COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEGINS DEBATE ON RATIONALIZATION OF ITS WORK

Press Release
HR/CN/933

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEGINS DEBATE ON RATIONALIZATION OF ITS WORK

GENEVA, 26 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning began its debate on the rationalization of its work. The discussion centred on the report of the bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on the rationalization of the work and mechanisms of reform.

While many delegates agreed that the work of the bureau was important and had accomplished most of its objectives, other speakers felt that the report had failed in many important areas.

India said it was surprising that the views of the Asian Group were overlooked since it had been the only regional group to submit a combined report. Pakistan felt that despite so much discussion on the needs of developing countries, the report reflected the western countries' bias on civil and political rights issues at the expense of economic, social and cultural rights.

Ireland suggested that perhaps the change proposed by the bureau on the members of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was too radical. While change was necessary, the priority issue was the modification of the selection of the members of the Subcommission. Germany stated that the Subcommission's mandate of adopting resolutions on specific country situations and the continuation of its present role within the 1503 procedure should be removed.

Many speakers called for identifying issues on which there was consensus and moving forward on those while shelving other more contentious questions that needed more work.

Government representatives who spoke on the rationalization of the work of the Commission were: Japan, Ecuador, India, Guatemala, Ireland, Czech Republic, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Mexico, Poland, Peru, Austria, Venezuela, Italy, Argentina, Philippines, Germany, United States, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Egypt, Lithuania, Sweden, New Zealand and Switzerland.

The Commission will continue its debate on rationalization of the work of the Commission at 3 p.m. this afternoon.

Rationalization of Work of Commission

The Commission is considering under this agenda item document E/CN.4/1999/104 which contains the report of the bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights on the rationalization of the work of the Commission. The report contains an elaboration of the mandate of the bureau, a list of activities undertaken pursuant to the mandate, and detailing of the scope and context of the review.

The report details the special procedures of the Commission, mainly the identification and selection of mandates, the specification of roles and tasks of the mechanisms, the discharge by the mechanisms of their mandates, the preparation and circulation of reports, and the utilization and follow-up on the work of the special procedures. The report makes several recommendations, including that the Commission should request a study of all questions before referring them to a working group; in creating any working group, a specific time frame should be considered and agreed on; and all chairs of working groups should have standing authority to undertake informal contacts and consultations with a view to advancing progress with respect of the mandate.

The Commission also has before it document E/CN.4/1999/120 which contains a joint letter from 14 delegations, addressed to the secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights, on the subject of the rationalization of the work of the Commission. The letter contains comments, observations and alternate recommendations on the report of the bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights. General comments are made, as is a detailed analysis, and a vision of the future proposed.

This last details the effort to be made to contribute to the establishment of a new and just international, political and economic world order based on the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. The international community should treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. It was essential to ensure the cultural legitimacy of solutions offered for human rights problems. Promoting and protecting human rights involved two levels of action: the promotion of international standards and mechanisms as well as national laws, and the creation of a conducive socio-economic environment, internationally and nationally; an approach that does not address fully both levels of action was necessarily incomplete.

The Commission has before it a letter (E/CN.4/1999/124) from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva, acting as Coordinator of the Asian Group. The letter is addressed to the secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights. The Asian Group requests that the position paper of the Asian Group on the bureau's report regarding the review of mechanisms of the Commission (E/CN.4/1999/104) (annex herewith)*, which is the product of a two-month long endeavour by all members of the Group, be published as an official United Nations document and

- 3 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

circulated to all interested parties prior to the commencement of the fifty-fifth session of the Commission.

In conclusion, the Asian Group's report says that only consensual agreements can secure genuine compliance, it is necessary for all interested parties to pursue dialogue and cooperation rather than to resort to enforced means of effectiveness. In light of the differing views on the contents of the bureau's report, and of the sometimes conflicting views of large groups of States, The Asian Group finds it imperative that a post-sessional, open-ended working group of governments -- based on the principles of consensus -- be set up to examine all important issues that the bureau has raised and to review the bureau's proposals with a view towards modifying them as possible to achieve the best results for all.

Statements

MAKOTO KATSURA (Japan) said his country believed that, as a whole, the proposal by the bureau was acceptable. The bureau had listened to and taken into consideration the views of concerned groups including governments, among them the Asian Group, and non-governmental organizations. The report of the bureau reflected the various suggestions and had found a good balance. Some of the views in the proposal were not satisfactory, in particular the issue of the appointment of the members of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the review meetings in terms of recommendation 10b. The proposal for the appointment of Subcommission members by the Commission's Chair was not acceptable. The members should be elected as in the current procedure through a democratic procedure. The bureau should not have too much authority, as in recommendation 10. The role of the bureau was to facilitate the discussion. If it were to conduct the review itself, this would jeopardize the credibility of the Commission. Therefore the review meeting preceding the human rights debates of the General Assembly should not be held by the bureau, but by Member States. It was also important that the Commission on human rights make some concrete progress. Therefore, it should not postpone these discussion. Japan would like to see some tangible results before the end of the Commission.

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) said that the Commission had decided to entrust to the bureau the study of its mechanisms, in the hope of swift rationalization, by consensus. The bureau had requested written suggestions, and had been open to broad consultations with many groups and organs of the United Nations. These made it possible to inform States and non-governmental organizations of progress made on several dates. A report was made available: (E/CN.4/1999/104.) The mandate of the bureau was fulfilled. Much dedication had been shown as well as commitment to the cause of human rights. The greatest merit of the document was giving rise to a debate that allowed for progress in the rationalization of work. Progress should continue, by continuous effort, and should even take place between sessions. Efforts needed to be made to depoliticize the Commission and remove the atmosphere of

- 4 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

confrontation. The principle of consensus should not be used to taint the work of the Commission.

SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that the observations, proposals and recommendations contained in the report on the review of mechanisms were important and far-reaching and would determine the manner in which human rights were approached and promoted by the Commission, its mechanisms and subsidiary bodies. It was surprising that the views of the Asian Group were overlooked. The group had been the only regional group to submit a combined report. The report's single largest drawback was that it put forward a monochromatic approach to enhancing the effectiveness of mechanisms. The report completely ignored promotional aspects and paid little attention to the relevance, credibility and accountability of mechanisms that could only flow from their capacity to engage Member States in a dialogue, engender cooperation and propose constructive solutions.

Ms. Kunadi said the role of regional groups, from whom members of the bureau drew their authority, had been completely overlooked. The bureau did not address issues of duplication and rationalization where they were most relevant and necessary in the context of efficiency and effectiveness. The proposals on the 1503 procedure and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities reflected an arbitrary, whimsical and ill-considered approach, without offering explanations. India supported establishing an inter-sessional working group to examine the former bureau's report in a comprehensive manner. It was motivated by the desire to engage seriously on issues of substance. Rationalization of mechanisms and enhancing their effectiveness could not be promoted by partial and disconnected decisions taken in haste. India did not agree with tabling a lengthy resolution in favour of adoption of several decisions on substance. The Commission would only end up throwing away a good opportunity to comprehensively review and rationalize mechanisms, and thereby contribute to the effectiveness of the Commission itself.

LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said his country had a clear idea of the recommendations, and of the various positions of the delegations. The draft resolution on this issue was co-sponsored by Guatemala. In order to build a climate of consensus and build confidence, the mechanisms of the fifty-sixth session should be completely open and transparent. As far as the rationalization and procedural changes of the mechanisms were concerned, they should be made more efficient and valuable in the context of economic, social and cultural rights. Contact should be made with the organs of the United Nations that dealt with this issue so as to not overlap mandates. There was a need for better coordination between the Commission and the rest of the United Nations system. Observations needed to be made on the report of the Special Rapporteur on restructurization, and solutions needed to be arrived at by consensus. Dialogue needed to be privileged over monologue. It was better to go further than the recommendations. The work mechanisms should be merged. There was a need for a global view of extreme poverty, since a holistic,

- 5 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

modern approach would be more effective. Another issue of concern was selectivity, or negative discrimination. It was essential to lay down requirements for the initiation of procedures. Procedures needed to have been previously considered by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in consultation with the Chair. The existence of well-founded information needed to be taken into account. These were preliminary suggestions, made before the drawing-up of the report.

MAHON HAYES (Ireland) said the Commission was a political body. Ireland believed that members of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities should be elected for their expertise in the human rights field and for their independence. The Subcommission should not undertake issues which politicized it but those which led to constructive development. It should ensure cohesion and continuity. Perhaps the changes suggested by the bureau were too radical. Change was necessary but the appropriate issue was the change of the selection of its members. This reduced the need of outside experts and utilized the suggestions of other United Nations bodies. Ireland supported the work of the Subcommission. It felt strongly that the 1503 procedure should be abolished. Consultations between the bureau and members of the Subcommission should be regular.

MIROSLAV SOMOL (Czech Republic) said his country was in favour of the substantial reform of the mechanisms of the Commission. This was a difficult task, and the work done by the bureau was appreciated. The report was a good basis for the informal and the formal discussions. All opinions expressed had been noted and analysed concerning the reform. The Commission should discuss concrete issues during the session, and achieve consensus on certain issues of reform. Other issues needed further consultation. A post-sessional working body should be established to examine further reform. This would be the only result of the deliberations of the reform issue during this session. More should be done. Informal discussions had shown that there were a number of non-confrontational issues that could be agreed upon by consensus. The discussion on the thematic issues resolution should be deferred until next year. The draft resolution L.101 contained many elements to improve the work of the Commission. The momentum produced by the report should not be lost.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said considerable time and energy had been spent on the report of the bureau. So far, the Commission had not given the bureau's suggestions the time that they deserved. The proposals should not cause further controversy but should help the Commission move towards constructive dialogue and consensual decisions. Any move to thrust issues before the Commission would be a mistake. The machinery should seek the consensus of Member States rather than thrust issues by one or more major Power's interest. The Pakistan delegation had been disappointed by the report. The bureau had ignored the comments or the suggestions of the developing countries. Despite so much discussion on the needs of developing countries, the report reflected the western bias towards civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to

- 6 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

development. The regional groups had also been neglected. It was sad to see these manifest imbalances in the report.

Mr. Akram said with regard to chapter 2 on special rapporteurs, Pakistan believed that recommendation 1 on mergers and cut-backs on mechanisms on the economic and social issues was good, but it was against cut-backs in other areas. Regarding recommendation 2, Pakistan felt that the special rapporteurs urgent calls on certain politicized issues necessitated fixed criteria for special rapporteurs to avoid this becoming an interstate issue. Appointments should be made in consultation with the regional groups. Regarding recommendation 5, country mandates had to be made on a country-by-country basis and not for a fixed 3-year basis. There should not be an attempt to reassign special rapporteurs. Regarding recommendation 6, there should be a code of conduct issued by the Commission. Pakistan was against recommendation 8 since it would single out and target certain States.

QIAO ZONGHUAI (China) said his country had been actively participating in the informal consultations on reforms and had already made proposals regarding this issue. The purpose of the reforms should be made clear. They should improve the work of the Commission and enable it to better promote and protect human rights. Reforms should not be undertaken simply because some States wished for them. There should be a balance. Reforms should be based on the principle of consensus and the principle of dialogue. The simplest issues should be tackled first. The reform of the system had parts which could be dealt with by consensus. Negotiations should continue on an equal footing for all. An inter-sessional working party should be set up. Reforms should be targeted as parts of the system that did not work properly. Cold war attitudes should be erased. Confrontation should be reduced. There was a need for further expansion of discussions; the length of the session should be shortened, and repetitive draft resolutions should no longer be presented. Confrontation was unnecessary, but dialogue was necessary. Reforms could be achieved to improve the whole United Nations system.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said his country was pleased that the report of the bureau had generated considerable enthusiasm among government delegations and non-governmental organizations and had stimulated thought. The number of proposals that had been brought forward attested to this. It was now up to the Commission to adopt, amend, add to and subtract from the proposals. Bangladesh hoped that the deliberations on this subject would take place in a cooperative atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence, in a manner that was transparent, and in which the widest participation was possible.

Mr. Chowdhury said the good beginning showed that every delegation in this room was prepared to focus on reform with due seriousness. Following substantive examination by the Commission, it was the hope of Bangladesh that the largest number of recommendations found wide acceptance. Some reforms had been pending for a long time. Every delegation believed that there were some elements requiring some changes. It was not always easy to chose which

- 7 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

areas and what changes needed to be made. Bangladesh believed that effectiveness of the mechanisms could largely be enhanced in the context of a thorough analysis of the methods of work of the Commission itself. It was encouraged that consensus was emerging towards the need for an inter-sessional working group to deal with the report. Bangladesh was now taking up discussion on this issue and every effort was being made to bridge divergences.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said his country was grateful for the report of the bureau and was very interested in seeing the Commission improve its efficiency. The work of the Commission had gone through waves of ups and downs based on world political changes. The lack of resources meant that annual reports had been delayed and were not timely. This had also resulted in unequal treatment of rights such as favouring civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights. The outgoing bureau had carried out an extensive review. The report was consistent and gave an overview for positive change and ensured against overlap and waste. More cooperation between States was promoted and confrontation was discouraged. Mexico was in favour of reviewing the work of the Commission along these lines. Universality, objectivity and non-partiality were paramount. Dialogue should prevail rather than the imposition of issues. Mexico would continue to review actively the mechanisms. In the fulfilment of its mandate, the inter- sessional working group needed to address systematically the bureau report and each of its recommendations should lead to constructive results.

KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI (Poland) said his country was convinced that all efforts should be made to make the human rights machinery more effective and adequate and more responsive to developments in the field of human rights at present and in the future. The promotion of a wide debate on the protection of human rights, the strengthening of mechanisms to guarantee compliance with international obligations, and the enhancement of technical assistance to those nations which lacked the necessary resources should remain the basic objectives of the Commission. The report of the bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights on the review of the mechanisms had achieved the main objectives of the entrusted mandate. The bureau's report was the result of a year-long process that involved wide substantive consultations with the broad participation of representatives of all regional groups and non-governmental organizations.

Mr. Jakubowski said Poland strongly endorsed the bureau's stated approach to promote maximum depoliticization of the Commission's work by taking all possible measures to ensure that its procedures were established and operated on the basis of the highest standards of objectivity and professionalism, free of influence from extraneous political and other considerations. Thus, everything needed to be done to prevent politicization wherever practicable, especially to make impossible for any State to unilaterally decide which aspects of its human right record could be scrutinized by the Commission.

- 8 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ (Peru) said his country appreciated the efforts made by the bureau in its report on the rationalization of the work of the Commission. There was need of rationalization of the mechanisms to further promote and protect human rights. The report contained a framework for this. However, it made reference to certain themes which should be complemented by the indispensable revision of the working groups and of the Commission itself. The Commission should study these complex issues. The study and the rationalization of the non-traditional mechanisms should also be undertaken based on an improvement of the covering of human rights and on an improvement of the financial situation. This financial aspect was most important and should be the criterion that guides the debates of the Commission, along with that of the protection of human rights.

Mr. Rodriguez said the work of the Commission should be depoliticized. However, an explanation of the term was necessary since the non-conventional mechanisms were mostly political in origin. The danger of politicization could be found in behaviour, statements or agreements that stemmed not from a desire to protect human rights, but from a political goal. Special procedures, both thematic and country, had led to considerable protection of human rights as well as to considerable failure. They had enabled victims to have access to the system. They were very flexible and accessible and could take emergency protective measures. They should ensure that the national system was respected in the context of the examination undertaken. Pluralistic criteria needed to be employed. Inadequacies were linked in the difficulties of the special procedures in order to carry out their mandates due to poor finances and lack of communication. There should be an increase in the protection of special rapporteurs. Early warning and protection of victims also needed to be improved and given a top priority. The 1503 process needed to be reformed. Changes should be made on the basis of an extended dialogue. Substantive studies should not be neglected.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said proposals for reform had not been successful because they had been overloaded in their attempt to address all possible issues at the same time. Austria called for concentration on some priority issues in order to reach decisions. The bureau report was a good basis and some recommendations had overwhelming support while others had raised a number of questions.

Mr. Strohal said Austria raised caution against the idea of oversimplified rationalization such as, among others, arbitrary detention which might be better addressed by a working group than by a special rapporteur. There should be better coherence, both in substance and procedure, among the different reports of mandate holders. All special rapporteurs/representatives should provide executive summaries. Of particular priority was the need for better follow-up to recommendations of special rapporteurs. Austria welcomed the ideas contained in recommendation 10 of the report but recognized the difficulty of assigning special responsibilities with regard to the bureau which could better be assigned to the Office of the

- 9 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

High Commissioner on Human Rights and the mechanisms themselves. Austria called on a serious overhaul of the 1503 procedure. Austria hoped that the remaining time would be used to find broad-based agreement on the implementation of the recommendations of the report and would be guided by making decisions on areas where there was broad agreement, indicating those proposals which needed further work and giving a clear time frame and work frame to this further process.

ALFREDO MICHELENA (Venezuela) said his country was convinced of the necessity of reviewing the mechanisms, as well as the need for swift progress, if possible at the current session. The proposals from the bureau seemed to be addressed to certain problems and they ignored civil and political rights. Powers of an executive level needed to be given to the Chair. This might, however, lead to a bureaucratization of the bureau. Problems related to compliance with Commission resolutions needed to be resolved. Norms and procedures needed to be set up to ensure the political independence of the bureau. There was determination to work for progress on these issues during the current session. This would ensure that the review made headway. Work on these subjects would be done during the inter-sessional period, so that further suggestions could be made at a later date.

CLAUDIO MORENO (Italy) said the report of the bureau was an excellent starting point. It could be divided into two categories, one category which contained issues on which there was consensus, the other whose issues needed more discussion. The Commission should avoid any attempt to neutralize or reduce the effectiveness of mechanisms which already existed. In this regard, human rights in the areas of civil and political rights should not be reduced in importance, but there should be an increase in the mechanisms for social, economic and cultural rights. Italy believed that emphasis should be placed on preventative mechanisms.

MANUEL BENITEZ (Argentina), speaking on behalf of Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, said that the review of the process of the bureau's mechanisms was undertaken in an exemplary manner, with all appropriate issues included. All delegations had participated actively and had made valuable contributions. Synthesizing the work was not easy, and the bureau of the fifty-fourth session contributed most effectively to this process. Consultations were also useful. The aim was to strengthen the mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights. In the course of the debate, it was encouraging to note the general consensus on the need to improve these mechanisms.

Mr. Benitez said greater supervision around the world of enjoyment of human rights was necessary. Action should be undertaken with this in mind. Alternative opinions should be taken into account. It was possible to reach consensus decisions. The discussion stage should be finished and the action stage started. The building of consensus should be continued, but should not become an interminable speculative discussion and nothing more. It was possible to achieve consensus proposals, and to take concrete decisions. It

- 10 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

was important to take decisions on substantive aspects at this time and to avoid the failure of the implementation of decisions. The negotiations should be a continuous process, leading to the taking of rational decisions. An open-ended inter-sessional working group should be set up to deal with important issues. The review under way should be systematic.

DENIS LEPATAN (Philippines) said the bureau of the fifty-fourth session of the Commission deserved commendation, not only for the efforts exerted to accomplish its mandate but also for the vision and coherence it injected into the report. While the Philippines could not fully agree with all the observations, proposals and recommendations in the report, it nevertheless endorsed the approach adopted by the bureau which gave direction and meaning to the proposals and recommendations. It seemed that during the informal consultations, participants had lost sight of the purpose of the whole exercise which was to enhance the effectiveness of the mechanisms. Even now, the overriding purpose appeared to be fast decisions on recommendations and to get the bureau report out of the way as quickly as possible. On the contrary, the Philippines believed that this approach would result in retrogression rather than progress and the Commission was better off if it left the mechanisms as they were now.

Mr. Lepatan said the Philippines believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was the very function of the Commission and naming the Subcommission as such was a duplication to which it could not agree. With regard to recommendation 12, it believed that the Subcommission should play the role of think-tank of the Commission. The Philippines did not think that the Subcommission should duplicate the work of the Commission.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said his country agreed with the overwhelming number of delegations that reform of the mechanisms of the Commission was warranted, and his country welcomed the report of the bureau. Creating entirely new mandates for special procedures was not the task of the review. Any reform of special procedures would be worthless without a clear political will to provide an adequate professional back-up by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights for each of them. Agreement could be reached on recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8a-e. Other recommendations which needed more work but seemed to have a fair change of agreement were 1, 2, 7, 8f and 10. The Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities had to first carry out its mandate as established by the Commission on Human Rights and prepare studies on key human rights issues. Any reform of the Subcommission had to aim at depoliticizing this body and transform it into a true expert body counselling the Commission on Human Rights. The adoption of resolutions on specific country situations was contrary to this objective. Work of country specific resolutions and the continuation of the Subcommission's role in the 1503 procedure should be removed from the Subcommission's mandate.

- 11 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

Mr. Hoynck said Germany agreed with reducing the size of the Subcommission to 15 to 20 members which would reinvigorate its work. The term of individual members should be reduced to two years. The renaming of the body as "the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" could be voted on immediately and would better reflect its real mandate.

CRAIG KUEHL (United States) said the discussion so far had been most interesting. The speaker for Germany spoke along the same lines as the United States delegation, as did certain others. The United States welcomed the report which framed the debate on how the review of mechanisms should take place and how they should be discussed. Cooperation was a very important part of the promotion and protection of human rights, and dialogue was very important to the end of improving cooperation. The value of cooperation was coming to be more recognized internationally. The review of mechanisms did not deal with this specifically. Mechanisms could not always be cooperative. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had a role to play in the implementation of the report. The Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities could be addressed as a whole and, with some negotiation, this could take place immediately. It was simple to agree on some of the issues raised by the outgoing bureau. The issue should continue to be debated.

HO-YOUNG AHN (Republic of Korea) said the informal consultations led by the Chair of the Commission on Human Rights on Wednesday evening and other informal get-together had helped his country gain a far better understanding of problems, expectations and concerns held by each delegation. The Republic of Korea also had a clearer understanding on how to proceed on the important issue of rationalizing the work of the Commission. On the basis of such an understanding, the Korean delegation wished to emphasize several points which would underlie further the work of the Commission on the review of mechanisms.

Mr. Ahn said first, there was a need to focus on the convergence, rather than divergence of views. There was a need to start work on such issues on which there was convergence, and then move on to issues where differences of views were wider. Second, there was a need to concentrate on achieving what was achievable before the end of the current session of the Commission. The Commission should therefore do what it agreed to do last year, adopt, amend, add to, and subtract from the bureau's recommendations. Otherwise the Commission would run the risk of losing momentum and losing credibility. Third, a broader understanding had now emerged on the need of establishing an inter-sessional working group to work on the issues left unresolved at the end of the current session of the Commission.

LAURA DUPUY (Uruguay) said that the report of the bureau covered four different mechanisms. There were other aspects of work covered by the Commission which had an impact on these mechanisms and their goal of protecting and promoting human rights. There was no doubt that the revision

- 12 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

of the whole United Nations system could not be achieved over night, since it was a long and drawn out process. The analysis of all the components of the system was necessary. There was a need to make technical communication more efficient. Deteriorating situations should be identified as soon as possible, since this would warn the international community sooner and would help create greater cooperation between States. The United Nations system should be seen as impartial. Small changes would need a broad consensus to be reached as soon as possible. All discussions should be in the hands of the Commission. There was margin for manoeuvre for all delegations before any changes were agreed on. Uruguay would either vote for change or support the status quo depending on what was most realistic.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Egypt) said that despite the long dialogue, no significant decisions on the reform of the mechanisms of the Commission had been reached. Egypt agreed with the need to enhance the effectiveness of the mechanisms, while strengthening the Commission's system and special procedures. This objective needed to be pursued in the framework of other relevant commitments outlined by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which would protect against partiality and politicization. Periodical and expert intra-governmental level review was recommended. A comprehensive nature was to be maintained and it should not yield to specific or targeted approaches which did not take into consideration linkages to other areas. The review process needed to be addressed in a careful and integrated manner and should not be rushed or hastily treated.

EDVARDAS BORISOVAS (Lithuania) said his country appreciated the job done by the previous bureau of the Commission in preparing the draft of the report of the bureau on review of mechanisms. Pursuant to its mandate under decision 1998/112, the bureau had opened wide and substantial discussions with governments, United Nations organs and specialized agencies, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The report compiled many observations, proposals and recommendations suggested by the responses of all those consulted.

Mr. Borisovas said one of the principal purposes of the process of reform of the mechanisms of the Commission was to achieve impartiality, independence and effectiveness of special procedures and other mechanisms related to its work. The importance of these principles was underlined once again by Lithuania when it co-sponsored a draft resolution on the work of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Lithuania supported the request for States to submit nominations of candidates for the Subcommission so that the qualifications and independence of the nominees could be thoroughly addressed. Lithuania had also co-sponsored a draft resolution on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.

- 13 - Press Release HR/CN/933 27 April 1999

JOHAN MOLANDER (Sweden) said that the mechanisms of the Commission were common property and the broadest possible agreement should be sought. The informal consultations of the last few weeks indicated that a few countries seemed to be at a loss as to how to deal even with the simplest non-confrontational recommendations of the report. The dispassionate and technical approach taken by the bureau should be emulated by the Commission as a whole. The agreed task was to enhance the capacity and effectiveness of the human rights mechanisms. Progress should not be postponed. The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities should regain its status as an independent expert body with a focus on studies, research and expert advice. The 1503 procedure needed to be better structured. The representative nature of the bureau should remain. Not all seats on it should be rotated at the same time. The process had to begun. It should now gain momentum and advance step by step.

IAN HILL (New Zealand) said his country attached real importance to the objective of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission and considered that the bureau's report was a very good basis for consideration and implementation of the necessary reforms and which needed to be addressed substantively during this session.

Mr. Hill said New Zealand was pleased to co-sponsor the draft resolution on this subject and considered the draft text a comprehensive and well-balanced document. It proposed referring more complex aspects of the review, particularly those relating to the 1503 procedure, to the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and to the standard-setting working group, for further detailed consideration by an inter-sessional process. New Zealand supported and commended this draft resolution.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said that the report, which was a compromise text, was an excellent basis for discussions of the reinforcement of the protection and promotion of human rights. The special mechanisms of the Commission required maintenance and reinforcement, should be funded further, and should have greater human resources. Recommendations 7, 9 and 10 were most important. Procedure 1503 should be retained, but should be made faster and more flexible. The Subcommission should retain its working group on minorities and that on indigenous peoples. Its independence should be reinforced. Recommendation 13 was supported. If there was a feeling of disappointment, induced by the slowness of the process, there was pleasure that State positions had become closer, since consensus should be the rule, not the exception.

* *** *