WG, Expert Advice, 12.04.07 afternoon

During the afternoon we continued to discuss the Facilitator's draft paper III. We looked at the sections II, III and IV.
There rapidly occurred a misunderstanding between the facilitator and the representatives of the delegations because the discussion was first very oriented on the language of the text and not so much on the proposal made by the delegations. The facilitator didn't want to choose among the proposals and thought it was better if the delegations could find a solution between them. Mexico, Germany and Cuba claimed that it was not possible to work like this and that it was his job to consider all the proposals in order to have a concrete text proposal, based on the negotiation.

After the intervention of the International Indian Council on the rights of indigenous people, we discussed what to do with the mandates of the former Commission. Canada insisted on the fact that we had to decide, case by case, which mandate will continue and which will be abolished. As the continuation depends on the Council’s decision, the terms “approval of the council” should be added in the text, line 8 (part III). On the other hand, Cuba and Algeria stressed that the Commission was abolished but not the mandates. These mandates still exist as they are to continue for 1 year after the Commission. This year is still not at the end.
Guatemala and some NGOs said that it was important to leave the possibility to create or propose new mandate as long as it is approved by the Council.
Switzerland said that the meetings had to be well structured and thus proposed to add “in order to discharge their mandates”, after collectively, line 6 (part III), meaning that the delegations can choose the easiest way to work for their specific mandates. UK supported this point of view and added the proposal to create a WG on the contemporary forms of slavery.

Regarding the duration of the session, the delegations mainly agreed on some flexibility. One week is seen as to short.

Finally concerning the part IV, the name of this WG was discussed. Argentina argued that the title was very important because it establishes the hierarchic order and thus proposed “HRC expert advisory body”.
Mexico thought that the name had to show the type of organ that the WG will be. As it includes the Civil Society and the member of the Council, they proposed the word “open-ended” and “independent” to be added in the title. The word “open-ended” made many delegations react and so Mexico gave up that proposal but insisted on the word “independent” because it is a fundamental characteristic.