Global: The UN Human Rights Council: Just a New Name?

The UN Human Rights Council: Just a New Name?
By Andrew Galea Debono, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

There was much optimism when, on 15th March 2006, the General Assembly of the Untied Nations finally adopted the draft resolution that created the new Human Rights Council to replace the old and ineffective Human Rights Commission. Of course, few believed that this new Council would be even close to perfect - but even the harshest critics realised the potential of the Council to be a marked improvement over its predecessor, which, among other serious shortcomings, had shamefully failed to act during the genocides in Rwanda, Burundi and the former Yugoslavia.

A key advancement was meant to be the new election procedure for members. The members were elected last week, directly and individually in the General Assembly by secret ballot. Candidates needed to win an absolute majority of at least 96 votes and it was hoped this would prevent the election of major human rights violators such as Zimbabwe, Libya or Sudan - members of the Commission that had created obstacles for its effectiveness.

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 persistent and serious violators. Countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Cameroon, Pakistan, Tunisia and Bangladesh all have a very negative human rights record and have been harshly criticised by the international community in the recent past. For example, Pakistan was until recently suspended from the Commonwealth for not abiding by the Harare Principles, which includes human rights. 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 wrong-doings.

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 many years. Sadly, other members are just as bad. 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 with these members on the Council. The Council could be a very important body for the protection of human rights and its new monitoring mechanisms could 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 commitment to human rights. These pledges can now be used to scrutinise their performance in the field of human rights. Members should also remember that the General Assembly could suspend any member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights – a possibility that should not be taken lightly since it would be a cause of great humiliation for that country. Members of the Council have also committed themselves to cooperate with the Council and its various mechanisms, which includes granting unimpeded access to U.N. 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 enforcement are effective - may induce countries to act more diligently than before. Therefore, when the Council convenes its first session on 19th 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.

The Council will meet for a longer period of time and more frequently than the old Commission - 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 these 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. Let’s grasp this opportunity and build something concrete and effective.