Open-Ended Session, 8 of May 2007

During this session the delegations could react to the final paper that the President De Alba presented on monday 4. It was a very long and intense meeting but to sum up the 2 most interesting declarations were those from the ambassadors of Germany and Algeria. They illustrate quite well the curant opposition in this institution building process.

Algeria spoke for the African group.
Regarding the mandates' holders they asked for a process of selection and a possibility to appeal in case of potential exclusion. The mandates should be more precise. The Council should be responsible for the decision regarding the terms of the mandates.
They expressed their anxiety concerning the opposition ( from many delegations but mainly Norway) to use humanitarian law as a source for the UPR.
They insisted on the fact that the reports of the States must be the main base for the UPR and that the process should rest on the promise of the latters, which can not be responsible for something he was not engage to do.
Regarding the complaint procedure, the admissibility criteria sould be clearly expressed before the complaint is submitted. 3 monthes is not sufficiant.
In the order of the day, the Council should have the ultimate right to nominate the mandates' holders and so there should be added a point called " nomination of the mandates' holders by the Council". There should also be added a special point on racism.
Finally the ambassador said that they are preparing a new version of the text because they are very concerned about reacting to all the propositions in order to reach a consensus....

Germany made a very impressive declaration, assessing that the paper was all right but really not sufficient. Europe accept the text except the part on the order of the day. This final document is vital for the resolution and therefore it is really important for Europe to accept a proposition that doesn't make everything depending on the consent of the State because the Council must be the one able to evaluate the situation, otherwise it is a "parody".
Regarding the special procedure it is important not to limit the possibility of the Council to act at the right beginning because it would be a failure of its responsability.
The process of selection proposed by the president is not ideal but goes in the right direction. They should avoid the politisation following an election and make sure that independence and expertise are feasible.
Regarding the complaint procedure the ambassador made it very clear that the limit accepted for the admissibility criteria should not be removed.
Concerning the order of the day, the ambassador would like to hear the proposition of the president because it is not part of the final document. He also precised that the paragraph 3 was clear: there exist a possibility to submit to the Council any issue of Human Rights in any part of the world. This is an essential element.
So, Germany is trying to get to a consensus but wants to assure the quality of the future instrument.

Finally there was an other important issue regarding the code of conducts. It is not part of the final paper yet but the swiss delegation is leading the negociations and trying to get to a consensus in order to put the issue in the very final version. Germany stressed that it is a very important issue and was backed by russia.

So mainly the opposistions are between those who want a major role for the state ( Malaysia, Algeria, Singapore...) and those who want an effective body able to exerce some control on the human rights (EU, Canada, Switzerland, Argentina...)

EAD