HRC, 5th session, 14.06, morning

Yesterday afternoon, President De Alba opened the institution building session. He distributed his final paper and explained that it was a compromise formula. The intention is to give a general overview. Thus, it has to be completed. The african group presented their new version of the code of conduct in which they tried to include everyones positions. ..
As the delegations discovered the paper yesterday the session was suspended to let them time to prepare their remarks and questions.

It reopened this morning at 11am, as an informal session. It was therefore open-ended in terms of participation. President De Alba insisted on the fact that we had to concentrate on the new elements. We then heard the general comments. It was again very expectable.
The delegation of Pakistan spoke in behalf of the OIC and claimed again that:
- UPR: outcome must be adopted by consensus but with consent of the state concerned. The principal basis must be the national report, all other sources are secondary. They accept a right to appeal for the mandates' holders but the final decision must be taken by the Council.
- Complaint procedure must be confidential
- not very happy about the fact that the text of the Agenda has not changed yet.
Bangladesh, Saoudi Arabia and others aligned on this declaration.

Cuba and India made very precise comments about the texte itself. Their propositions are available either on the extranet or will be distribute tomorrow.

China, speaking in behalf of 10 members of the Council, mostly said the same as Pakistan but added that the distinction between country mandates and thematic mandate should be maintained because the new nomination "geographic" mandate sounds bizarre to them, and they don't really know what it is refering to. They also insisted on the 2/3 majority for the rules of procedure. As it was still not taken into consideration they want to prepare a written amendment.

Then, we have the other bloc represented by Switzerland, Germany, Canada...
Switzerland noted that the ONGs were still not allowed to participate in the debate and asked for this to change.
- UPR: should not have the possibility to include a rapporteur pertaining to the same geographic area as the country concerned. No right of veto and UPR should work for all recommandations so that we don't get to a system "à la carte".
- Order of the day: insisted on the inclusion of a point called "other issue"
- Complaint procedure: the secretariat should transmit the complaint directly and not examine firstly if the admissibility criteria are fulfilled because otherwise it would damage the mechanisme. The goal is to improve the systeme, however we could have different views on what improvement means...
Germany:
- UPR: agrees with the fact that the level of development should be considered but this has nothing to do with the standards, otherwise there would be no more criteria of universality. This should be precised in the text.
- Complaint procedure: should be clearly written that it is confidential IN PRICNCIPLE. If the Council decides to use public pression it can give up this rule.

Norway wants the mandates to be extended for 3 years from the date of expiring.

EAD