcomes but he was not trying to undermine the decisions of the President. Like any consultative body of this nature, the Group could, in the future, improve its working methods. It had never intended to move towards a consensus on these candidates. What it had set out to accomplish was the widest possible support for potential candidates and the Consultative Group could be commended for its work.

ALEJANDRO ROGERS (Chile) expressed Chile’s gratitude for the election of the mandate holder from the Chile. It had not been an easy task. In the future, the working methods of the Consultative Group should be improved. There had been many candidates and many long meetings. The Consultative Group had had to take into account the geographical and gender balance but also the qualities of the candidates. The final decision was of course that of the President of the Council.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the terms of reference of the Consultative Group were not clear and there were differences within the members of the Group. The Consultative Group was a mechanism of the Council and the rules of the Council should therefore apply to the Consultative Group. There was a need to remove the incongruence between the Consultative Group and the President. The discussions of the Consultative Group were transparent and the consultations of the President should also be transparent. It was noted that the Consultative Group had ceased to have any relation with the process after it had submitted its recommendations; this promoted a problem. It was important that the Consultative Group provide a brief account of its proceedings as well as the methodology by which it submitted its recommendations. Consultative Group members were lobbied extensively by various groups which distorted the selection process and created an atmosphere of discord. If after the work done by the Consultative Group there was still a need for the President to convince Council members of the outcome, then perhaps it would be desirable to hold open elections. The Council also must hear an elaborate explanation on gender balance and equitable representation decisions.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said that in June 2008 the Council was expected to appoint up to six more human rights experts to serve as Special Procedures mandate holders. In line with the provisions of resolution 5/1, Amnesty International urged members and observers to promote the public list of eligible candidates and to nominate women and men of the highest qualifications. However, attention should be paid to the candidacies of women, given their current under-representation on the public list. The Consultative Group should consult with stakeholders, in particular the current or outgoing mandate holders, in order to determine the necessary expertise, experience, skills, and other relevant requirements for each mandate. Furthermore, the Consultative Group’s public report should substantiate its recommendations, in particular by describing how the candidates proposed to meet the general criteria for mandate holders and the specific criteria for each mandate. Finally, the Consultative Group should also ensure that the proposed list included men and women sufficiently representative of diverse geographic origin and legal backgrounds.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North South XXI, expressed the appreciation of North South XXI to all that had been involved in this process. All safeguards had to be taken to ensure that the naming of the Special Procedures was free of any influences. The name of a highly qualified candidate had been named by a non-governmental organisation for the post on the situation of human rights defenders. But his name had been taken out of the list and thus had not been reviewed by the Consultative Group. If the process was influenced, it could not work. It was important to know why this had happened.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of People’s, said that as pointed out by many speakers, the procedure for selecting mandate holders could and should be improved. Since the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was created, Jean Ziegler had highlighted the abuses of transnational corporations and the incoherence of the United Nations system and reminded the international community of its obligation that everyone should be protected against hunger. The International League wished to congratulate the new candidate for the post of Special Rapporteur on the right to food.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08040E