HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon discussed its rules of procedure and decided to establish a drafting group to work on preparing them.

During the discussion, Experts wondered whether they needed detailed rules of procedure or only general ones. One Expert thought that there was a need for detailed rules. These were necessary in order to ensure that during discussions of substance, they would not have to have discussions on rules of procedures and thus not waste any time. For several Experts, there was a clear consensus on the need for rules of procedure and for the need to appoint a drafting group. Also, Experts wondered what name they should give to their work if they were not able to adopt resolutions and decisions. Experts also wondered if they could adopt rules of procedure without the approval of the Council.

Government representatives pointed out that the rules of procedure should be based and fully in line with Council Resolution 5/1. This was why it was necessary to send the draft rules to the Council, in order for it to review their conformity to their resolution.

At the end of the meeting, the Advisory Committee accepted without a vote to set up a drafting group that would start working on draft rules of procedure. The members appointed to the drafting group, with regional representation, were Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Mona Zulficar, Ansar Ahmed Burney and Latif Hüseynov. The member from the Latin American and Caribbean Group would be appointed after further consultations.

Speaking this afternoon were Committee Experts Vladimir Kartashkin, Latif Hüseynov, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Purificacion V. Quisumbing, Chung Chinsung, Emmanuel Decaux, Mona Zulficar, Halima Embarek Warzazi, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello and Committee President Miguel Alfonso Martinez.

Also speaking were the delegations of India, the Russian Federation and Egypt.

When the Advisory Committee meets again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 12 August, it is scheduled to discuss the outcomes of the drafting groups on the right to food and on human rights education and training.

Discussion on Rules of Procedure of Advisory Committee

ERIC TISTOUNET, Secretary of the Human Rights Council, said that when looking at the first session of a new body, there was always a certain level of uncertainty. This had also happened during the creation of the Human Rights Council. It should also be clear that if there were no rules during the first sessions, it did not mean that there was a legal void. A body could simply adopt the rules of the body above it. The Advisory Committee had to establish to what extent it wanted and needed rules of procedure and how far these had to go. Concerning the use of resolutions or decisions, he noted that the Human Rights Council resolutions talked of proposals, suggestions and recommendations, thus the words “decision” and “resolution” could not be used, but there was still a broad range of words the Committee could use.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, asked whether they needed detailed rules or only general ones. He thought that they needed detailed ones. When looking at the work of other bodies, all of those had quite detailed rules. Why was there a need for such detailed rules? They were necessary in order to ensure that during discussions of substance, they would not have to have discussions on rules of procedure and thus not waste any time. Former members of the Sub-Commission would recall that they had had many lengthy discussions on rules of procedure. Further, no one questioned the fact that they had no right to adopt resolutions. It was in their own interest to have a list of the kinds of recommendations they could make.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in his view they did not need to prolong this discussion. They had reached the consensus that rules of procedures were needed. The establishment of a drafting group had also been agreed upon. Such a group should be set up during the current plenary. Concerning the question of having detailed or comprehensive rules, written rules did not necessarily mean having detailed ones. Written rules would also not prevent the Committee from being flexible. Requirements of independence and impartiality should also be addressed in the rules of procedure of the Committee.

HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she was neither in favour nor against rules of procedure. If eventually there would be a drafting group, although she could not see any consensus, the Sub-Commission had very detailed rules of procedure which were a masterpiece. If a drafting group was created this should be kept in mind. There was a load of references, but the rules of the General Assembly would not have to be considered. If there was a volunteer to read the rules of procedure, the person would have to see what was not included in those rules.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he thought that there was a clear need for rules of procedure and that a drafting group was needed. The need for detailed rules or not was for him a too abstract discussion. He wanted light rules of procedure, corresponding to 2008 and to the work of the Committee.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he fully agreed with Mr. Heinz and fully supported what he had said. No reference should be made to older Commissions since the Committee was a new body. But as a basis, existing rules of procedure should be used. For example, Mr. Hüseynov raised important questions. His statement showed that rules of procedure were needed. The Committee had to use the rules of procedure of the Sub-Commission because those rules already had settled many questions that came up during the discussion here. From his point of view a consensus had been reached.

PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she felt that there was a consensus on this matter. It was just a question of who wanted to work on this subject. She thought that they had to move ahead. All the rest would be discussed by the drafting group.

CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the majority of the Experts favoured having rules of procedure. The drafting should be made quickly. She agreed that the rules of procedure should be detailed. Ms. Chung suggested that Mr. Hüseynov and Mr. Decaux draft theses rules as they were lawyers. The Committee should discuss those rules during the next session. Regarding this session, it was a transition session, a consensus had not been reached yet.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was not particularly happy at the way the debate was going. Their body was a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council, which itself was subsidiary to the General Assembly. The Sub-Commission however had been a subsidiary to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and in this case the rules of ECOSOC were automatically adopted. The past was the past and the Advisory Committee was not a clone of the Sub-Commission. However, it would be a huge mistake to entirely do away with the experience the Sub-Commission had accumulated. The wheel should not be reinvented, but they should maybe just look at the rules of the former body and refresh them. He suggested creating an enlarged working group of maybe 10 Experts. It was a too heavy responsibility to be shared by only two persons.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, said he did not have any doubts that the Committee could draft rules of procedure; the Council even encouraged the Committee to do so. It was important to do this. The Committee was a body that needed to take into account a legal framework.

Mr. Martinez asked how these ideas could be developed in practice. Before the Committee left Geneva, they had to establish a drafting group. But to start the work in the few remaining days of this session would be far too ambitious. He initially thought that the drafting of the rules of procedure had to be approached in January. If it could not be concluded in January, it had to be concluded in August. In all the previous exercises, the so-called yellow documents were not particularly successful documents. The Committee would make better use of its time if they set up a drafting group, including two persons per region.

PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, supported the statements by Mr. Decaux and Ms. Chung. If they had at least one person per region it would already be a start.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they did not need to refer to paragraph 77 to come to a conclusion that they needed rules of procedure. It suggested that when making further research proposals, they needed to be approved by the Council. But their rules of procedure should not be approved by the Council. Also, the suggestion was not to start the work now, but to establish a drafting group that would come out with recommendations at the next session. Further, he did not think that regional representation was a condition sine qua non for their work. If their decisions were all taken in plenary there was no need for regional representation inside groups. Further, he did not think that it was a difficult task to adopt rules of procedure. Also, the impression that the more people were on board of such a group, the better the work would be, was a false impression in his view. Rules of procedure could be done by one person and then be discussed by the plenary. If people found this task too difficult, he could do this work by himself and come up with a proposal at the next session.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they were coming to a conclusion. Five representatives of the regional groups, as usual, should be part of the drafting group. It should be action-oriented, implementation-oriented, all the features that had been mentioned earlier. Also, the relevant references had been mentioned earlier. Regarding the African Group, Ms. Warzazi and herself were engaged everywhere because they were the only African representatives present.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that it was the role of the Advisory Committee to take the prerogative on how it discussed its rules of procedure and if they needed them. India's view was that the Advisory Committee should be working as flexible as possible. Further one could not bypass the desire of the Council not to have the Advisory Committee take decisions and resolutions; this was not only a question of semantics. It had been intended to prevent what had happened during the Sub-Commission.

HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she felt lost after the statement of the Representative of India. Since the Committee was asked to produce some work, the question was what title would it have? Were they thoughts or suggestions? She would like to find out the definition of the work that was requested by the Council. Ms. Warzazi fully agreed that the Committee was not adopting resolutions.

ALEXANDER PETROV (Russian Federation) pointed out that the methodology of work and the procedures for this work were something that should be exclusively done by the members of the Committee. But in order to ensure that this work was the most efficient, as a State representative, he had to point out that the rules of procedure should be based and fully in line with Council resolution 5/1.

JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said he believed that the statement from the Russian Federation was a very clear, one that had to be taken into account. The Human Rights Council gave the Committee a mandate. The Committee had to interpret that mandate and make the appropriate rules. As all colleagues had said, the Committee could prepare a draft of rules of procedure which could then be confirmed by the Council. A drafting group could be appointed in a private session and in the next session these rules could be approved.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, said that even if there was no precedence, it would be wise to put the draft rules of procedure to the immediate superior body. This was an established rule.


LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he agreed with the statement by the Russian Federation, but it was a prerogative for the Advisory Committee to draft and approve their own rules of procedure and these rules did not to have to be adopted, agreed to or sent to any other body for approval. This was their own task and they had the right to adopt them, without the prior approval of the Council.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said that Egypt fully respected the independence of the Advisory Committee. It should not be implied that the Human Rights Council would not adopt these rules of procedure. To ensure the continuity of work, the principle of staggering could apply. Even members who enjoyed one year terms and wanted to become members of the drafting group would be able to do so.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was trying to find the explicit provisions which required the approval of their rules of procedure by the Council. Paragraph 77 of Resolution 5/1 said that this Committee had no right to adopt resolutions or decisions, this was the main idea. This was the main sentence, but if the Committee intended to enhance its procedural efficiency, of course they should seek the approval of the Council, because they intended to go beyond the limits the Council had determined. They could thus come out with suggestions to the Council. However, rules of procedure were the Committee's own internal organization of work.

HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in paragraph 20 there was no reference to the rules of procedure. The Council was meeting in September, if the President of the Advisory Committee was there, he could ask the Council whether the Committee was authorized to adopt its rules of procedure without the approval of the Council or not.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, said that the Committee was not an independent body, but dependent on a higher body. There was no question that the Committee could make those rules. According to the President's opinion, they had to be taken to the Council.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that one could quite easily find a solution to the current problem: they should draft their rules of procedure, approve them in plenary and send them to the Council to ask it whether their rules needed approval or not.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that when the rules of procedures were submitted to the Council, they would simply look at the rules regarding their conformity with resolution 5/1. It that sense, the rules of procedure had to be transmitted to the Council. The Council would not micromanage the Committee, but only look at the conformity with the resolution.

For use of the information media; not an official record

AC08012E