The UN Human Rights Council:
Where Do We Go from Here?

Last year, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had a dream: to see a major overhaul of the main UN human rights mechanisms in order to make them more effective. His report, “In Larger Freedom”, proposed a number of drastic and important changes, and was presented to the world leaders during the New York summit in September 2005. It was an important and timely document, but many politicians around the world were not so delighted by the prospect of changing a situation which was convenient for them: a new strong human rights body for the UN would step on too many governments' toes.

Despite this resistance, it was nevertheless obvious that the old and ineffective Human Rights Commission needed to be significantly changed. The resulting draft resolution proposed a new Human Rights Council, but one that was a watered-down version of what Annan had envisioned. On 15 March 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the draft resolution that created the Human Rights Council in replacement of the Commission. While the new Council has been welcomed by many, other observers remain skeptical about the true effectiveness of these reforms.

The Commission had been frequently accused of being ineffective and not making a true difference in countries facing a major human rights crisis. In all fairness though, the Commission did contribute certain positive measures during its existence - such as giving the world the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments of international human rights law. It had also adopted international human rights law standards on thematic issues such as children, torture and minorities. On the other hand, the Commission had shamefully failed to act during the genocides in Rwanda, Burundi and the former Yugoslavia.

A key advancement of the Council was meant to be the new election procedure for members. This procedure aimed at preventing the election of major human rights violators such as Zimbabwe, Libya or Sudan which had previously been members of the Commission and had created obstacles for its effectiveness. The 47 members of the Council were elected on 9 May 2006, directly and individually in the General Assembly by secret ballot. Candidates needed to win an absolute majority of at least 96 votes, which stood in contrast to Kofi Annan’s proposal of a much safer two-thirds majority vote to better exclude major human rights violators.

Unfortunately, this hope received a bad blow when a number of countries with a worrying human rights track record were elected. While no country is perfect, certain countries have proven to be particularly serious and persistant violators. Countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Cameroon, Pakistan, Tunisia and Bangladesh all have very negative human rights records and have recently been harshly criticised by the international community. For example, until recently Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth for not abiding by the Harare Principles, which includes human rights. According to Freedom House’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, together with the global press freedom index of Reporters Without Borders, 47% of the countries on the new Council failed to meet accepted democratic standards.  Whilst this is an 8% improvement over the old Commission, it is still not a big enough improvement to put anyone’s mind at rest. Another worrying fact is that more than half of the nations on the Council have voted at the UN to oppose resolutions protecting the victims of the Darfur atrocities. There is a fear that countries with a poor human rights record will hinder the work of the Council in an attempt to cover up their own wrongdoings.

Apart from those that are guilty of serious violations, we also find members of the Council with appalling records of submitting reports to international treaty-monitoring bodies – an indication of poor commitment to the international human rights regime. Bangladesh, for instance, has not submitted a report to the Committee Against Torture since it ratified the torture treaty in 1998 and Cameroon has eleven reports pending, many overdue for years. Sadly, these are just a few of the examples. Members of the Council also include countries like Malaysia that have shown little regard for the international human rights system by ratifying so few of the core human rights treaties.

Of course it is useless to cry over split milk and limit ourselves to an expression of disappointment over the elections. It is now vital to look ahead and see what can be done now that the member countries of the Council have been determined. The Council can still be an important body for the protection of human rights and its new monitoring mechanisms can improve the human rights situation in even the most worrying of member countries. It is the role of civil society and the public to ensure that this occurs.

When putting forward their candidacy, each country made a pledge in which they declared their present and future commitments to human rights. These pledges can now be used by civil society to scrutinise their performance in the field of human rights. In this respect, it should also be remembered that the General Assembly can suspend any member country that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights – a possibility that should not be taken lightly since it would cause great humiliation for any country. Members of the Council have also committed themselves to cooperating with the Council and its various mechanisms, which includes granting unimpeded access to UN human rights investigators.

In addition, a new universal review procedure will scrutinise even the most powerful countries, which - as long as the process adopted and its enforcement is effective - may induce countries to act more diligently than before. Therefore, when the Council convenes its first session on 19 June, it is imperative that it develops a strong universal review procedure that will provide neutral, objective scrutiny of human rights in all countries, and put forward appropriate conclusions and recommendations. It is also important that politics are not allowed to affect the work of the Council and its decisions and that civil society is given adequate space to function.

Other changes include that the Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly rather than of the Economic and Social Council, and has 47 members where the Commission had 53. The Council will meet for a longer period of time and more frequently – at least three times a year for ten weeks as opposed to the Commission’s single annual six-week meeting. With agreement of one-third of the Council, additional sessions can also be called. There is still concern, however, that the Council might not have enough time to thoroughly fulfil its duties, particularly if all members’ human rights commitments are to be thoroughly and regularly scrutinised.

Despite all concerns, there is still hope that the new Council can work effectively and improve the lives of millions. Its performance must be scrutinised and its members carefully monitored. We have been given a chance to start again and must not let the Council evolve into another ineffective international body. It is now vital for civil society to grasp this opportunity and push for the building of a concrete and effective Council.

Please also note CHRI’s press release “Fresh paint over the same old cracks: Empty promises as candidates line up for the Human Rights Council” is available in the ‘Whats New’ section on our website.