CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

GAYA

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

Assignment

Human Rights Law and Practice

TOPIC: Power,Functions and Working of UNHRC

Submitted to: Submitted By- Gargi Upadhyaya

Mrs. Poonam Kumari Course: B.A. LL.b(Hons)
Enrollment no.:CUSB1512135018

1|Page
INDEX
I. Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………..………3
II. Research Methodology…………………………………………………………..……4
III. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..……5
IV. Introduction
 What is Human Rights Council?..................................................................................6
 The Criticism on the Commission on Human Rights………………………...……6-8
V. How Does The Council Work ? ……………………………………………………...9-10
VI. Powers and Functions Of UNHRC
1. The Founding Resolution A/RES/60/251………………………………...……..10-11
 Mandate……………………………………………………..……………11-12
 Institutional Status………………………………………………..…………12
 Meeting Time………………………………………………………...………12
 Membership……………………………………………………..…….….12-13
 Universal Periodic Review…………………………………….…………13-14
 Special Procedures…………………………………………….…………14-15
 Advisory Committee………………………………………………...……15-16
 Complaint Procedure………………………………………………….…16-17
 Commission of Inquiries and Fact-Finding Missions………………...……17
 Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous People…………..……17-18
 Expert Mechanism on Right to Development………………….……………18
 Consultative Group………………………………………………………18-19
 Forum on Minority Issues………………………………………...…………19
 Forum on Business and Human Rights…………………………………19-20
 Social Forum………………………………………………………...………20
 Forum on Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law…….…………20-21
VII. Conclusion……………………...………………………………………………………22
VIII.B ibliography………………..………………………………………………………….23

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a great pleasure for me to present the final draft of the project topic. I am very much
obliged to my revered teacher Mrs. Poonam Kumari of Central University of South Bihar,
Gaya who has given me a task to complete the project work. I am very much helped by him
regarding the formation of this final project.

I express my heartfelt indebtedness to Mrs. Poonam Kumari who showed me the path and
helped me to understand the project topic. It was not possible for me to make the final project
if I was not being helped by him. He acted as my mentor and also a guide to help me to
understand the whole of the provision and provided me with the proper synopsis of the
project work.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which help me in completion of this final draft.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to the computer lab assistant who
provided me all the facilities regarding the conditioned computer with a good wi-fi network.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

3|Page
Research Methodology

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic “Meaning and Concept of
Information and Controlled and Substantially Financed under RTI Act, 2005” forming a
concrete informative capsule of the same with an insight into its relevance in the Indian
Society.

Research Plan
The researchers have followed Doctrinal method.

Scope and Limitations:

In this project the researcher has tried to include different aspects pertaining to the concept of
Obtaining information, and basics of Procedure in Right to Information Act and many others
directional topics of that.
.
Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-
 Case Study

 Websites

 Case Laws

 Books

Method of Writing and Mode of Citation:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily analytical.
The researcher has followed Uniform method of citation throughout the course of this
research project.

4|Page
Abstract

The replacement of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that had fallen

from grace, by a smaller Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2006, sixty years after its creation,

marks without doubt one of the most significant reforms of the United Nations Human Rights

System. The question, whether the creation of the HRC is to be seen as a success or if, on the

contrary, it must be regarded as a backward step has been the subject of animated discussion

during the first years of its existence. Concluding its fourth year in June 2010, the HRC has not

only completed its institution-building phase by taking up all of its functions and mechanisms

but faces a general revision of its status and functions during its fifth year of existence as

determined by its founding resolution. In this context the present article aims at summarizing the

development of the HRC within its first four years and the associated debate concerning the

success of this reform. Furthermore it tries to identify problems and opportunities for

improvement in the light of the upcoming general review. In terms of avoiding an excessive

scope, the present analysis focuses on the core functions of the newly established HRC, namely

the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the Special Procedures, the Advisory Council (AC) and

the Complaint Procedure, since the development of these functions is the crucial point in

assessing its further development.

5|Page
I. INTRODUCTION

A. What is Human Rights Council ?

The UN Human Rights Council (Council or HRC) is the principle intergovernmental body

within the United Nations (UN) system responsible for strengthening the promotion and

protection of human rights around the globe, and for addressing and taking action on human

rights violations around the globe.

The Council holds meetings throughout the year providing a multilateral forum to address

human rights violations wherever and whenever they occur. It responds to human rights

emergencies and makes recommendations on how to better implement human rights on the

ground. The Council has the ability to discuss all thematic human.

The Council adopts the “Institution-Building”rights issues and country-specific situations

that require its attention. The Council held its first session in June 2006. One year later ,the

Council adopted its “Institution-Building” package by resolution 5/1 to guide its work and set

up its procedures and mechanisms. Among the Council’s subsidiary bodies are the Universal

Periodic Review mechanism (UPR), the Special Procedures, the Advisory Committee and the

Complaint Procedure.

The Council can also establish international commissions of inquiry and fact-finding

missions investigating and responding to human rights violations, to help expose violators

and bring them to justice.

B. The Criticism on the Commission on Human Rights

Created back in 1946 by ECOSOC1 the CHR was the core human rights body of the United

Nations for more than sixty years. Focusing initially on standard setting during the first 20

1
E/RES/5 (I) of 16 February 1946.

6|Page
years of its existence, step by step the implementation of these standards became the second

focal point of the work of the CHR. Therefore a mechanism for the investigation of human

rights violations2 and a complaint procedure were established 3 and from the 1980s onwards a

system of monitoring mechanisms was developed under the auspices of the CHR.4

Furthermore, against the background of a growing international concern for human rights

issues, the CHR emerged as the UN’s most important political organ and discussion forum in

the field of human rights.5

However, the CHR increasingly became the target of criticism in the post Cold War era, in

which the political vacuum left by the disappearance of the traditional East-West divide had

been filled with new confrontations such as those between regional groups, between the

North and the South or the West against “the Rest”.6 Gradually expanded from 18 to 53

members, 7 the members were elected by ECOSOC, for three year terms, on the following

basis: 15 from African States; 12 from Asian States; five from Eastern European States; 11

from Latin American and Caribbean States; 10 from Western European and other States.

In line with its increased importance as a political forum and the constantly growing

membership of the United Nations in the course of the process of decolonization, it became

clear, with regard to the limited meeting time of one annual session of six weeks, that the

institutional frame of a functional commission would no longer suffice.

Furthermore in the context of an increasing number of condemning resolutions and an

expanding agenda the CHR became more and more politicized. Most notably this was

2
The 1235-Procedure, named after the resolution by which it was created, E/RES/1235 (XLII) of 6 June 1967.
3
The 1503 procedure, named after its founding resolution E/RES/1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970
4
See <www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/ special/index.htm>.
5
P. Alston, The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal, 1992, 126 et seq.
6
See J. Gutter, “Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council”, Human Rights Law Review 7 (2007), 103
et seq.
7
E/RES/1990/48 of 25 May 1990.

7|Page
illustrated by the increasing number of so called “no-action motions”8 tabled from the mid-

nineties on and a further shift of the opinion and decision making to the different political

groups.

Moreover, as a result of its excessive politicization, the CHR was increasingly accused of

applying double standards while reviewing the human rights records of members and non-

members and therefore being unprofessional and biased. This was mainly the result of the

circumstance that many states with bad human rights records sought membership of the CHR

to protect themselves from being reviewed but, nevertheless, to denounce others. The election

of many of those states was enabled by the so-called presenting of “clean slates”, a practice

by which regional groups determine membership from their region by putting up the same

number of candidates from the region as there are seats to be filled by that region. Triggered

by the reaction of the United States to its failed candidacy to the CHR in 2001 the discussion

on the need for reform of the CHR was again ignited in the following years by the election of

the Libyan representative as chairperson of the CHR in 2003 and the election of Sudan to the

CHR in 2004. In the same year the United States placed the topic of reforming the CHR on

the agenda of ECOSOC, claiming that only “real democracies” should be awarded

membership of the CHR. 9

8
Article 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure of the functional commissions of ECOSOC
9
P. Alston, “Reconceiving the UN Human Rights Regime”, Melbourne Journal of International Law 1 (2006),
189 et seq.

8|Page
II. HOW DOES THE COUNCIL WORK?

The Human Rights Council meets for at least 10 weeks per year at the United Nations Office

in Geneva, Switzerland, in regular sessions usually taking place in March, June and

September. The Council can also convene urgent meetings on short notice to respond to

emerging human rights crises – 28 such special sessions were held thus far. The Council’s

subsidiary bodies meet for approximately 20 additional weeks each year. Since its 1st session

in 2006, the Council’s agenda has been expanding and its meeting time has more than

doubled.

The Council is made up of 47 member States who are elected by the UN General

Assembly by a simple majority vote, through a secret ballot. Members of the Council are

elected for three-year terms with one-third of members being renewed every year.10

The Council can adopt texts with or without a recorded vote. To adopt a draft text by a vote,

it must enjoy the support of a majority of the members of the Council. Only Council

members are able to vote. The decisions of the Council are not legally binding. To date the

Council adopted over 1,750 texts to address a wide range of thematic and country-specific

human rights issues.

The council membership is based on equitable geographical distribution of seats according to

the following regional breakdown: 13 African States; 13 Asia-Pacific States; 8 Latin

American and Caribbean States; 7 Western European and other States; 6 Eastern European

States. 117 countries have served as Council members so far, reflecting the UN’s diversity

giving it legitimacy when speaking out on human rights violations in all countries.

10
M. Abraham, A new Chapter for Human Rights, International Service for Human Rights/Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung, 2006, 40.

9|Page
The Council has a Bureau which consists of a president and four vice-presidents who

represent each of the five regional groups, and who serve for a year in accordance with

the Council’s annual cycle (January – December). Staff from the Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) serve as the secretariat for the Council providing

its members with technical, substantive and administrative support. In addition to the member

States of the Council, observers, which include non-member States, inter-governmental

organizations, national human rights institutions, and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), also participate actively in Council sessions.

C. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF UNHRC

I. The Founding Resolution A/RES/60/251

The establishment of the HRC, in the first place, is due to the extraordinary dedication of

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who integrated the topic of reforming the CHR into the

general UN debate on reform in the run-up to the UN World Summit of 2005. He charged the

High- Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change with assessing this issue. In its 2004

report the Panel then criticized the shortcomings of the CHR, developed ideas for reform and

proposed the creation of a HRC as a principal organ of the United Nations. In March 2005

Kofi Annan published his follow-up report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development,

Security and Human Rights for All,11 in which he associated himself with the criticism of the

Panel and called for a replacement of the CHR by a smaller standing HRC, to be created

either as a new principal organ or alternatively as a subsidiary organ of the General

Assembly. 12 This discretion considering the creation of the HRC is perhaps related to the

11
Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared
Responsibility, Doc. A/59/565 of 2 December 2004, paras 282-291.
12
Report of the Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for
All, Doc. A/59/2005 of 21 March 2005, paras 181-183.

10 | P a g e
questionable feasibility of such a reform project since it would require an amendment of

Article 7 para. 1 of the United Nations Charter.13 In the following month Kofi Annan then

concretized his proposals in a speech before the CHR and in an explanatory note to the

president of the General Assembly. In the speech before the CHR Kofi Annan also

introduced a “Universal Peer Review”. Despite fears that the replacement of the CHR by the

HRC would do away with some of the biggest accomplishments within the UN human rights

system, the idea of the creation of a HRC prevailed at the World Summit in 2005. The

outcome document of the summit, however, dedicates only four paragraphs to the HRC,

outlining a mandate for the new institution and requesting the president of the General

Assembly to conduct negotiations in this regard.14 These negotiations subsequently proved to

be extremely difficult, since opinions differed concerning the question of how the new

Council should look and what features of the CHR should be preserved. However, on 15

March 2006, the General Assembly succeeded in adopting the founding resolution of the

HRC that was supported by a great majority of the member state but failed to reach

consensus.15 The United States, followed by its closest allies, had turned its back on the

reform project that it itself had instigated, since it became clear that not all of its positions

were going to be accepted by the majority of the General Assembly.

A.Mandate

According to resolution A/RES/60/251 of 15 March 2006 the HRC replaces the CHR16 while

assuming all of its mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities. The HRC is also

provided with a comprehensive mandate, according to which it “shall be responsible for

promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms

for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner.” Besides that the HRC

13
See Article 7 of the UN Charter.
14
World Summit 2005 outcome document, A/RES/60/1 of 15 September 2005, para. 160.
15
A/RES/60/251 of 15 March 2006,
16
A/RES/60/251, see note 23, op. para. 1.

11 | P a g e
“should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic

violations, and make recommendations thereon. It should also promote the effective

coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system.”

Furthermore it shall undertake a Universal Periodic Review (UPR), make recommendations

with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights and submit an annual report to the

General Assembly.

B. Institutional Status

Instead of establishing a new principal organ, resolution A/RES/60/251 creates the HRC as a

subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, based on Article 22 of the UN Charter. However, as a

compromise it was agreed, that the institutional status of the HRC shall be reviewed within five

years, thus leaving the door open for upgrading the HRC in the future.17

C. Meeting Time

By extending the limited meeting time of only one annual session of six weeks in the CHR to no

fewer than three sessions per year, including a main session, for a total duration of no less than ten

weeks, the founding resolution of the HRC seeks to solve one of the most fundamental problems

of the CHR. Furthermore the HRC can convene special sessions at the request of a member of

the Council with the support of one third of the membership of the Council.

D. Membership

Reducing the overall membership from 53 seats to 47, to make the HRC more maneuverable,

the resolution tries to establish a compromise in respect of one of the most controversial

17
P. Alston, The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal, 1992, 126 et seq

12 | P a g e
questions in the course of the reform process.18 The resolution merely states that “when

electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of

candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and

commitments made thereto.”19

From now on member states are elected “directly and individually by secret ballot by the

majority of the members of the General Assembly” for a three year term, so that every

candidate has to win over 97 of the currently 192 members of the General Assembly. The

election system thereby aims at regularly attracting a larger number of candidates than seats

to be filled at the HRC to avoid the presenting of “clean slates”. Besides, the members of the

Council shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms, thereby

excluding permanent membership, and furthermore the Resolution provides for a suspension

of membership rights by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, if a member of the

HRC commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Besides the new approach in the selection of members another development in the field of

membership must be considered. The geo- graphic distribution of seats reveals a reduction of

the influence of the Western States and an increase of the influence of the Asian

States.Therefore, the states of the southern hemisphere now hold a two-third majority in the

HRC.

E.Universal Periodic Review

The most important element of the establishment of the new HRC is the implementation of

the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The founding resolution instructs the HRC to

18
A/RES/60/251, see note 23, op. para. 7.
19
A/RES/60/251, see note 23, op. para. 8.

13 | P a g e
“undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the

fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which

ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review

shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement

of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs.”20 The

mechanism, which was ultimately named “periodic” instead of “peer” review, is however

based on the idea that member states review themselves instead of being examined by

independent experts. Therefore the UPR differs fundamentally from the review by treaty

bodies, whose work the UPR shall complement and not duplicate, forming an unique

mechanism within the UN Human Rights System. The mechanism based on ECOSOC

resolution 1235 (XLII) bore some resemblance indeed, but was rather selective compared to

the UPR. Only states that were accused of violating human rights by UN Rapporteurs were

addressed by the condemning resolution of the CHR and the General Assembly. This was

perceived by many developing countries as being unfair, since the exigencies of many of

those states were not adequately taken into consideration. Against this backdrop, the

establishment of the UPR aims at solving the often criticized politicization of the CHR by

simply reviewing all UN member states within four years, thereby avoiding the politically

sensitive question of whose human rights record is being reviewed. Furthermore this means

that all HRC members are reviewed, so that membership can no longer be used as a shield

against scrutiny.

F. Special Procedures

The system of Special Procedures, which in many eyes constitutes one of the most important

achievements of the abolished CHR, was already under heavy pressure in the years prior to

20
C. Tomuschat, Human Rights, Between Idealism and Realism, 2008, 140 et seq.

14 | P a g e
the establishment of the HRC.21

In this context, besides several reform efforts, an increasing number of attempts to restrict or

even completely abolish the entire system of special procedures were to be observed. In light

of the fundamental opposition to country-specific mandates by a number of member states

the thematic and country-specific mandates became the main target of criticism.

Unsurprisingly during discussions on the establishment of the HRC a complete abolishment

of the system of special procedures was called for to enable the new organ to start anew. In

the end supporters and opponents of the special procedures reached a compromise which

preserved the entire system of special procedures but provided for a review and, if necessary,

a rationalization of all mandates and functions within one year after the holding of the first

session of the HRC. Thus, the question of which mandates should be extended or abolished

was somewhat adjourned.

G. ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee functions as the “think-tank” of the

Council focusing mainly on studies and research-based advice. It consists of 18 independent

experts that are elected by the Council and are drawn proportionally from the five UN

regional groups. The experts are from different professional backgrounds, all serve in their

personal capacity for three-year terms and are eligible for re-election only once.

The Advisory Committee held its first meeting in 2008. It meets twice a year, in February and

August, for one week each.

21M. Lempinen, Challenges Facing the System of Special Procedures of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2001, 248 et seq.

15 | P a g e
The Advisory Committee is implementation-oriented, has produced studies on a wide range

of thematic issues including vulture funds, corruption, local government, post-disaster and

post-conflict situations, terrorist hostage-taking, the right to food, missing persons, the rights

of persons living with albinism, and promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic

ideal, among others. The Advisory Committee has also formulated draft declarations as well

as principles and guidelines on a number of topics, some of which were endorsed by the

General Assembly. These include the principles and guidelines for the elimination of

discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members.

H. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

The Human Rights Council´s Complaint Procedure is a victims’- oriented process addressing

consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested human rights violations occurring in any part

of the world and under any circumstances. The Complaint Procedure is based on

communications received from individuals, groups or non-governmental organizations that

claim to be victims of human rights violations or that have direct, reliable knowledge of such

violations. 22

The Complaint Procedure was established in 2007 out of the need to improve the previous

1503 procedure through increasing impartiality, objectivity, efficiency and victim-orientation.

Two distinct working groups - the Working Group on Communications and the Working

Group on Situations - are responsible, respectively, for examining communications and

bringing violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the Council’s attention, for

their further action. The Complaint Procedure conducts its work in a confidential manner

(unless it decides otherwise), with a view to enhance cooperation with the State concerned.

22
P. Alston, The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal, 1992, 126 et seq

16 | P a g e
This is the only universal complaint procedure covering all human rights and fundamental

freedoms in all UN member States. An average of 4,000 communications are submitted to

the Complaint Procedure each year.

I. COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRIES AND FACT- FINDING MISSIONS

The Human Rights Council can also establish international commissions of inquiries, fact-

finding missions and investigations to respond to serious violations of international human

rights and humanitarian law, whether protracted or resulting from sudden events, and to

promote accountability for such violations and counter impunity.

J. EXPERT MECHANISM ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides the Human Rights

Council with thematic advice in the form of studies and research on the rights of Indigenous

peoples as directed by the Council. Its studies have covered issues such as education, the

right to participation in decision making processes, access to justice, the role of language,

cultures and the identity of indigenous peoples, among others.

The Expert Mechanism may suggest proposals to the Council for its consideration and

approval, and can highlight good practices. Moreover, the Expert Mechanism may also

provide member States technical advice regarding the development of domestic policies

relating to the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the implementation of

recommendations. 23

The Expert Mechanism is made up of seven independent experts based on equitable

geographical distribution and gender balance, who are appointed by the Council for 3 year

terms. It holds one annual session, usually in July, with the participation of a wide range of

23
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Seminar on Enhancing and Strengthening
Special Procedures (12 to 13 October 2005)

17 | P a g e
stakeholders, whose participation is also strengthened through the Voluntary Fund for

Indigenous Populations. The Expert Mechanism reports to the Council once a year and

produces an annual study on the status on the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide.

K. EXPERT MECHANISM ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

The Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development was established by the Human Rights

Council in September 2019 with a mandate to provide the Council with thematic expertise

on the right to development in order to implement this right worldwide. The Expert

Mechanism will consist of five independent experts, who will be appointed by the Council

President at the conclusion of its 43rd session in March 2020. The new body will meet

once annually for three days in Geneva and once annually for three days in New York, and

will report once a year to the Council on its activities. The meetings will be open to States,

UN bodies, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations, national human rights

institutions, academics and experts on development issues, and NGOs. 24

L. CONSULTATIVE GROUP

The Human Rights Council’s Consultative Group is a body comprised of five ambassadors,

representing each of the five regional groups and serving in a personal capacity, charged

with making recommendations for candidates to fill positions of UN human rights experts -

Special Procedures mandate holders, members of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.

The Consultative Group carries out its work through a competitive and transparent process

through which it evaluates candidates’ expertise and experience in the field of the vacant

mandate. The Consultative Group then makes recommendations to the President of the

24
M. Lempinen, Challenges Facing the System of Special Procedures of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2001, 248 et seq

18 | P a g e
Council noting their preferred candidates, which are made public in a report prior to each

regular session of the Council. The appointment is finalized when the selected candidate

nominated by the President is approved by the Council during its session.

M. FORUM ON MINORITY ISSUES

The Forum on Minority Issues has been established to provide a platform for promoting

dialogue and cooperation on issues pertaining to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic

minorities, as well as to provide thematic contributions and expertise to the work of the

Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues. The Forum identifies and analyses best practices,

challenges, opportunities and initiatives for the further implementation of the Declaration on

the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

The Forum meets annually for two working days allocated to thematic discussions with a

Chairperson appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council on the basis of regional

rotation, and in consultation with regional groups. The Special Rapporteur on minority issues

guides the work of the Forum, prepares its annual meetings and reports on the thematic

recommendations of the Forum to the Council. 25

The Forum is open to all relevant stakeholder groups, including States, the wider UN

system, intergovernmental and regional organizations, national human rights institutions,

non- governmental organizations and affected stakeholders, among others.

N. FORUM ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Forum on Business and Human Rights is a multi-stakeholder body charged with

discussing trends and challenges in the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business

and Human Rights. It promotes dialogue and cooperation on issues linked to business and

25
The report by the Secretary-General Strengthening of the United Nations, Doc. A/57/387 of 9 September
2002.

19 | P a g e
human rights, including challenges faced in particular sectors, operational environments or in

relation to specific rights or groups. It also identifies good practices.

As per Council resolution 17/4, the Forum is open to all relevant stakeholder groups,

including States, the wider UN system, intergovernmental and regional organizations,

businesses, labour unions, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations

and affected stakeholders, among others.

O. SOCIAL FORUM

The Social Forum is an annual three-day meeting convened by the Human Rights Council. It

is defined as a unique space for open and interactive dialogue between civil society actors,

representatives of member States, and intergovernmental organizations, on a theme chosen by

the Council each year.

The Social Forum has addressed issues such as the impacts of economic and financial crises

on efforts to combat poverty, the adverse effects of climate change on human rights, the

promotion of the right to development, the rights of older persons, access to medicines and

the rights of persons with disabilities, among others.

The reports produced by the Social Forum are submitted to the Council for further

consideration. 26

P. FORUM ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW

The Forum on Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law established by the Human Rights

Council provides a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on issues pertaining to

the relationship between these areas and to identify and analyse best practices, challenges and

26
The report by the Secretary-General Strengthening of the United Nations, Doc. A/57/387 of 9 September
2002.

20 | P a g e
opportunities for States in their efforts to secure respect for human rights, democracy and the

rule of law.27

The Forum meets biannually for 2 working days. The President of the Council appoints for

each session, on the basis of regional rotation and in consultation with regional groups, a

Chairperson of the Forum from candidates nominated by members and observers of the

Council.

27
M. Abraham, A new Chapter for Human Rights, International Service for Human Rights/Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung, 2006, 40

21 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

The HRC so far proved to be the international human rights body of universal relevance.

Nevertheless the problems identified have to be solved and its main functions have to be

substantially strengthened and further developed. If the international community successfully

and unconditionally carries out this task and refrains from further weakening and restricting

the main functions in the upcoming review of the HRC, the HRC will be in the position to tap

its full potential in the future and to mark in fact a milestone in the development of the UN

human rights system. By establishing the HRC as a subsidiary organ of the General

Assembly, increasing the meeting time and reducing membership to 47 states some of the

problems of the CHR have been solved. The Universal Periodic Review now guarantees that

all states come under review on a regular basis, so that membership can no longer be used as

a shield against human rights scrutiny.

22 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Articles
1. P. Alston, The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal, 1992

2. J. Gutter, “Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council”, Human Rights Law Review (2007)

3. P. Alston, “Reconceiving the UN Human Rights Regime”, Melbourne Journal of International Law

(2006)

4. M. Abraham, A new Chapter for Human Rights, International Service for Human Rights/Friedrich

Ebert Stiftung, 2006

5. Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our

Shared Responsibility,

6. Report of the Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human

Rights for All

7. C. Tomuschat, Human Rights, Between Idealism and Realism, 2008,

8. M. Lempinen, Challenges Facing the System of Special Procedures of the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights, Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2001

23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e