UN

Human Rights Council

Khin Maung Shwe

Coordinator
Justice Project
TJP-HREIB
 Introduction

3 components:

Background: from the CHR to the HRC

Assessment of HRC’s performance to date

Lobbying and advocacy strategies
Part 1: From the CHR to the HRC

Human Rights Council (HRC) was

created on 15 March 2006, replacing
the Commission on Human Rights

General Assembly Resolution 60/251

Q: Why replace the CHR?

 Why replace the CHR with HRC?

Hypocrisy in membership (eg. Libya chairs the CHR in

2003)

Membership used to shield abusive governments and
their allies from scrutiny

Failure to condemn or to scrutinize countries committing
gross human rights violations

Could only respond after violations had occurred
(reactive, rather than preventive)

Became a divisive forum of competing politics and bloc
alliances

Need for institutional recognition of human rights
 Reforming the UN human rights machinery

1996: UNSG Kofi Annan pledges enhancement of effectiveness and

efficiency of UN system

1998 - 2000: Creation of “WG to enhance the effectiveness of the
CHR” (Geneva)

2002: UNSG proposes 2nd reform package in a new report (“An
Agenda for Change”)

Dec 2004: High Level Panel report recommends replacement of
CHR

March 2005: Secretary General’s report recommends replacement
but on a different model
 Reforming the UN human rights machinery

Sept 2005: World Summit and Summit Outcome

Document (proposal for HRC and basic mandate
outlined)

15 March 2006: General Assembly passes
resolution to replace CHR with HRC
– 170/4/3

Against: US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau

Abstention: Belarus, Iran, Venezuela

9 May 2006: Election of members

15 June 2006: First session of the HRC (2 weeks)
 From CHR to HRC within UN system
Security Council
International
(P5 + 10) S
Court of Justice
HUMAN E
General Assembly RIGHTS C
UN Funds and Programmes COUNCIL R
• UNDP (192) E
• UNHCR T
• UNICEF Economic and Social A
• UNIFEM Council (ECOSOC) R
(54) I
• WFP etc.
A
T
Functional Commissions Regional Commissions
-NY
- Asia and the Pacific -Nairobi
Women HR Soc. Sus. Crime Human - Africa
(53) Dvmt Dvmt settlmnts -Vienna
- Europe
- Latin America -Geneva
Sub-CHR - Middle East
(26)

S= slavery, M= minorities, IPs= indigenous peoples,

S M IPs C TNC J C= communications, TNCs= transnational corporations, J= justice
 Comparing CHR with HRC

What do you already know about the HRC?

What don’t you know about the HRC that you

would like to know?
 Comparing CHR with HRC
Membership Coordination/ nomination Direct election based on
(selection by regional group individual secret ballots
process):
Membership 3 years and “unlimited” Maximum two consecutive
(duration): terms

Membership N/A (1) Must uphold highest

standards in human rights; (2)
(criteria): must cooperate fully with
HRC and be reviewed by
UPR; (3) voting must be based
on voluntary pledges and
commitment to HR
Membership N/A Members first to be reviewed by
UPR; gross violators can be
: (review and suspended with 2/3 majority of
suspension): the General Assembly (123)
 Comparing CHR with HRC
No. of One Minimum of three regular sessions,
sessions with the ability to convene special
per year sessions for emergency
situations (with support of 1/3
HRC members (16)

Duration of 6 weeks Minimum ten weeks per

sessions year: “standing body”
Venue of Geneva Geneva plus…?
sessions
NGO Based on ECOSOC Based on ECOSOC Res. 1996/31
and “practices observed by the CHR”
participation Res. 1996/31 to ensure most effective
contribution by NGOs
 Functions (para 5 of GA Resolution 60/251)

Broad mandate to discuss human rights issues

Address situations of violations of human rights,

including prompt response to “gross and systematic
violations”

Universal periodic review of all States

Promote advisory services, technical assistance and

capacity building, in consultation with States and with
consent of concerned Member States
 Explicit guiding principles

“HRC to be guided by the principles of universality,

impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive
international dialogue and cooperation”

– To overcome criticisms of “politicisation” within the CHR

– How to ensure impartiality and objectivity when there is no set
criteria? Who decides which situation is urgent than another?
– “Non-selectivity” must not be “non-interference”
– “Constructive dialogue” must not be a substitute for concrete
action
 Transition from CHR to HRC: points of concern

Important to look at what the Commission DID achieve

– Special procedures system
– Unprecedented level of NGO participation
– Standard-setting
– Providing expert advice on new human rights issues

How to maintain and expand upon these achievements?

Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Burma under threat?

How will country situations will be dealt with?

How to raise the issue of Burma if SR’s mandate is gone?

What will the new UPR look like? How can NGOs participate?
 Recap

HRC created in March 2006 to overcome flaws of CHR—to respond

effectively to human rights violations worldwide

On paper, various differences between CHR and HRC:

– Higher status within UN system

– Mandate to prevent HR violations
– Members elected by entire General Assembly, must be elected on basis of
pledges and commitment to human rights
– Only 2 terms allowed for membership (ie. maximum 6 years)
– Gross violators can be suspended
– Meets more frequently throughout the year
– Will conduct Universal Periodic Review of all countries in the world
– Emergency sessions can be convened with support of 1/3 of HRC members

However, still many uncertainties—how HRC will really operate unclear;

possibility of country mandates of the Special Procedures to be abolished
 Part 2: Assessment of HRC’s
performance to date

– Established March 2006

– Election of membership 9 May 2006

– 4 regular sessions to date

June 2006 (2 weeks)

September/October 2006 (3 weeks)

November/December 2006 (2 weeks)

March 2006 (4 weeks)

– 4 emergency sessions to date

July 2006: Palestine

August 2006: Lebanon

November 2006: Palestine (Beit Hanoun)

December 2006: Darfur

10 months of work til date—still too early to assess, but general

trends
 9 May 2006 elections

9 May election of first members of HRC:

– 18 Asian governments compete for 13 seats

– All Asian candidates submitted pledges

Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan,
Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand

Most were general and vague, though some specific pledges, eg.
Indonesia—pledged to ratify 1951 Refugee Convention and its
Optional Protocol

www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc
 Election results (see handout)

Africa (13 seats) Asia (13 seats)

Elected Not elected Elected Not elected

Ghana (183) Kenya (9) India (173) Thailand (120)

Zambia (182) Madagascar (1) Bangladesh (160) Lebanon (112)
Senegal (181) Tanzania (1) Indonesia (165) Kyrgyzstan (88)
South Africa (179) Egypt (1) Japan (158) Iran (58)
Mali (178) Malaysia (158) Iraq (52)
Mauritius (178) Pakistan (149) Maldives (1)
Morocco (178) Republic of Korea (148) Qatar (1)
Gabon (175) China (146)
Djibouti (172) Jordan (137)
Tunisia (171) Philippines (136)
Cameroon (171) Bahrain (134)
Nigeria (169) Saudi Arabia (126)
Algeria (168) Sri Lanka (123)
Latin American and Caribbean States Eastern Europe (6 seats)
(GRULAC) (8 seats)
Elected Not elected
Elected Not elected
Russian Federation (137) Lithuania (92)
Brazil (165) Nicaragua (119) Ukraine (109) Slovenia (91)
Argentina (158) Venezuela (101) Poland (108) Hungary (79)
Mexico (154) Costa Rica (6) Czech Republic (105) Armenia (70)
Peru (145) Honduras (3) Azerbaijan (103) Latvia (50)
Guatemala (142) Colombia (1) Romania (98) Georgia (35)
Uruguay (141) Albania (31)
Cuba (135) Serbia and Montenegro (1)
Ecuador (128)

Western European and Other States (7 seats)

Elected Not elected

Germany (154) Greece (117)
France (150) Portugal (122)
United Kingdom (148) Spain (1)
Switzerland (140)
Netherlands (137)
Finland (133)
Canada (130)
 Results of election

Power and regional importance counted: China,

Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Germany, Ghana, India and
Ukraine

High-profile government officials vocally critical of the

UN did not get elected: Venezuela and Thailand

Credibility did count: Bahrain, Canada, Finland,

Netherlands, South Africa and Switzerland got elected

Lack of credibility also counted: Iraq, Iran

Generally an improvement over the CHR

 15 March: 9 May: election • Draft Convention
19- 30 June: • Called
5 – 6 July
for • Established
11 Aug
HRC created of members on First
Disappearances
session 1st special
fact-finding 2nd special
high-level
(2declaration
weeks) mission by
session inquiry
session on
•Draft
SR onon OPT commission
Lebanon
on IPs
Palestine to Lebanon
• Blocked by
•Created 2 WGs
Israel
on UPR and SPs

• SR’s reports
18 Sept – 6 Oct:
11- 18ALL
June ’07 presented,
Secondincluding
session
INSTITUTION- Special session on on Burma
(3 weeks)
5th regular
BUILDING Burma? • Bloc politics, OIC
session,
ISSUES TOSPBE
interactive
DECIDED •Attacks against SPs
UPON
dialogues • Postponed til Nov

• Called
15 Nov
for
• Adopted 5 nd
3 special
high-level fact-
27 – 29 including
resolutions, Nov: session
finding on
mission
Resumed
code of conduct of OPT (Beit
SPssecond session • Blocked by
• Dispatched Hanoun)
• SR on Burma’s report 12-13 Dec Israel
high-level fact- 29 Nov- 8 Dec:
presented 4th special • Institution-building
12 – 30 Mar ‘07 finding mission
session on issues
• Actions on Darfur, Third session
• Critical
Darfurreport
but noFourth session
other country (2 weeks)
situations(3 weeks)
 First session (19 – 30 June 06, 2 weeks)

Minister of Foreign Affairs, U Nyan Win delivered speech

during High Level Segment

– “Objective of HRC is to promote and protect HR in a more

effective manner”
– CHR allowed itself to be abused as a forum to “vilify and
humiliate States, especially Third World countries”
– “Validity and credibility of information” should be one of the
criteria when dealing with country specific situations
– HRC must address right to development: “as if adding insult to
injury, there have been artificial impediments placed on the path
to development, such as unilateral sanctions against us”
 Second session (18 Sept – 6 Oct ‘06, 3 weeks)

SR on Burma, Pinheiro’s report presented—very critical,

highlighted lack of access to the country since 2002

– Burma: “there is nothing wrong going on in Burma”, highlighted

positive developments

– China: Burma should resolve its problems through its own people.
Not in favour of stress and isolation
– India: opposition to using country-specific resolutions
– Pakistan: HRC should engage with Burma through dialogue and
cooperation, not through selective targeting
 Second session (18 Sept – 6 Oct ‘06, 3 weeks)
Cont’d

Countries critical of Burma/ supportive of SR:

– Finland (on behalf of EU): commitment to country-specific

procedures
– Malaysia: called for “speedy process to national reconciliation”
– Japan: concerned about lack of access given to SR
– Canada: IDPs and refugees, HRC should support work of NGOs
working along Burmese border
– Australia: Burma must work with HRC to provide safe
environment for its people and resolve ethnic conflict
– NZ: all political prisoners should be freed
– US: overall concern, also IDPs, how int’l community can help
NGOs working on Burma and get release of political prisoners
– Peru: no tangible progress, Burma’s lack of true desire for
cooperation and dialogue, asked SR if Burma is a threat to SEA
 Third session (29 Nov – 8 Dec ’06, 2 weeks)

Focused on institution-building issues

– UPR
– Expert advisory system (previously Sub-Commission on
Human Rights)
– Special procedures system
– Confidential complaints procedure (previously 1503
procedure)

No intervention by the government of Burma on any

of these issues
 Fourth session (12 – 30 March ‘07, 3 weeks)

SR on the situation of Burma, Pinheiro’s report

situation may lead to humanitarian crisis if not addressed immediately

Burma must be kept high up on HRC agenda

Burma must authorise access to affected areas by UN and NGOs

If the HRC is to maintain SPs, must ensure that Member States cooperate
with them and receive them

– Burma’s response (U Nyunat Swe, Deputy Permanent Representative)

Burma fully committed to implementation of 7-step roadmap towards
democracy

No forced recruitment carried out in Burma, not a country in a situation of
armed conflict, enjoying unprecedented peace and tranquility since
independence, reject accusation that armed forces target civilians

National Committee for Women’s Affairs will be submitting overdue 2nd and
3rd reports to CEDAW

Burma is fully aware to improve and promote HR. We are doing everything
possible and will continue to do so. HR must be addressed with objectivity
and non-selectivity
 Fourth session (12 – 30 March ‘07, 3 weeks)
Cont’d

Governments defending Burma:

– India: ‘dialogue and cooperation’, should encourage positive steps taken by
Burma
– China: but called upon speeding up of dialogue and reform

Governments critical of Burma:

– Norway
– Germany (EU)
– Netherlands
– Czech Republic
– Sweden
– New Zealand
– US: ‘one of most repressive countries in the world’
– Finland
– South Korea
– Australia
– Japan
– Canada
 Performance of HRC:
special sessions—case of Darfur

Fourth special session: Darfur (12 – 13 Dec)

– Dispatched High-Level Fact-finding mission, very critical report

Establishment of regular monitoring mechanism for Darfur for
implementation of various recommendations

Extend and maintain mandate of SR on Darfur

Recommend action by ICC

Compensation and redress to victims

GA to request a list of foreign companies that have adverse
effects on human rights in Darfur; UN to refrain any business with
these companies
– Taken up at the 4th regular session in March 2007

Resolution adopted to establish an independent monitoring group
on Darfur to ensure that all resolutions + recommendations by UN
are implemented and followed up
 Lessons

Need independent, well-respected but strong human

rights advocate, eg. Jody Williams

Even if report of fact-finding missions is critical, does

not mean HRC will act upon them

Special sessions pave way to get situation

highlighted and provide entry points for further action

HRC can recommend further action by UN Security

Council
 Overall analysis

Negative trends:

Not much discussion on substance or country-specific situations,
except for Darfur

Politicized and divisive debate on the Middle East and racism/

freedom of religion dominating sessions

Bloc politics, lack of moderate States speaking out (“herd mentality”)

– Role of OIC: fighting persistently to shield States from criticisms. Note: 3
OIC members chair HRC’s regional groups: Algeria (Africa), Saudi
Arabia (Asia), Azerbaijan (Europe)
– Failure of States that ordinarily support human rights to act as a
counterweight to the OIC
 Negative trends of HRC (cont’d)

Limitation of NGO participation due to uncertainties, attempts

by States to curtail NGO participation—lack of lobbying
initiatives by NGOs based outside of Geneva

Many States expressing concern about situation in Burma, but

no concrete proposals for special sessions/how the HRC
should proceed ahead to deal with the situation

Attempts by regressive States to remove country-specific

agenda items as well as country-specific SP mandates,
including Special Rapporteur on Burma
– Asian and African States comprise the majority of HRC
membership (26/47)—undermines ability of HRC to adopt strong
and results-oriented resolutions on urgent HR situations
 Positive trends/indicators…

Outcomes of 4th special session on Darfur were very strong

Follow-up action taken at 4th regular session of HRC after special
session on Darfur: dispatching of AU-UN peacekeeping force to
Darfur, among others

4 special sessions have been convened: 3 on Middle East, one on
Darfur—now Asia’s turn? Burma is key country focus after the
failure of UNSC resolution

Some expanded scope of NGO participation:
– 1st session: for the first time, prominent human rights defenders spoke
immediately after the HLS
– 2nd session: substantive NGO participation in interactive dialogues with
the SPs
– No fixed limit on number of oral interventions
– NGOs based outside of Geneva now given priority to speak
 General strategies in engaging with HRC

Be targeted and informed

– Define what is to be achieved—not always necessary to go to
Geneva

Know the politics
– Know who can support, and know your enemy—know what has
already been discussed and positions of governments on Burma,
and incorporate this into your lobbying

Reach out
– Contact NGOs based in Geneva
– Media outreach
– Establish links with OHCHR NGO liaison office: Laura Dolci-
Kanaan, ldolci-kanaan@ohchr.org
 General strategies in engaging with HRC

Be prepared
– Position papers (couple of pages maximum) advocacy
materials, audiovisuals, to influence decision-making.
– Be clear about what you want.
– Send position papers to OHCHR Secretariat, diplomatic
missions, other NGOs and media in advance

Follow up
– Once decisions/resolutions adopted on Burma, publicise it,
monitor implementation, and encourage international
agencies to act on it
 Engaging with other HRC mechanisms

Regular sessions

Special procedures: country and thematic

UPR

PLUS:

May 2007 elections
 Regular sessions:
Types of NGO participation at HRC

Submission of written statements (need ECOSOC

accreditation)

Make oral statements (need ECOSOC accreditation)

Organize parallel/side events to mobilize public pressure
– Show documentaries and video clips

Possibility of “Special Event” on Burma during official session

Lobbying activities
– General
– Related to specific resolutions
– Related to specific delegations

Media-related events

Parallel mobilization on the ground (campaign)
 Special procedures
• Established by CHR to
monitor, examine, advise
and public report on a
human rights in a specific
country or on a thematic
issue mandate
• Known as:
– Special Rapporteurs
– Independent Experts
– Special Representatives of the
Secretary-General
– Working Groups
• Thematic mandates
• Country-specific mandates
• Maintain and extend mandate
of SR on Burma—must be
done before June 2007
• If the mandate on Burma is
maintained, propose possible
candidates as successor of
Paulo Pinheiro
• Be ready to proactively
engage with thematic
mandates if mandate on
Burma abolished
– 28 thematic mandates
– Submit cases of violations: entry
point to get Burma consistently
on the agenda of HRC
 Thematic mandates (28)
Civil + political ESC rights Specific Others
rights (7) (8) groups (4)
(7)
• Arbitrary • Housing • Indigenous • use of
detention • Education people mercenaries
• Disappearances • Extreme poverty • Human rights • racism
• Extrajudicial • Food defenders • international
killings • Health • internally solidarity
• Freedom of displaced persons • terrorism
• Effects of
opinion + economic reform • Migrants
expression policies/debt on • violence against
• Freedom of ESCR women
religion/belief • Toxic waste • trafficking in
• Independence of • Transnational persons,
judges + lawyers corporations + especially women
• Torture other businesses and children
• sale of children
 Country mandates (13)

Belarus

Burma (1992)

Burundi

Cambodia (1993)
Cuba

North Korea (2004)
Democratic Republic of the
Congo

Haiti

Palestine

Somalia

Sudan

Uzbekistan
 UPR

All governments, including Burma, will be reviewed by
the UPR

However, how UPR will be conducted still unclear—to be
decided by June 2007

Members are to be reviewed first—will take years before
Burma will be reviewed
– However, target Burma’s neighbouring countries and their responsibility
to ensure all rights of Burmese refugees/migrants within their territories
(China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, etc)

After UPR is established, prepare NGO reports and

information on violations occurring in
Burma/neighbouring countries
 Membership election: May 2007

Current Asian members whose terms are expiring: India, Indonesia,

Bahrain, Philippines
– India: ensure the protection of Burmese refugees and migrants
– Indonesia and Philippines: ASEAN members
– Must ratify 1951 Convention on Refugees and its Protocol; Convention
on the Rights of Migrant Workers

Thailand may be running for membership again

– Ensure human rights protection of all Burmese refugees and migrants

Remind HRC members about their responsibility to respond to

“human rights emergencies” and “gross and systematic violations”
– whether it can act decisively on situations such as Burma will be a test of
its own credibility as members
 Things to remember

Human Rights Council is an INTER-GOVERNMENTAL BODY,

composed of governments
– Every reason that it will be just as political as other bodies such as UN
Security Council

Inevitably, decisions/outcomes will be based on the political

will/interests of governments

Know which Council members are supportive of addressing the
situation in Burma

Before engaging with the Council at the international level, make
sure there is coordination and mobilization in the region/ on the
ground

Only the UN Security Council has executive/military power
 Characteristics of the HRC/ UN

An intergovernmental body

Allows political discussions between States, and academic
discussions between independent experts

With semi-legislative power: can adopt draft treaties to be
endorsed and adopted by the General Assembly

Without executive or military power: although the Security
Council can authorise enforcement action

Without judicial power: except where the International Court of
Justice has jurisdiction
Asian Group in the UN consists of:

54 countries:
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei,
Cambodia, China, Cyprus, North Korea, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati,
Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia,
Burma, Nauru, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Palau,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, South
Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon
Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor
Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab
Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen
African Group (53)

Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi,

Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad,
Comoros, Congo, Côte D'Ivoire, Democratic People's Republic
of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe,
Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa,
Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of
Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Latin American and Caribbean Group
(GRULAC): 33

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas,

Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Western European and Other Group
(WEOG): 28

Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, United Kingdom.

Although the United States is not officially in WEOG,

for all practical purposes it is a full member.
Eastern European Group (CEIT): 22

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia,
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Ukraine
 Special procedures: what do they do?

Study and increase understanding of a particular human rights

issue/ ‘new’ HR areas (eg. effects of counter-terrorism measures on
human rights)

Receive information on country situations

Receive individual human rights violation cases

Comment on information/communications received

Undertake country visits and issue reports with recommendations

Raise public awareness on issues within their mandates

Transmit urgent appeals/allegation letters to governments (private +
public)

Compile names and cases of human rights victims in their reports
(public)
 Country visits

Most Special Procedures undertake 2 country visits per year

Visits cannot be carried out without approval of relevant
authorities
– Some countries have issued standing invitations, meaning that
any Special Procedure can come and visit any time (Iran,
Mongolia, Maldives, Timor Leste)
– Many continue to deny access (eg. North Korea, Burma,
Singapore, Vietnam)

During visits, experts assess human rights situation by talking
to various actors (gvmt, NGOs, civil society, NIs, etc)

After visits, experts issue reports with conclusions and
recommendations to improve the human rights situation
(submitted to HRC and/or GA)
 How to submit cases of violations?

Make sure minimum information is provided:

– Identification of alleged victim (s)
– Identification of alleged perpetrators of the violation
– Identification of person (s) / organization submitting the
communication (will be kept confidential)
– Date and place of incident
– Detailed description of circumstances of the incident in which the
alleged violation occurred

Communications that contain abusive language or that are

politically motivated are not considered.
 Sub-Commission on Human Rights

Set up in 1947 with initial mandate to recommend standards for protection of

minorities and prevention of discrimination

Mandate has expanded over the years, authorised to examine human rights
violations in all countries around the world

Known as “think tank” for the CHR, undertake research on HR issues, develop
international HR standards, interpret international standards, monitor violations
and implementation of HR

Met once each year for 3 weeks in July and August—venue for discussion
among experts, academics, NGOs, governments
– Adopt resolutions and decisions

Appointed Special Rapporteurs or Working Groups among 26 independent

members to conduct its work

Power to conduct country-specific studies removed in 2000

 Sub-CHR: achievements and weaknesses
Achievements:

Initiated large number of current
HR standards

Highlighted new and emerging
areas of HR and gaps in HR
protection

Provided guidance on
interpretation and implementation
of HR standards

NGOs without ECOSOC
accreditation could participate (eg.
WG on minorities and indigenous
populations)
Weaknesses:

Composition of members:
some members held position
within gvmts, no term limits,
lack of expertise 
politicisation, weakened
functions

Restrictions on its work—no
country studies, limited
ability to take initiatives
without approval by CHR
 Current debate on future expert advisory system

Membership
– Selection/appointment process

Asian States wanting State control over appointment and selection
– Number
– Criteria

Asian States emphasising geographical representation rather than expertise

Functions/mandate
– Resumption of country studies?
– Able to meet throughout the year, now that the HRC is a standing body?
– Able to take its own initiatives?

Will NGO participation be maintained?

 Complaint procedure (1503): How did it work?

Established in 1970

Receive complaints from victims regarding situations which reveal a
consistent pattern of gross reliably attested violations of HR in any part of
the world

Confidential procedure; countries that came up via the procedure were
considered in closed meeting

NGOs did not require ECOSOC status to use the procedure

Criteria:
– Complainant must have exhausted all domestic remedies
– State against whom the complaint had been made must not be examined under
any public procedure of the CHR
– Subject matter must not fall under mandate of Special Procedures
– Not possible to submit complaint if individual complaints mechanism set up by a
treaty which a State has ratified
– Complaint cannot be politically motivated or manifestly unfounded
– Complainant cannot be anonymous
– Information cannot come from mass media reports alone
 Complaint procedure (1503): How did it work?

2 stages after complaint submitted:

– Sub-CHR’s WG on Communications reviews complaint and
assess whether it shows a consistent pattern of gross HR
violations
– CHR’s WG on Situations decide which situations the CHR should
take up and make recommendations to CHR on what course of
action to take on each situation
– CHR would then consider the situation in a closed meeting

Process could take 18 months or longer

Concerned State would be informed throughout all stages but
not complainant

No direct remedies or compensation for complainant or other
victims offered under the procedure
 Future complaint system

Do we need a complaint system if we already have

special procedures?

What should be the composition of the body
examining complaints?

How should the Council deal with complaints?

What human rights violations should the complaints
procedure cover?

How to remedy flaws of 1503 procedure?
– Lengthy, complex process
– Secrecy
– Lack of protection/remedy