Volume 4

July - September 2002

Ominous Portents for 59^th CHR

Past attempts to weaken the effectiveness of the CHR provide lessions for the forthcoming session

THE 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights was chaotic to say the least. Following the sudden cut in its budget by the UN Secretariat in New York, the Commission could no longer hold evening and late night sessions. The Special Rapporteurs were allowed five minutes each during which they were expected to present their annual report as well as separate reports on country visits if any.

 Many Special Rapporteurs refused to make any oral interventions in protest. Several NGOs returned without making any interventions under Item 9 on country situations as the deliberations on the agenda item were suddenly closed. 

Past attempts by States to weaken the effectiveness of the Commission provide some lessons for the forthcoming 59th session. 

At the 54th Session however, the contents of the draft resolution on Rationalization of the Work of the Commission were adopted using a seemingly innocuous method - through a decision (1998/122) of the Commission on Human Rights on 'Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights'. This review process had serious negative effects on the mechanisms of the Commission, especially the Sub-Commission. 

The intervention of the Japanese Ambassador Yusuaki Nogawa on 19 March 2002 under Agenda Item 3 - 'Organisation of the Work of the Session' gives an indication of the ongoing attempts to limit the space for NGOs under the pretext of 'increasing the efficiency of the Commission. 

The Asian bloc first sought to police the NGOs by demanding the circulation of a list of NGOs that had been denied consultative status by the ECOSOC - a gross and deliberate misinterpretation of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. 

Ambassador Nogawa on behalf of the Asian bloc also recommended "biennialization and clustering of agenda items, reduction of the number and length of resolutions through inter-alia, biennialization of as many thematic resolutions as possible, and discontinuation of resolutions which are no longer warranted by existing circumstances, in addition to strict observance of speaking time limits." 

Ambassador Nogawa's statement finds an echo in the Annex to CHR resolution 2002/91 on enhancement of the effectiveness of the working methods of the Commission. The Annex titled, "Issues to be considered, among others, at the fifty-ninth session of the commission on human rights under the agenda item entitled "rationalization of the work of the commission", refers to (1) Duration of the annual session of the Commission on Human Rights; (2) Periodicity of the consideration of items and sub-items of the agenda; 3(d) Written contributions by members of the Commission, observer States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations; and (4) Organization of work during the annual session, inter alia: 

(a) Time management with regard to interventions of delegations and oral presentation of the reports submitted to the Commission; (b) Invitations to participate in the debates of the session; (c) Overall review of the functions of the Bureau and of regional coordinators; (7) Establishment and programming of intersessional working groups and (8) Organization and programming of parallel activities during the annual sessions. 

The Commission resolution 2002/91 once again opened the process of review of the functioning of the Commission, including its mechanisms. It requested the OHCHR "to solicit ideas and proposals on enhancing the effectiveness of the working methods of the Commission from Governments, the Expanded Bureau of the fifty-eighth session, regional groups and organizations and other participants at the Commission, including non-governmental organizations, with a view to submitting a comprehensive compilation of views to the Commission by 31 December 2002." 

Past experience

 The result of the previous review of mechanisms (resolution 2000/109) was that while the Sub-Commission can continue to debate country situations not being dealt with by the Commission, and while it should also be allowed to discuss urgent matters involving serious violations of human rights in any country, it cannot adopt country-specific resolutions and must refrain from negotiating and adopting thematic resolutions that contain references to specific countries.  

It was the Like Minded Group of countries (LMG) led by the Asian Bloc that suggested under Recommendation 19 that "[t]he proposal to forward a compilation of debates in the Sub-Commission to the CHR should be rejected and the Sub-Commission's debate on country situations should be completely abolished." 

The report of the Chairperson of the Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the 58th session of the CHR states: "The ability to prepare draft resolutions on country situations was a very effective means of encouraging constructive dialogue and negotiation between the Sub-Commission and Governments responsible for human rights violations. That approach resulted not in a large number of adopted country-specific resolutions, but rather in a series of statements by the Chairperson accompanied by concrete commitments, voiced and put on the public record, by various Governments to improve the human rights situations within their respective nations."

The Chairperson of the Sub-Commission further stated: "The inability to pursue country work openly and diligently has significantly hampered the Sub-Commission's capacity to promote and protect human rights. One consequence of the Commission's decision to discourage the Sub-Commission from adopting country resolutions has been a decline in NGO participation in the debate on item 2. Only 21 NGOs spoke in 2001 under item 2, compared with 29 in 2000 and 33 in 1999. Thus, in just two years there has been nearly a 40 per cent decrease in NGO participation under agenda item 2. NGOs are the lifeblood of the human rights movement and of the Sub-Commission's work. Such a decline can diminish the Sub-Commission's impact."

 Erosion of standards

 It has been a long-established practice that the Chairman of the CHR in consultation with the Bureau appoints the mandate holder of the Special Procedures.  This changed two years ago, at the 56th session of the CHR. The involvement of all the members of the extended bureau, Regional Group Coordinators, in decision-making for appointment of mandate holders was formalised through CHR resolution 2000/109. It served to politicise the appointment of the mandate holders.

At the 58th session, States went further. In violation of the CHR's earlier resolution 2000/109, the CHR resolution on racism 2002/68 while renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years, appointed Mr. Doudou Diène as Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  The unusual  procedure followed with regard to the appointment reflects the erosion of standards.

 Challenges of the present review of mechanisms

The reduction in the time allowed to the Commission gave many delegations, particularly the Asian ones, just the opportunity they were waiting for. NGOs, they evidently concluded, would have to bear the losses. As the Asian Group stated at the 58th session: "Joint statements should be encouraged, and limits to the number and duration of statements should be fastidiously observed as means of saving time." 

The principal aim of Asian Governments is to ensure that no references are made to their country situations. Ensuring an efficient and effective session of the Commission on Human Rights is clearly not on their agenda. 

Statistics relating to the 57th Session of the Commission on Human Rights show that Asian States, which make up less than 25 percent of the Member States of the United Nations, make 33.5 percent of all statements as against 22.5 percent by African States, 21.5 percent by Latin American States, and nine percent by Eastern European States. 

Consequently, Asian States spend 12 hours and 39 minutes making statements as against three hours and 16 minutes used by Eastern European States. Moreover, voting, statements by dignitaries and other events take up a lot of time. Finally, it is the Asian Governments that exercise the right of reply more often than any other blocs.

There is an increasing convergence of views between governments across the spectrum, from Libya to the United States. The rise of right-wing political parties in Western Europe moreover gives Western governments little moral authority over authoritarian regimes represented at the CHR. 

The more criticism governments face from civil society, the more they attempt to limit the space for NGOs. The increasing concurrence among governmental representatives on this issue is reflected in the fact that Libya and United States were among the eight countries that opposed the Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture when it came up during the ECOSOC session in July 2002. 

It is this 'meeting of minds' that will be the most serious challenge for the incoming High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello.