Country resolutions: Will CHR become a chamber of impunity?

ADRIEN-CLAUDE ZÖLLER

In the face of massive human rights violations, the Commission grows quiet. Member States decide. The best way to avoid condemnation is to be elected to the Commission, which slowly becomes a chamber of impunity. The body is in danger of losing dignity, credibility and responsibility.

A long time ago the UN General Assembly called the appropriate United Nations bodies, "particularly the Commission, to take timely and effective action in existing and future cases of mass and flagrant violations of human rights" (resolution 34/175). Since then (1979), the Commission has adopted resolutions and appointed Special Rapporteurs on dozens of countries from all regions. Over the last five years, however, the list of countries under scrutiny has started to dwindle.

Fewer mandates

The last time a Special Rapporteur was appointed on a new situation was in 1998 with the resolution concerning Nigeria. During the 54th session, after the Commission decided to close the file on Guatemala, there were still twelve Special Rapporteurs on countries under the public procedure and three experts for countries under advisory services. In 2002, the Commission abruptly terminated the mandates on Equatorial Guinea and Iran, and refused to consider a draft on Zimbabwe. At the beginning of the current 59th session, there remain only eight Special Rapporteurs and Representatives (on former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Congo-DRC, Burundi, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma) and three experts under advisory services (Haïti, Somalia, Cambodia).

No scrutiny

States don't like scrutiny. Most with poor human rights records argue that public condemnations are counter-productive, but at the same time oppose decisions under the confidential procedure. They also claim to need technical assistance and advisory services, but campaign to avoid resolutions under agenda item 9. In other words, funds to realise governmental projects are welcome, provided there is no accountability over the human rights situation.

Membership as protection

The Commission on human rights is composed of member States. Countries with a history of systematic human rights abuses naturally try to avoid condemnations. Having learned the rules of the game over many years, these regimes stepped up their diplomatic initiatives in order to be elected to the Commission in order to protect themselves. A member of the Commission can add leverage to its position on many resolutions by espousing the hardliners' approach. Alliances, regional solidarity and trade-offs may lead to the failure of draft resolutions on situations of massive human rights violations, as was the case in 2002 with the drafts on Chechnya and Iran.

During the current 59th session, the position of Congo-DRC and Zimbabwe in the debate on Iraq indicates that these two delegations are already preparing the decision-making process on the draft resolutions affecting them. Sudan is another country mandate at stake this year, with the Sudanese delegation still a member of the Commission.

Double standards

Hardliner States argue that the Commission uses double standards. This is probably the only point where we would agree with them: the increasing recourse to no-action motions is certainly the best illustration of these double standards, which does not reflect the policy of the Commission, but rather the strategy of certain member States. In 2002, no-action motions were introduced on the drafts concerning Zimbabwe and Cuba. At the end of last year's session, the African Group of States stated that, henceforth, the African countries would no longer tolerate being called into question for human rights violations.

A major challenge

Country resolutions constitute a major challenge for the Commission this year. As Ms. Mary Robinson stated at the end of last year's session: "if the Commission is not able to act for the protection of those whose rights are being violated on a massive scale, it would lose its essence…I feel it my duty as High Commissioner to pose this question: is it not right that when there are situations of gross violations of human rights, this Commission seeks to protect the victims?"

It is a matter of credibility. The Commission has silenced its Sub-Commission, which no longer has the right to adopt resolutions on cases of severe human rights violations. This has been done without any complementary mechanism being set up to seriously consider the cases of grave violations submitted to it through its different procedures, in particular the reports of the thematic mandates. If the Commission, as the main UN body for human rights, no longer tackles these situations, then who can? Would member States prefer that NGOs increase their lobbying efforts at the level of the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council?

No one is above the law

International human rights law and international humanitarian law apply to all, without distinction. There should be no exception for the members of the Commission, not for the United States, which considers itself an irreproachable promoter of global democracy, or Israel which refuses to acknowledge the illegal nature of its occupation of Arab territories, or Pakistan, which protects itself from condemnation by becoming the leading voice against Islamophobia while Christian minorities in the country continue to be at the receiving end.

Nor should there be an exception for developing countries, which tend to use their legitimate appeal for a fairer economic order to stifle any inquiry into the human rights violations they commit. Neither should industrialised countries be excepted, whose policies on migrants and refugees violate fundamental principles. And, above all, no exception should be made in the war against terrorism, as a successful outcome can only be achieved if human rights remain fully respected.