WG on expert advice - Feb. 9th - YS

I. EXPERT ADVICE

The subject of this meeting was to discuss about the establishment of a Human Rights Expert Advisory Body (HREAB).

Therefore, a non-paper, prepared under the authority of the Facilitator, has been provided to the whole members. Mains proposals were:

this body should not exceed 10 to 16 experts who have to be impartial, independent,specialized and highly qualified

the selection of the experts should be transparent and reflect the principle of equitable geographic representation in identical proportion observed in the HRC. Shall respect a two-step process:

+ first stage: nomination of the experts
involving states as well as other stakeholders (HCHR, NGO…). Previously, they
should have to submit to a pre-screening exercise in which states, OHCHR,
president of the council and other bureau members should be involved

+ second stage: election of the experts for
a 3 year term renewable only once

The expert body should be able to provide advice on thematic issues as well as on issues related to the structure, functioning, coordination and coherence of the mechanism of the HR system.

Therefore, this body should call for a great flexibility and autonomy, even if it should work at the direction of the HRC

HREAB should meet no more than 2 weeks every calendar. However, HRC could give additional time in case of urgent circumstances

Thereafter,S.E. Idriss Jazaïri, the representative of Algeria, took the floor on behalf of the African group. He made a statement and put forward proposals which may be summarized as follows:

As the work done by the former sub-commission was very satisfactory, the structure of the new body should be similar

HREAB should be a standing body and should have well-defined functions

The candidates should be nominated only by states

As a subsidiary body of the council, HREAB should act as a “think tank”. Members should be elected by the council on
the basis of equitable geographic representation, taking into account major legal and civilization traditions as well as gender balance

The expert body should have 26 members, elected for a 3 years-term renewable once

The group should work under the direction of the HRC should not be able to provide
advice on issues related to the structure, functioning, coordination and coherence of the mechanism of the HR system

HREAB should meet no more than 2 weeks every calendar

According to GA resolution 60/251, HREAB may not take part in universal periodic review, which is a HRC exclusive remit.

HREAB shall never provide advice on country-related matters

This position was endorsed by Pakistan, Cuba, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran, while the representative proposed the expert body should have 28 members to ensure a better Asian representation.

Then, Ms Brigitta Siefker-Eberle, the representative of Germany, made a statement on behalf of the European Union. She said EU fully concurs with the non-paper view that the future body shall be provided by independent and highly qualified human
rights experts who should carry out studies only upon the request of HRC. According to her, the key function of the expert should be to contribute to the promotion and protection of Human rights.

Therefore, HREAB should be able to provide advice on country-related matters as well as on issues related to the structure, functioning, coordination and coherence of the mechanism of the HR system.

Unlike the position of the African group, EU, as several delegations, thought that the experts should take advantage of NGOs expertise in their work and that a periodic consultation may be interesting. In this regard, the nomination of the
candidates should involve various entities including NGOs which could provide valuable suggestions.

Moreover,EU felt that roster-model shall be the most suitable system to fulfil the above-mentioned functions and that a standing body could not support the work of the HRC in a flexible and responsive manner.

This position was endorsed by several delegations including UK, USA, Canada, Russia, Australia and Switzerland.
However, the latter deplored the non-paper rejecting other possibilities as an ad hoc expert advice. Therefore, Russia felt that NGOs involvement should be non-productive.

The meeting ended on a positive feeling. Indeed, while no consensus has been found, Mr Facilitator noted significant advances.