HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON ITS METHODS OF WORK, AGENDA AND RULES OF PROCEDURE

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued its consideration of its methods of work and future agenda, dividing the discussion into three segments dealing with the methods of work, the agenda, and rules of procedure respectively.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Human Rights Council, Luis Alfonso de Alba, told the Council that he has received a request to hold a special session on the human rights situation in Darfur in the week following the end of the third session of the Council, which concludes on 8 December.

The request for a special session comes after United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour urged the Council, as it opened its third session on 29 November, to take up human rights violations in Darfur.

On methods of work, and with special reference to consultations on texts, speakers said the normative part of texts that were traditionally introduced at the Council were part of the heritage of the Council, and should not be renegotiated every year - instead focus should be made on the functional part. On the timing of the presentation of initiatives, this should be set according to the period of presentation of the Special Rapporteurs. The interactive dialogue and presentation of reports by Special Procedures could be divided for example into two sessions, the spring and autumn sessions, in terms of thematic clusters. Some speakers endorsed the idea of having an agenda balanced between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Concerning the future agenda, some delegations were of the view that it was important to have a structured agenda that should include some of the following basic elements: update report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the main session, with further updates at other sessions; urgent situations; reports from special procedures and interactive dialogues, which should be distributed throughout the year; promotion and protection of human rights; recommendations from universal and complaints procedure; experts advice; and adoption of the report of the session.

With reference to the rules of procedure, some delegations thought it would be useful to have proposed ground rules for the holding of special sessions. The objective was to make the sessions as effective and beneficial as possible. A speaker said the request for the fourth special session on Darfur was cross regional in nature, and this was a very good thing in terms of ensuring the work of the Council was as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. Other speakers were of the view that it would be useful for the Council to have clearer rules, with the appropriate flexibility. Perhaps if there was a way to tighten up requirements for a special session, with less detailed and less stringent requirements, this could support the issue of urgency.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, Australia, Lesotho, Canada, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Algeria, Israel, Philippines, Indonesia, India, Iran, Netherlands, and Ecuador.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 1 December, when it will start consideration of follow-up to its decisions. In that respect, the Council will consider the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon that will be presented by the three commissioners. The Council will also hear an update on the follow up to decisions on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and on the fact-finding mission on Beit Hanoun.


Statements on Methods of Work

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland) speaking on behalf of the European Union, said on methods of work and especially consultations on texts, the normative part of texts that were traditionally introduced at the Council were part of the acquis of the Council, and should not be renegotiated every year - instead focus should be made on the functional part. The number of formal informals should not be reduced. Sponsors of a draft text should organise at least one open-ended formal informal, and inform other delegations of this.

GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) considered a structured agenda and clarity as key elements for the conduct of the work of the Council. In addition, delegations should have early access to the programme of work and timetable to facilitate their work. Australia also fully endorsed conducting transparent and open consultations.

PONTSO REFILOE LEBOTSA (Lesotho) endorsed the idea of having an agenda balancing between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. The agenda should also focus on issues addressing the elimination of widespread and extreme poverty, and the promotion of good governance as prerequisite elements towards the enjoyment of social and economic rights.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said on special sessions, the idea behind the paper originated in the number of special sessions that had already been had to date. Some delegations had thought it would be useful to have proposed ground rules for the holding of special sessions. The objective was to make the sessions as effective and beneficial as possible. The request for the fourth special session was cross-regional in nature, and this was a very good thing in terms of ensuring the work of the Council was as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. There had to be adequate time for consideration of resolutions or texts coming from the special session, and a draft should be attached to the request for a special session for this. The High Commissioner or her representative should address the issue at the beginning of the special session.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina had already put forward this morning some proposals. Argentina supported devoting time to the general debate. This should be a well-organized general debate. All stakeholders should have enough time to prepare. Limiting the time for the presentation of a decision or resolution to only three minutes was not conducive to generating a necessary meaningful debate of issues. Argentina thought that the general debate should not be interrupted to give place to the discussion of a draft decision or resolution. Instead, the general debate should be allowed to continue uninterrupted to give the opportunity to all delegations that wished to do so to express their opinion.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the proposal put forward by the African Group should be highlighted. The idea of codifying the methods of work of the Council should be supported. Some delegates had also implicitly indicated support for the codification of the methods of work. Cuba recognized that the Commission had developed its own methods of work. Cuba welcomed the proposal of the Asian Group and supported the codification of the Council’s methods of work.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said there were two options on the frequency and duration of the sessions of the year, and the option of four sessions was favoured by Brazil, as this would offer better distribution of work. On the timing of the presentation of initiatives, this should be set according to the period of presentation of the Special Rapporteurs. The interactive dialogue and presentation of reports by special procedures could be divided for example into two sessions, the spring and autumn sessions, in terms of thematic clusters.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that Algeria had not intervened in this debate at length because they were of the impression that this question would be dealt with in detail at the inter-sessional open-ended intergovernmental Working Group. Nevertheless, Algeria said that with reference to procedures, nothing should preclude the future work of the Council. Algeria said that as the Human Rights Council was undergoing a process of transformation, they had to wait to decide on the specific contents of the agenda. Otherwise, they would be “jumping the gun” so to speak.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), recalling the statement made by the delegation of Switzerland during the morning meeting, said the non-paper presented by the Asian Group was not intended for negotiation. The text was therefore non-negotiable.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the Council, concluding the discussion on methods of work, said it was difficult to go into this issue in a formal meeting, and all agreed that the work needed to take place in a Working Group, were this to be approved. However, it had been expressed that there be at least an initial exercise of this kind in the present format, so as to examine proposals that had already been circulated, to discover the views of groups and countries, and allow the latter to present these formally. It allowed a beginning to the Working Group in a spirit of convergence and compromise. A transition period was in existence, and there was a need for special rules for that period. As soon as the rules of the Commission were taken out of circulation, there was a special situation. The context of the Council had to be taken into account, and this required an adjustment to the methods of work of the Council.

There had been some confusion in the work of the Council with regards to certain terms, and there was a need for a third document between the general agenda and the timetable for each session, with distinctions drawn that were clear in the six languages. The question of whether there were to be three sessions or four was most important, and there should be a logical distribution of work between these sessions. It was important that the first year of work was not to be considered as a typical one, and the decisions that had been taken in this area should not set a precedent for methods of work in the future.

Statements on the Agenda

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland) speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was important to have a structured agenda that should include some of the following basic elements: update report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the main session, with further updates at other sessions; urgent situations; reports from Special Procedures and interactive dialogues, which should be distributed throughout the year; promotion and protection of human rights; recommendations from universal and complaints procedure; experts advice; and adoption of the report of the session.

With particular reference to the basic element of the agenda on the promotion and protection of human rights, the European Union believed that the main focal point should be the proposed agenda. Other delegations should add other issues that had already been discussed in the Commission on Human Rights or add completely new ones. Delegations should be free to submit issues on short notice, and also to withdraw issues.

ADY SCHONMANN (Israel) said that Israel shared the suggestion made by the Secretary-General as well as others for ensuring transparency, objectivity, professionalism and clarity as guiding principles in the world of the Council. At the same time, Israel cautioned against the Council following the politicised footsteps of its discredited predecessor. The agenda of the Council should remain generic, providing proportionate and balanced focus on human rights issues worldwide, without selectively singling out for criticism one country situation alone. Israel considered renewed attempts by some delegates to “import and revive” the Commission’s tainted agenda item 8 to the new Council’s agenda as a clear warning sign indicating the worrying path which had already begun to become apparent in the work of the Council.


GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) said that in developing the future agenda, the Council should avoid the mistakes of the Commission, maintaining an inflexible and unnecessarily long agenda. The paper submitted by the European Union was a good basic structure for discussions in this regard. The future agenda should strike a balance between predictability and flexibility. A broad agenda item on protection and promotion of human rights was supported, as it required delegations to reflect annually on what issues they wished to raise, rather than merely returning to the same issues.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said with reference to the non-paper of the European Union, the Philippines agreed with the need to have flexibility and predictability. But flexibility should not affect the predictability of the agenda. On the elements of the basic agenda on promotion and protection of human rights, the Philippines assumed that proposed issues would have to be approved by the Human Rights Council. On recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review, they should be looked at in more detail to have a clearer idea on what that would imply.

MUHAMMAD ANSHAR (Indonesia) said the General Assembly’s resolution to create the Council should provide the basis for the drafting of the Council’s agenda. Indonesia believed that the agenda should be established for a period of one year. It should be elaborated according to the needs of the situation.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the format should be as clear and precise as possible. The question of flexibility could be taken on board under “any other business”. The agenda should be balanced between civil and political rights on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, including the right to development.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said India would like to discuss the proposed basic agenda of the European Union in detail at the inter-sessional open-ended intergovernmental Working Group. India suggested that item “b” should include predictability. In addition, urgent situations could be discussed under item “b”. India also suggested that reports from expert advice bodies and other inputs should be included under item “b” of the proposed basic elements of the agenda.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said emerging issues taking place in the world should be included in the agenda. The political, social and economic changes affecting the world should be taken into consideration. It was also important to include in the agenda the mechanisms of the High Commissioner for Human Rights aimed at monitoring human rights in States.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the regular agenda for the Human Rights Council should be focussed on implementation, and should foster dialogue and cooperation. There was a need for predictability in the agendas of the Council, and a need for at least one session with a high-level segment, and another that would be responsible for finalising the annual report. There was a need to ensure or distribute throughout the year the interactive process with the Special Procedures, and the consideration of the reports of the Universal Periodic Review should also be distributed throughout the year. There should be an innovative approach to some items on the agenda, such as round tables or panels which would seek to identify practical steps and cooperative methods for enhancing the protection of human rights. There could also be seminars. The agenda should provide for the possibility to respond promptly to human rights emergencies regarding human rights violations including gross and systematic violations.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the Council, said that a body that could meet on an ongoing fashion could not have a set agenda. There was a need to have a generic agenda. The yearly cycle was important to enable the submission of reports and allocation of mandates. There should be one annual report. On the agenda, the agenda of multilateral institutions was discussed on a daily basis, such as was the case of that of the General Assembly. The imperfect nature of it was the result of an effort at the time of inception of the United Nations to enable Member States not to be limited to any possible number of resolutions to be introduced in the agenda. The predictability and flexibility entailed the principle of inclusion, which was a political matter. The General Assembly was carrying out a mainstreaming exercise. It would be important to look at that process to have common elements across the United Nations system.


Statements on Rules of Procedure

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said a special session could not take place under complicated bureaucratic practices. The rules for special sessions should be drawn up. A group of European Union and African States met yesterday and decided to hold a special session. This would be practically impossible if the new proposals on rules for special sessions were adopted. Measures to facilitate the procedure should be put forward. It was therefore better to come back to the idea of a working group.

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the proposal on ground rules for special sessions was interesting, and reflected the European Union’s proposal on working methods as made today. Draft resolutions or decisions before the special session should be made available as soon as possible, and at least one open-ended consultation should be held on the text. It was hoped the forthcoming special session would be successful.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) supported the proposal of the Asian Group on methods of work. In contrast, Cuba expressed surprise over the proposal related to the issue of special sessions, as they were part of the regular work of the Human Rights Council. These sessions were meant to address urgent matters. Cuba disagreed with this proposal as it set stringent procedures that would require 48 hours to hold consultations when there was a need to take urgent measures on emergency situations.

GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) said it was essential that predictable rules of procedure should be put in place for the holding of special sessions. The time for the convening of the special session should take into consideration the urgency of the matter.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the delegation of the Philippines was putting its thoughts together on rules of procedure, and would submit a paper. The door was open for the Council to adopt other rules as applicable, and therefore the Council was not quite sure of which rules were applicable. Over the last six months, the Council had implicitly adopted a certain procedure, however, some of which were being used in ECOSOC and some which had been used in the defunct Commission. It would be useful for the Council to have clearer rules, with the appropriate flexibility. Perhaps if there was a way to tighten up requirements for a special session, with less detailed and less stringent requirements, this could support the issue of urgency.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said that the Human Rights Council should discuss at some point the matter of holding special sessions. Argentina had a number of reservations as to some possible obstacles to the effective functioning of the Human Rights Council. Argentina agreed with the need to exert some flexibility in dealing with situations of grave concern and urgency.

HANNO WURZNER (Netherlands) said that it was vital to have open consultations before deciding on the convening of a special session.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said Morocco had already expressed its position on the agenda and programme of work for the Council this morning. The current discussion was based on a proposal which most had not had enough time to study in a detailed way. The General Assembly said in its resolution that the Council could hold special sessions if a member requested one supported by one third of the Council. Some additional conditions had been suggested, and it would be illogical to suggest or impose such additional conditions. There was a lot of subjectivity if one was to decide whether equitable regional representation had been equitable or not before a special session was to be held or not. Some of the proposals went beyond the conditions laid down in the resolution establishing the General Assembly, and new conditions should not be introduced in this regard.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said Ecuador had followed with attention the current discussion, and the substantive topics would have to be well balanced to address equally civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. On the ground rules on setting up special sessions, there should be special attention given to establishing rules and procedures that would not encumber the work of the Human Rights Council to promptly address an urgent human rights situation.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the paper submitted this morning on the issue of special sessions was a group work and it was not presented by Canada alone. The effort of the paper was to collectively agree on the convening of a special session. It was a natural requirement that the issue of human rights violations was the basis for the holding of the special session. The reasons for the special session should be digested and the capitals should be consulted. Transparency and open consultations should also be the hallmark of the work in the Council. The Council was a forum where concerted efforts should be made to improve the human rights situation in many countries. The group that called for the fourth special session looked forward to success on assisting the victims of the human rights violations on the ground.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said it was necessary to conclude the ongoing reform process and the setting of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism in order to start the discussion of the definite rules of procedure for the Council. So far the Council should continue to work based on section 13 of the General Assembly rules of procedure and General Assembly resolution 60/251. On the creation of another inter-sessional Working Group to discuss the rules of procedure, it was premature to suggest that this work should be organised in a Working Group, as a situation could arise in which it would be possible to collate and aggregate existing rules without such a heavy instrument as an inter-sessional Working Group.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that any presentation of draft resolutions should be first open to broad consultations, and not only in the context of special sessions. What surprised Algeria was that Canada made such a remark only in the context of special sessions. Algeria underlined that that procedure was the right and normal one in the presentation of draft resolutions. It would be good for all delegations to put this procedure into practice.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the Council, said that it was necessary for other papers to be submitted to enrich the discussion on the rules of procedures. The relevant documents of the General Assembly on the issue of special sessions would also be taken into account. The practice of the Council during the past five and half months with regard to specific issues should also be taken into consideration. He would be preparing a paper on the subject matter and would identify issues to be considered by the working group.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06075E