Open-ended Session on institutional Building of the HR Council, 24th May 2007, 10am-13pmALG

In the heart of this open-ended session was the discussion on the consultations made so far by Ambassador De Alba, the President of the HR Council. He presented the work done on the Expert Advice Body, on the Complaint Procedures and on the rules of procedures, and handed out two documents, one on the Expert Advice, the other on the Complaint Procedures.

Expert Advice:
- Name proposed: Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (HRCAC)
- Size: 16+1 (4 African Group, 4 Asian Group, 3 WEOG, 3 GRULAC, 2 Eastern Group; 1 seat is alternating between African and Asian Group)
- Gender balance, balance in cultural diversity and among legal systems required
- Candidates: all member States of UN can present a candidate, civil society should be consulted, candidates should be professional experts in HR, independent, impartial
- More probable that elections will take place instead of nominations

Complaint Procedure:
- First WG: Working Group on Admissibility, it will be elected by the HRCAC, one of each regional group. This group should meet twice a year for 5 working days each
- Second WG: Working Group on Situations, 5 members nominated by the regional groups
- HR Council shall examine the reports of the Working Groups at least once a year
- Timeframe for consideration by HR Council should not exceed 24 months

Working methods:
- 1 organizational meeting at the beginning of each session of the Council
- Reports and summary: which language?
- Possibility to hold private sessions should be maintained
- Composition of bureau should be maintained

Rules of procedures:
- Cycle begins first Monday of July, this should not be changed now, as General Assembly begins 20th of June
- Seat of Council: meetings outside Geneva are not excluded (I did not understand this, isn’t Geneva meant to be the seat of the HR Council?)
- Ambassador De Alba prefers to let the issue on the 2/3 majority requirement for country resolutions decisions to be left pending, because time is not favourable for such a complex question now (nevertheless a lot of delegations mentioned this issue)
- Cycle of Council Sessions: 1 organizational session for whole cycle
1st substantial session in September
2nd substantial session in November / December
3rd Main Session in March / April


Further more, the President presented his intention to continue some days with consultations and to submit the drafts documents on the institutional building on the 4th of June 2007.

The debate was then opened for the delegations.

All in all, the delegations were quite satisfied with the proposals of the President. There was a debate about the composition of the Expert Advice body (HRCAC). Algeria, Cuba, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, South Africa, Egypt and Russia were all arguing that the proposal of the President does not feature a proportional representation of the regional groups. They required that the HRCAC was proportional to the amount of seats that every regional group has in the Council.

Regarding the complaint procedure, China and Pakistan demanded an absolute confidentiality, whereas Germany (in the name of the EU as well), UK and Canada argued that confidential complaint procedure presupposes cooperation of the country concerned. If the State concerned does not cooperate, the procedure should get public.
China, Egypt and Pakistan even required naming it Confidential Complaint Procedure to make sure that it is fundamentally confidential.
Cuba and Algeria claimed that only the Council should have the right to lift the confidentiality (and not the WG).

Another issue that was highly debated, even if the President regarded it as a pending issue that should not be discussed today, was the question of the 2/3 majority in country resolution decisions.
Cuba, China, Pakistan, Iran were for a 2/3 majority. The German Ambassador contended that this would also apply to the Palestine question. Cuba, China etc. responded than that the Palestine question was a special case of occupation that did not exist elsewhere and that therefore it would not be under this 2/3majority condition.

UK, Germany and USA argued that all the decisions should be done in the same way. UK said that the 2/3 majority had never been applied to country resolutions. Germany wished not to open this Pandora box yet, because this would engender consequences for other areas (like Palestine) and it was not the time for that.

The open debate was to be continued in the afternoon and the President wished to begin with the preparations of the 5th Session of the Council.