Sixty-second General Assembly

Third Committee

35^th Meeting (PM)

THIRTY TWO MEMBER STATES TO COME UNDER MICROSCOPE OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL’S

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM BY JUNE 2008, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD

Review Can Reduce Selectivity, Politicisation of Human

Rights That Characterised Now-Defunct Commission on Human Rights

With its institutional-building process essentially completed, the Human Rights Council was now looking forward to implementing its mechanisms in the first half of 2008 as it embarked on its mission to promote and protect human rights worldwide, Doru-Romulus Costea, the Council’s President, told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this afternoon.

In addition to Mr. Costea, the Committee heard from over 20 speakers as it discussed the work of the recently established Geneva-based Council, following the referral of that body’s report to the Committee earlier today by the General Assembly.  The latter would be expected to approve a draft resolution formally establishing the Council’s institutions and working methods during its ongoing sixty-second session.

Mr. Costea, summarizing the Council’s work over the past year, observed that it had been a period of transition and beginnings.  In that time, the challenge of setting up an Assembly subsidiary that replaced the Commission on Human Rights as the main United Nations body dedicated to rights was compounded by the need to address immediate human rights situations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Darfur region of the Sudan and Myanmar.

Turning to one of the innovations of the Council, Mr. Costea said the Universal Periodic Review -– a mechanism which would put the human rights situation of all Member States under the microscope by 2011 -– would begin in earnest in April 2008 when a working group would begin reviewing the first group of 16 countries, with a like-sized second group to follow in May 2008.  Decisions on the outcome of the review of those 32 countries would come out in June 2008.

Mr. Costea explained that the Council was introducing a more “victim-oriented” complaints procedure that would address consistent patterns of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms anywhere in the world.  New mechanisms had also been approved for a Forum on Minority Issues and for a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery.

“The Council is part and parcel of one of the third pillars that the United Nations relies on,” he said.  “At the same time, it is a brand new body in an institutional environment that is over 60 years old.  Let us make the good choice between what is right and what is easy.  To build a new institution is not easy.  To make it work as it must is both right and difficult.  When this institution deals with human rights, it is worth trying it out all the way through.”

In statements following Mr. Costea’s presentation, many delegations spoke highly of the Council work in the past year and expressed great hopes for the Universal Periodic Review process.  Drawing a link between achieving the Millennium Development Goals and universal access to all human rights, the representative of South Africa said the Review was a significant instrument to reduce the selectivity and politicisation of human rights that had characterised the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights.  India’s representative said the Review mechanism had the potential to bring a spirit of cooperation and dialogue to the Council’s work.

The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, said that the Council must not shy away from addressing “alarming situations”, wherever they might occur.  She added that, while the Union had strong concerns about human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it doubted whether “unbalanced and divisive” resolutions that had already been adopted by the Council had contributed to improving the situation.  The representative of Cuba said that the outcome of negotiations on the Council’s institutional framework had been favorable to Third World countries, but went on to express the hope that the Review mechanism would not become a politicized instrument.

Some delegations used today’s discussions to raise issues of particular interest to them.  The representative of Ukraine, for instance, drew a connection between human rights and the environment, while the Observer for the Holy See expressed the wish that the Council would adopt a resolution that would underscore freedom of worship and encourage interreligious and interfaith dialogue.   Chile’s representative reiterated his country’s commitment to making sure the Human Rights Council attained the legal standing it deserved -- the principal organ of the United Nations.

The representatives of Switzerland, Colombia, Sudan, Republic of Korea, China, Russian Federation, Liechtenstein, Belarus, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil (also on behalf of Argentina), Canada and New Zealand also spoke this afternoon.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 November, to conclude its discussions on the report of the Human Rights Council.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take up the Report of the Human Rights Council (document A/62/53).

The report, which was before the Committee, contains resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council from 18 September 2006 to 22 June 2007, at its second, third, fourth and fifth sessions, at its first organizational meeting, and at its third and fourth special sessions.

DORU-ROMULUS COSTEA, President of the Human Rights Council, told the Third Committee that he would be presenting an update about the most recent developments during the first part of the Council’s sixth session as well as the outcome of its fifth special session.  The Council’s first year was one of transition and beginning.  Those challenges were compounded by human rights situations, crises, and problems that had to be addressed in the substantive work of a body that was “under construction” for the better part of the period, he said.

Most of the Council’s decisions were targeted and operational, he said, and that was a trend that should be reinforced.  Questions which had been examined during the first year were the right to the truth as well as questions related to the judiciary and transitional justice.  The Council had held two special sessions to deal with serious human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Darfur.  He highlighted a new approach that had been promoted when dealing with situations of such gravity:  resorting to more than one special rapporteur to seek the appropriate ways and means to improve the respective cases.

In order to be operational, the Council had built its own mechanisms and structures.  In doing that, it had set itself several targets:  the Universal Periodic Review; rationalization and improvement of mandates, including the selection of new mandate-holders; as well as the agenda; the rules of procedure and others.  The Universal Periodic Review was a unique mechanism in the United Nations, he said, adding that it had been set up and was almost ready to start.  All Member States were going to be reviewed by 2011, and the process itself would start next April.  The Review was generally considered to be the Human Rights Council’s most important innovation.

The Council had decided to replace the previous sub-commission with an 18-member Advisory Committee to be elected in a manner that would observe equitable geographic distribution, as well as other forms of balanced representation.  New mechanisms for the continuation of the former sub-commission’s working groups had also been improved, he said.  A new complaint procedure, which was more victims-oriented than previously, had been established to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.

The international community now had to move to implement the construct it had agreed, he said.  “We are supposed to live up to the expectations of many –- first of all, of the victims and abused whose human rights are violated and whose voices are heard less often than needed and appropriate.”  The Council would put the new mechanisms to the test during the first half of next year.  Upholding the highest standards of respect for human rights should be the object of reflection by the international community as the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approached.  “Let us make the good choice, between what is right and what is easy,” he said in conclusion.  “When this institution deals with human rights, it is worth trying it out all the way through.”

Statements

SUSANA VAZ PATTO (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the status of the Human Rights Council within the United Nations would have been better reflected had its report been presented to the plenary of the General Assembly, as had been the case last year.  The importance of human rights as one of the pillars of the Organization had been reflected in the number of meetings that the Council and its mechanisms had held last year; many important thematic issues had been addressed effectively at six regular sessions.  The Council, however, had to deal effectively with many important thematic issues, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and protection of human rights whilst combating terrorism.  Some violations had been addressed, but if it was to fulfil its mandate and retain its credibility, the Council could not be silent when a Government refused to cooperate.  The appalling human rights situation in Darfur, where gross and systematic violations continued to occur, had been an obvious example of a situation the Council was obliged to address.

Many delegations and non-governmental organizations had addressed the particularly alarming human rights situations in Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, she said.  The Council must not, at its future sessions, shy away from addressing such alarming situations, wherever they might occur.  While the European Union reiterated its strong concern about human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it doubted whether a repetition of unbalanced and divisive resolutions on that issue had contributed to improving the situation.  In the future, proposals should be more results-oriented and negotiated in a spirit of openness.  Turning to the institutional-building process, she said, like all other stakeholders, the Union did not see all its objectives reflected in the final package agreed by the Council in June; however, by focusing on one particular situation -– the one in the Occupied Palestinian Territory –- the Council had contradicted the spirit of non-selectivity.  Without a doubt, the situation in the Territory had to be addressed, but it should be done through the same agenda item as all other situations.  In fulfilling its mandate, the Council had to expand the attention it gave to grave human rights situations.  The European Union said, however, that it would be extremely counterproductive to reopen the institutional building package, which the Union would support despite its shortcomings.

Speaking on a point of order, the representative of Sudan said that the report of the Human Rights Council was being dealt with in a strange and hasty manner.  Mr. Costea’s statement had not been distributed to delegations, and there had been no dialogue session with him.  He wanted to know who had interpreted the resolution of the General Assembly that had referred the report to the Third Committee.

The Chairman, RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica), invited the Secretary of the Committee and then Mr. Costea to respond.

The Secretary, MARCEF KHANEN, said that the report had been issued a long time ago and distributed to delegations.  It had been allocated to the Committee in the morning by the General Assembly, and the Committee had been in a position to take it up.  Responding to the issue of the absence of a question and answer session, he recalled an Assembly resolution that invited dialogue with senior officials of the United Nations Secretariat; the report of the Human Rights Council was not one of the Secretary-General’s.  Interactive dialogues also took place with special rapporteurs and special procedures of the Human Rights Council.  And turning to statements, he said, it was up to each speaker to decide whether their own statements should be distributed.

Mr. COSTEA said the point of order reflected the attention being given to the report.  The statement he had given had not been an account of all the activities of the Council; it only contained a few ideas that he felt he should share with the Committee.  But, his statement would be distributed once it was posted on the Council’s website.  That body did nothing in secrecy.  Regarding the dialogue, he said that was the prerogative of the Secretary.  As President of the Council, any working method decided by the Committee would be respected.

RODRIGO MALMIERCA DIAZ ( Cuba) said that the creation of the Human Rights Council was brought about by the pressing need to put an end to the deep disrepute into which the Commission on Human Rights had plunged, due to political manipulation, hypocrisy and double standards imposed on its work by the United States and its Western accomplices.  His country had voted for the creation of the Council, and upheld that its agenda should remain balanced putting economic, social and cultural rights on the same level as civil and political rights.  The realization of the right to development; the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; the violations of human rights in the occupied Arab territories; the fight against racism; and technical assistance for developing countries should also be considered at the same level.

The final outcome of the negotiations on the Council had been favourable to Third World countries, he said, expressing hopes that the new universal review mechanism would not become a politicized instrument.  Washington did not want a Council that was credible.  It yearned for the old Commission which allowed it to hide “behind a cloak of silence” its abhorrent crimes such as those in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.  He denounced the serious consequences of altering the delicate international consensus achieved after the creation of the Council.  His delegation reaffirmed its commitment to the Council, as well as to the special thematic procedures and their mechanisms, including the Universal Periodic Review.  “A better world is possible,” he concluded.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY ( Switzerland) said that striking a balance between the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council, to avoid duplications and to make the system to protect and promote human rights as effective and credible as possible, was a task for everyone now.  His country regretted that the Council’s report had only been presented to the Third Committee this year; that certainly did not constitute a precedent for the sixty-third General Assembly.  The Universal Periodic Review would begin next spring amidst great hopes, with the aim of identifying efforts that had to be made in all countries to improve human rights.  The States to be examined first, his among them, would have to satisfy the expectations that had been placed on a truly cooperative and universal mechanism.

The ability to react rapidly and appropriately to human rights situations had been displayed by the Council in recent months, he said.  Questions of substance had been dealt with at its sixth ordinary session.  In addition, extraordinary sessions on Darfur and Myanmar had proven that the Council was capable of positive dynamism.  It would be desirable if efforts made by that body in a specific situation were duly taken into account by the Assembly, giving the resolutions adopted by the Council time to take effect on the ground.

CLAUDIA BLUM ( Colombia) recognized the positive work of the Human Rights Council, in particular the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism and the Code of Conduct for special procedures.  The Review, a “cornerstone” of the Council’s new architecture, would generate greater confidence and effectiveness in the Council’s work, leading to an approach based on dialogue and cooperation.  That mechanism would also allow the United Nations to contribute more effectively to identifying the needs of States.  Her country had already voluntarily presented itself for the first round of implementation of the Review, and would face a review during the third session of the Mechanism’s implementation in 2008.

The adoption of the Code of Conduct for special procedures was another highlight included in the Council’s report.  Colombia also attached special value to the review, rationalization and improvement of mandates, and it was important for the Council to move forward on that without delay.  Her country was ready to support, in the Assembly, the agreement reached in the Human Rights Council on institution-building, since the endorsement of the Assembly was essential to begin the effective implementation of all those measures.

IDREES MOHAMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED ( Sudan) said that the Human Rights Council had come to light to rectify the negative impact of the old Human Rights Commission.  It was a new era, where human rights questions were dealt with from one perspective without giving powerful States advantages.  Sudan hoped the universal treatment of human rights would work also in developed parts of the world, and be applied to the atrocious scandals unfolding in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons.

His country had participated in working groups that had come up with recommendations on an institutional structure for the Council, so that a new phase would begin that would help transcend the last Commission and the selectivity and double standards that characterized it.  All human rights were equally important.  He also said that reconsideration should be given to the relationship between the Council and the Third Committee.  He reiterated Sudan’s deep belief in human rights as well as in cooperation and dialogue with the international family.  He underlined his country’s determination to comply with its obligations in accordance with the human rights treaties and conventions it had signed.

KANG BYONG-JO ( Republic of Korea) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was one of the most important elements of the Human Rights Council.  The success of that system would be crucial in determining the extent to which the Council contributed to human rights and fundamental freedoms around the globe.  The most decisive factor in determining that success would be the collective will of all participating stakeholders, including Governments, international agencies and non-governmental organizations.  Lack of resources could act a as barrier in encouraging the application of the Review worldwide.  The Republic of Korea would, therefore, like to highlight the importance of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review by providing necessary technical support to countries in need.

It was disheartening to observe that gross and systematic abuses of human rights still persisted in many parts of the world, he went on.  The Council needed to take concrete steps to respond to those appalling human rights abuses.  His delegation fully supported and welcomed the recent and significant expansion of OHCHR both at Headquarters and in the field.  His country appreciated the work of the special session convened to deal with the human rights situation in Darfur and Myanmar.  He was pleased to see substantial progress on the issues of accountability as well as on ways to increase transparency on the inhumane activities of Governments who abused and suppressed their own people.  His delegation also strongly supported the adoption of country reports by the Council as well as the Assembly, and believed that was one of the definitive methods to increase global awareness of human rights violations committed by Governments.

ZHANG DAN ( China) said that the consensus adoption of the institution-building package had been the greatest achievement of the Human Rights Council in the past year.  Although it was not perfect, nor was anyone fully satisfied by it, the package had been the hard-won result of arduous work in which her country had taken an active part.  It was hoped that the package would be adopted by the Assembly by consensus, thus laying the foundation for the Council’s substantive work.

The Council faced enormous challenges, she said.  The need for caution in proposing country specific resolutions could not be overemphasized, given that national human rights situations would be conducted through the Universal Periodic Review.  If country specific resolutions were indeed necessary, then the views of the regional group that included the country concerned should be respected, and the outcome should aim for adoption by consensus.  The future and credibility of the Council were totally in the hands of Member States; all countries expected that body to be free from political manipulation, and genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights based on objectivity, fairness and equality.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV ( Russian Federation) said his country had spoken a lot about the Human Rights Council during the earlier discussions on human rights.  He expressed support for the institution-building package that was adopted by the Council in June 2007.  He then drew attention to what he hoped was an omission in the draft resolution on institution-building for adoption by the General Assembly.  He asked that it be corrected before its introduction to the Third Committee for approval.

PATRICK RITTER ( Liechtenstein) noted that in light of the relevant decisions on the Universal Periodic Review, the Advisory Committee as well as on other special procedures, the Human Rights Council had shown it was willing and able to put its updated tools in place as soon as possible, vis-à-vis institution-building.  It had sought to address the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.  That would be of particular importance, given the high number of individual communications that had been neglected due to attention given to other aspects of institution-building.  He preferred the Assembly to consider the full report of the Council and to express views on its performance so far.  He called the package on institution-building a “typical compromise solution” that could stand the test of time if States mustered the necessary political will to make it work.  Noting the package was finally at a point where all tools foreseen under Assembly resolution 61/251 were in place, he said no serious judgment could yet be passed on the performance of the Council, given obvious shortcomings which needed to be addressed.

He said the special responsibility of members of the Human Rights Council to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights did not entail the exclusion of States not serving as members.  The Council’s quality of work would benefit from stronger involvement by non-members.  The Universal Periodic Review would offer the possibility for actively participating non-members to review countries under consideration, assess the commitment of members to promoting and protecting human rights as well as fundamental freedoms in their countries while allowing them to highlight their commitment to fully cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms.  In particular, he welcomed the fifth Special Session of the Council on the situation in Myanmar.  The swift convening of that session, with broad support from Member States, highlighted the severity of the crisis in that country and showed that the Council was able to assume responsibility and respond promptly to situations of gross and systematic human rights violations.  Preparation for the fifth Special Session and the outcome of the fourth Special Session on human rights in Darfur were encouraging examples of the way in which human rights discourse could reflect the genuine concerns of the international community.  The full cooperation of respective Governments would be vital to translating that discourse into concrete improvements for people on the ground.

MONSEIGNEUR CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Observer for the Holy See, said that a panoramic view of the world showed the alarming human rights situation.  In many countries, including some represented on the Council, there was not one right that had not been violated or neglected.  Such violations had included denial of the right to life, the imposition of birth policies which did not take into account parental decisions, and the stifling of religious freedoms.

Many religions had become the victims of mockery and outrages, either against their adherents or their spiritual or moral symbols, he said.  Such a disturbing phenomenon threatened peace and social stability.  A resolution on respect for the right to worship had to be developed and adopted by the Council.  Such a text would also call for dialogue and debate between believers of various faiths.  A resolution on that issue would enhance the Council’s credibility.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI ( South Africa) said that achievement of the Millennium Development Goals should be a priority for the international community if universal access to all human rights was to be ensured.  Building the structural framework of the Human Rights Council had not been an easy task.  Since the adoption of the Institution-Building Package and the Code of Conduct, the Council had continued to adopt modalities and guidelines for the relevant mechanisms in order to complete its architecture.  South Africa, a founding member of the Council, fully supported the agreement on the Institution-Building Package.

South Africa saw the Universal Periodic Review as a significant instrument to reduce the selectivity and politicization that had characterized the Commission on Human Rights, she said.  Country mandates used as a political tool did not enhance the observation of human rights in the States concerned, and should therefore be terminated.  All Member States should commit to working within the context of Universal Periodic Review, through cooperation and interactive dialogue, as well as with the full involvement of each country concerned.  The Universal Periodic Review would be successful only if the necessary political will was demonstrated.

ZOYA KOLONTAI ( Belarus) said the decision taken by the Council on institution-building had been welcome and valued.  Subjectivity when considering the human rights situation in different countries would be eliminated by the mechanism of Universal Periodic Review; the era of “teachers” and “students” on the matter of human rights would become a thing of the past.  Belarus favoured an effective system of special procedures that would monitor all forms of rights, including the right to development.  It was no secret that, according to political circumstances, mandate-holders had crossed the threshold of objectivity.  The African Group’s initiative to set up a code of conduct for special procedures was welcome.

She said Belarus did not agree that the Council had been unable to respond to crisis situations.  Five special sessions had already been held.  As the Council developed, it formed a trend towards adopting decisions on complex issues by consensus.  Meanwhile, the Third Committee had continued to be used as an area for settling accounts; country specific resolutions had been adopted by less than one-third of delegations.  Belarus favoured a clear distribution of functions and authority between the Council and the Committee.  It was the Council that had all mechanisms to address human rights situations.

ISMAT JAHAN ( Bangladesh) said the establishment of the Human Rights Council had offered him “renewed hope” that the body would play an effective role in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.  He noted that most of the Council’s work on institution had been completed within the stipulated time.  He supported the text entitled “UN Human Rights Council:  Institution-building”, and called for its adoption by the Assembly, in the hopes that it would “usher in a new era for the human rights body and a new culture in dealing with human rights”.

He underlined the importance of the Universal Periodic Review, an “innovative concept” which was likely to create an environment of mutual trust, confidence and understanding.  He expected that mechanism to eventually supersede country specific mechanisms.  Likewise, the system of special protocols was important, and he praised the streamlining of the appointment procedure for mandate-holders.

He was disappointed that there had not been much progress in the area of review and rationalization of mandates.  Deadlines had not been met.  He stressed that a “piecemeal” approach to conducting that review would be “contrary to the spirit of reform”, and he called on the Council to look at the holistic aspect of the special procedures.  Meanwhile, the agenda and the rules of procedure met his expectations, and he asked the Council to conform to the framework for the sake of the predictability and transparency of its work.

ZAHID RASTAM ( Malaysia) said that Malaysia was pleased at the adoption, by consensus, of the Human Rights Council’s institution-building package.  It was vital that the compromise package was not reopened, to ensure the smooth-running work of the Human Rights Council.  The appointment of mandate-holders should correspond to the categories of rights in a balanced manner, to ensure equal treatment and emphasis on all rights, avoiding selectivity.  The mandate-holders should be accountable to the Human Rights Council.

He said special procedures should focus on thematic issues, given that other mechanisms within the Council would address country specific issues.  The Council would have to assess and implement the standardization of mandates and the coordination of working methods of mandate-holders, as stated in the Code of Conduct.

The independence of the special procedures mandate-holders must apply only insofar as the exercise of their prerogatives as mandate-holders, and not beyond that.  Emphasis had to be given to the Code of Conduct by the Council, and it clearly spelled out the responsibilities of the mandate-holders who were essentially carrying out their work on behalf of the Council, in the promotion and protection of human rights.  He said Malaysia acknowledged the contribution of non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO ( Ukraine) called the establishment of the Human Rights Council a significant step in the implementation of commitments made at the World Summit in 2005, and confirmed the aspiration of the international community to start an era that promoted and protected human rights.  Ukraine had been a founding member of the Council:  it was satisfied with its institutional set-up and looked forward to formal adoption by consensus of the package document by the Assembly.

Special attention should be paid by the Council to the environmental dimension of human rights, he said.  It was evident that humankind was confronted by an environmental crisis of planetary dimensions.  Existing challenges were linked to the right to a sound environment; reliable environmental information; ecologically pure food and water; ecologically safe labour conditions; ecologically harmless items in everyday living; the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and even the right to life.  Fighting ecological degradation had to go hand-in-hand with the protection of human rights linked to the environment.  If the Council established proper standards of environmental human rights, it would contribute to the protection of the earth for the benefit of humankind.

ALFREDO LABBÉ ( Chile) said that human rights were one of the fundamental pillars of his country’s foreign policy.  Membership of the Human Rights Council bestowed a great responsibility, and Chile was ready to shoulder the task.  But, responsibility for the work of the Council lay not only with members, but with the whole international community.  All contributions by delegations to the development of institution-building, particularly towards the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, would make it possible to examine all States on an equal footing.  The international community had to make sure the Review was effective, and must also consolidate constructive dialogues with States to ensure they would be able to align their internal legal order with international standards.

Chile greatly prized the system of special procedures and its early warnings to prevent human rights violations.  His country was one of those with practical experience in that area, he noted.  In 1975, a working group for Chile was established, and a reporter was appointed to visit the country and prepare annual reports.  The Assembly had passed resolutions expressing the international community’s discontent with the situation in Chile, and solidarity with the victims of massive human rights violations.  Those resolutions had helped to save lives.  His delegation wished to reiterate its commitment to making sure the Human Rights Council attained the legal standing it deserved -- the principal organ of the United Nations.  To that end, he hoped the report would be presented to the plenary of “this Assembly” as it deserved to be presented.

ARUNA KUMAR VUNDAVALLI ( India) said it was appropriate for the Human Rights Council to report to the Assembly through the Third Committee but the need for timeliness should not be trivialized and should be addressed while formalizing reporting arrangements between the Council and the Assembly.  The streamlining of efforts should also aim to avoid duplicate reporting as well as duplicate presentation of reports by special rapporteurs and others in the Council.

He said the universal periodic review mechanism had the potential to bring a spirit of cooperation and dialogue into the Council’s work.  The mechanism would be launched in 2008 with the finalization of the countries to be reviewed in the first three cycles.  As a Council founding member, India would be reviewed in the first cycle in early 2008.  The aim was to make an objective and transparent assessment of a country’s human rights situation, share best practices and provide technical and capacity-building assistance.  As the mechanism was still evolving, the Council should review modalities based on best practices and lessons learned.

He said the code of conduct for special procedures mandate-holders should significantly improve impartiality and objectivity while allowing for independence in the discharge of mandates as well as greater accountability to the Council.  Efforts to translate the right to development into a reality were encouraging in their move away from theory and principles and into policy design and implementation.  The three-phase road map outlined by the working group for establishing and refining criteria for evaluating the global partnership for development was a significant step forward.

SALIMA ABDELHAK ( Algeria) recalled that her country, a founding member of the Human Rights Council, had coordinated the African position on that body during the past year.  Members of the Council had overcome their differences in a spirit of dialogue and compromise to adopt a consensus document that would consolidate the body’s authority.  That document did not satisfy 100 per cent of States, including her own country, which preferred to see the right to self-determination as a separate item on the Council’s agenda.  Nevertheless, Algeria had joined in consensus in order to make the Council functional as soon as possible.

The universal periodic review was a big step toward equality in addressing human rights, she said, and it was to be encouraged through adequate funding.  Algeria would be among the first countries to come up for review and it would cooperate with the new mechanism with transparency.  That said, she hoped that more clarifications on the modalities of the review would be made available at an opportune time.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) speaking on behalf of Argentina as well, said they had fully supported the establishment of the Human Rights Council as a major contribution to the strengthening of the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Council had to live up to the great expectations of Member States and civil society.  Presently, priority had to be placed on the consolidation of the Council as the main multilateral body for the promotion and protection of human rights.  His delegation viewed the relationship between the Human Rights Council and the Third Committee as complementary, rather than competitive.  He expressed concern, however, at the lack of clarity on the division of labour between the two organs.

The institutional package adopted by consensus in Geneva was instrumental to fulfilling the mandate provided for in Assembly resolution 60/251, he said.  His delegation understood the circumstances that led to the decision adopted by the Assembly “this morning”.  Brazil had joined consensus on the issue, to preserve the integrity of the institutional package, and it was his understanding that the present arrangement constituted a decision taken at the sixty-second session, and did not set a precedent.  Brazil expected that there would be no reopening of the report of the Human Rights Council by the Third Committee.  Any discontinuity in this new phase would be detrimental to its credibility.  Brazil was confident that the constructive atmosphere which gave rise to the Council’s institutional package would prevail.

JOHN MCNEE ( Canada) said the Human Rights Council had begun to use its new mechanisms, such as the ability to call special sessions, in a constructive way.  The system of independent special procedures, “the eyes and ears of the Council”, had been maintained.  His country would continue to promote the system’s work.  The Council had established credible modalities for the universal periodic review, and Canada would continue to engage actively and constructively in order to launch it on schedule.  However, he expressed concern at efforts, during the institution-building phase, to weaken the United Nations human rights system.  The unbalanced nature of the treatment of Arab-Israeli issues undermined the credibility of the Council and it stood in stark contrast to other constructive outcomes.  Canada believed that the Council members should address human rights issues in a balanced and objective manner, which contributed to the improvement of human rights for all.

In June, Canada could not agree on an institution-building package that included an agenda with a separate item on only one specific situation, he said.  He regretted that the issue was combined with the institution-building work mandated by the Assembly, and that the Council’s agenda failed to adhere to the guiding principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity established by its parent body.  Agreement on the institution-building package had been declared when there was no consensus, and the manner in which that package was pushed through did a disservice to the Council and to the causes it espoused.  Canada pledged to continue to work to ensure that the Council remained able to respond to urgent human rights situations and that it maintained a focus on the implementation of the rights that belonged to everyone.

ROSEMARY BANKS (New Zealand) said that the compromises all States made in the final negotiation period were reflected in a finely balanced package, and that those understandings now provided the foundation to take the Human Rights Council to the next phase -- implementation.  The international community would need to adjust to a body that was effectively in regular session throughout the year.  New Zealand called for greater clarity and consistency as procedures were established, to ensure the most efficient and fair procedural arrangements between the Council and other organs of the United Nations including the Third Committee.  There was a need to respect the roles of each body so the relationship between them developed in a complementary way, she said.

The support of OHCHR was critical to the success of the Council, and additional resources should be provided so it could service the universal periodic review.  New Zealand also encouraged all stakeholders to give serious consideration to nominating experienced and well-qualified female candidates for election or appointment to the Council’s new bodies, and to integrate a gender perspective in the renewal and establishment of special procedures in the coming months.  Her country had announced its intention to stand for election to the Council in 2009, as a demonstration of its commitment to seeing the Council evolve into a strong, focused and effective body.  The approach taken last year of bringing the report first to the plenary and then to the Third Committee would have served well again this year.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record