News

Reports

Publications

Research and Expertises

Other

Historical Background:

The UN Commission on Human Rights is the primary UN body working to protect and promote human rights. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established the Commission in 1946. The original body chaired by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, consisted of nine human rights specialists and was dedicated to setting international human rights standards. In 1948 the Commission, which had grown to 18 members, elaborated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Commission continued to perform a standard-setting function, introducing in 1976 both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together with the UDHR these two covenants make up the International Bill of Human Rights that serves as the basis of international human rights law.

It was not until 1967, more than 20 years after its inception, that the Commission was given the mandate to consider human rights violations. Since then the Commission has focused increasingly on monitoring state compliance with international human rights law, while still continuing to elaborate internation human rights standards.

Present Status:

Membership
Unlike its historical counterpart the current UN Commission on Human Rights is not a small panel of independent experts but a larger political body comprised of 53 elected States. ECOSOC elects Member States to the Commission with each geographical region being allotted a fixed number of seats (African States: 15, Asian States: 12, Eastern European States: 5, Latin American and Caribbean States: 11, Western Europe and Other States: 10). The Commission has no permanent members but rather each elected Member State serves for a term of three years and is eligible for re-election. The Commission meets for six weeks annually in March-April in Geneva.

Mandates
In addition to continually developing international human rights law standards, the Commission works to protect and promote human rights by examining, monitoring and reporting on situations in specific territories (country mandates) and on universal human rights themes (thematic mandates) such as racism, the right to self determination, the independence of the judiciary, and religious intolerance. The Commission currently has 14 country mandates and 22 thematic mandates.

Special Procedures
To carry out its mandates, the Commission relies largely on its system of special procedures. The special procedures mechanisms vary in their constitution but are typically comprised of an individual rapporteur, representive, or expert or a panel of such individuals called a working group. There are at present more than 30 of these special procedures mechanisms working throughout the year conducting studies, providing advice to States, responding to individual complaints and compiling reports on their respective mandates.

Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) function as an important liason between civil society and the Human Rights Commission. NGOs along with Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations serve as useful sources of information for the special procedures mechanisms in their efforts to carry out various thematic and country mandates. Additionally, under rule 75 of the Human Rights Commissions Rules of Procedures, NGOs that have been granted consultative status by ECOSOC may observe public meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary organs and under rule 76 an NGO that has been granted consultative status may serve as a consultant to the Human Rights Commission or to its committees at the request of either the Commission or the consultative NGO. Under the recommendation of the Security General and with the approval of the Commission a consultative NGO may also be heard by the Commission.

Reform:

In March 2005 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed in his Report In Larger Freedom that the UN Commission on Human Rights be replaced by a smaller standing Human Rights Council. Such a Council would likely retain some mechanisms of the present Commission such as the system of special procedures and NGO participation, while adopting new measures to render the human rights body a more effective instrument for protecting and promoting human rights worldwide.

Among other reform proposals, this proposal will be considered at the UN Summit in New York on 14-16 September 2005. In advance of this summit, informal deliberations are being held among States to discuss Annan's reform proposals. For more information regarding the reform process and the issues surrounding the proposed reform of the UN Commission on Human Rights please see the separate overview and explanatory notes.

This note was prepared by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF), June 2005

In his report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All (March 2005), UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for efforts to build a more transparent, efficient and effective UN, better capable of meeting the challenges of today's world. According to Secretary-General Annan, radical reforms of the UN are needed to ensure that the organization is fit to advance the interrelated and mutually reinforcing aims of security, development and human rights in years to come. He asserted: "we must reshape the [UN] in ways not previously imagined and with a boldness and speed not previously shown."

The Secretary-General outlined a number of concrete measures for reforming the UN system. Concluding that the work of the Commission on Human Rights has increasingly been undermined by its declining credibility, he proposed that it be replaced with a new Human Rights Council. According to Secretary-General Annan: If the United Nations is to meet the expectations of men and women everywhere - and indeed, if the Organization is to take the cause of human rights as seriously as those of security and development - then Member States should agree to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller standing Human Rights Council. Member States would need to decide if they want the Human Rights Council to be a principal organ of the United Nations or a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, but in either case its members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. The creation of the Council would accord human rights a more authoritative position, corresponding to the primacy of human rights in the Charter of the United Nations. Member States should determine the composition of the Council and the term of office of its members. Those elected to the Council should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards. [p. 45-46]
In a separate explanatory note, the Secretary-General elaborated on his proposal to establish a Human Rights Council. Among other things, he explained that the Council should have a mandate to deal with imminent human rights crises as well as to regularly evaluate the human rights situation in all countries in a fair and transparent peer review process. He also said that the new body should take into account the full spectrum of human rights and that a forum for dialogue involving civil society should be preserved.

The proposals made by the Secretary-General in his March report will be considered at a UN summit in New York on 14-16 September 2005. During the last few months, his proposals have been discussed by States in informal sessions. In these discussions, it has become clear that there is widespread support for a reform of the UN Commission on Human Rights but that States have differing views as to the role, composition and working methods of such a body. On the basis of preliminary deliberations, the president of the UN General Assembly released on 3 June a first draft outcome document for the September summit. This draft endorses the establishment of a Human Rights Council as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly pending a possible decision to elevate it at a later stage to a new Charter body. The draft contains the following text:

We therefore decide that:

• " The membership of the Council shall be elected directly by the General Assembly, by a two thirds majority on the basis of equitable geographical representation, and be comparable in size to the CHR (Commission on Human Rights);
• " The Council shall discuss any matters or situations related to the promotion and protection of human rights and make recommendations thereupon to the Member States of the United Nations and provide policy recommendations to the UN system through the General Assembly;
• " The Council shall fulfil its responsibility on the basis of the principle that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and must be treated in a fair and equal manner;
• " The Council shall have the ability to periodically review the fulfilment of all human rights obligations of all Member States;
• " The arrangements made by the Economic and Social Council for consultations with non-governmental organizations under Article 71 of the Charter shall apply to the Human Rights Council;
• " The Human Rights Council shall preserve the strengths of the Commission on Human Rights, including the system of Special Procedures.

  We mandate the General Assembly to elaborate further in order to adopt during the 6oth session the modalities, functions, procedures and working methods as well as the composition of the proposed Human Rights Council. [p. 19-20]

Discussions about various UN reforms, including the creation of a Human Rights Council, continue on the basis of the draft outcome document. As of 21 June, the UN General Assembly began intensive consultations regarding the reform proposals, which will continue until mid-July 2005. The coming weeks are hence, a crucial time for civil society to seek to influence the reform process and to encourage Member States to commit themselves to a reform of the UN Commission on Human Rights that will render the body a more effective and credible instrument for advancing the cause of human rights worldwide.

3. Reform of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights:Major Issues

In the discussions on the proposed Human Rights Council (HRC), a number of issues regarding the role, composition and working methods of the proposed body are at stake. This document offers an overview of some major issues. For each issue, a summary is provided of the initial reform proposal made by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his report In Larger Freedom (March 2005) and later elaborated on by Annan in an explanatory note (April 2005). Also provided are summaries of each issue as more recently construed by UN General Assembly President Jean Ping in his first draft (June 2005) of the September 2005 UN summit outcome document. A comment based generally on the reactions of Member States is also included for each issue. For more information regarding the reform process, please see the separate background note.

1. Status: What status should the HRC have within the UN system?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The HRC would either be a principal organ of the UN or a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. In the former case, it would be granted equal status with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. This would require an amendment of the UN Charter. In the latter case, the reform could be approved by two thirds majority of the General Assembly.

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The HRC would be introduced as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly with the potential of later being elevated to Charter Body status.

o Comment: In either case, the reform would be aimed at granting the body greater authority within the UN system. It would be more difficult to achieve sufficient consensus to establish the HRC as a new principal organ.

2. Size: What size shoud the HRC be?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The membership of the HRC would be smaller than that of the existing Commission on Human Rights to allow for more focused debate and discussion.

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The Council would be "comparable in size" to the existing Commission.

o Comment: Those States that endorse a smaller membership argue that this would ensure efficiency of the Council. Many States feel, however, that a smaller body would not be sufficiently representative of the UN Member States and would therefore lack legitimacy.

3. Election: How should the members of the HRC be elected?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The members would be directly elected by the General Assembly by a two thirds majority with the hope that this would make the body more accountable to and more representative of the full membership of the UN. The Report makes no concrete proposals about the length or rotation of terms, or whether members should be elected on a regional basis, leaving these issues to UN Member States to decide.

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The HRC would be elected by a two thirds majority of the General Assembly "on the basis of equitable geographical representation."

o Comment: This issue is closely linked to the quesiton of size. Those who advocate that the size of the current Commission on Human Rights be retained also tend to emphasize the importance of a geographically balanced membership.

4. Membership Criteria: Should there be a set criteria for membership on the HRC?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The members of the HRC should "undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards."

o Draft Outcome Document 1: No mention is made of this issue.

o Comment: There is little support among States for set membership criteria, but many seem to agree that those striving for membership should make voluntary pledges to human rights protection prior to being elected. It has also been argued that the development of a peer review mechanism (see below) could resolve the issue of membership criteria.

5. Mandate: What should the mandate of the HRC be?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The HRC would not only retain the functions and responsibilities of the current Commission, but also revive the body's ability to address serious human rights situations. As its main task, the HRC would periodically evalute the human rights conditions in all States through a peer review process, which would be fair, transparent and workable. The HRC would use the same criteria in assessing the performance of all States and would take into account the full spectrum of human rights. As another important function, the HRC would oversee and contribute to the interpretation and development of human rights standards.

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The HRC would deal with any matters related to the promotion and protection of human rights and periodically review the fulfillment of all human rights obligations of all States. The Council's work would be based on the premise that "all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, and must be treated in a fair and equal manner."

o Comment: While many States appear to favor the idea of a peer review mechanism, it is likely to be difficult to reach consensus about the details of the implementation of such a system.

6. Sessions: When should the HRC be in session?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The HRC would be a standing body, able to meet regularly and at any time.

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The HRC would be a standing body.

o Comment: While some submit that the HRC should meet whenever necessry, others suggest that the Council should have a specific number of sessions per year, with the possibility of holding extra sessions under special cricumstances.

7. Special Procedures: What role should special procedures play in the work of the HRC?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: The HRC would "reconsider and refine" specific procedures "according to its own terms of reference."

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The special procedures would be preserved.

o Comment: Many States think that the special procedures represent one of the strengths of the existing system and should be preserved.

8. Civil Society Participation: What role should civil society play in the work of the HRC?

o In Larger Freedom+ Note: A forum for human rights dialogue among Member States, and involving civil society, should be retained. According to the report the increasing prominence of NGOs has "elevated their involvement in the human rights debate to the center stage" and further, the role of NGOs is "crucial to providing policy inputs and views from the fields to Member States."

o Draft Outcome Document 1: The arrangements made by ECOSOC for consultations with NGOs under the UN Charter would continue to apply.

o Comment: Many States have expressed support for maintaing an active role for NGOs in the work of the HRC.

This note was prepared by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF), June 2005