Special Rapporteur (SR) on the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen

Human Rights Council, Sixth Resumed Session, 12^th and 13^th December 2007

Statement by the Special Rapporteur (SR) on the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, and interactive dialogue

Mr Stavenhagen recalled the importance of the indigenous people’s cause, particularly in the year of the adoption by the GA of the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People. Despite the efforts to raise awareness of these rights, the economic, social and human development of indigenous people is generally lower than the average. This is partly due to the fact that development policies have not tackled the structural causes of marginalisation of indigenous people because of lack of recognition, protection and human rights guarantees.

The SR’s report documents best practices of sustainable development project and he mentions the achievements of Brazil, India and Peru in the areas of education and health. Policies fostering empowerment and ownership of rights strengthen the organisation and capacity of indigenous people. Further, increasing access to authority position at local level has been granted in Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico and Uganda, which had interesting consequences in the design of social services and priorities in public investment. A key issue among indigenous people’s rights is the recognition and protection of land and natural resources rights.

Relating to his visit in Bolivia, the SR noted the improvement made since the indigenous President Evo Morales came to power as well as the fact that the Declaration has status of internal law in Bolivia. However, he voiced concerns about the persistent phenomenon of racism and discrimination against women that he witnessed among civil servants and attitudes of political parties. Also, the SR was preoccupied by the bondage situation in some guaraní parts of the country.

Concerning his visit to the Philipines, the SR noted that the situation has remained unchanged since his last visit four years ago. Despite some positive developments, the lack of access to natural resources for the purpose of survival is still of important magnitude. Indigenous people face forced evictions due to the legal power that e.g. international companies have. Of particular concern are the increasing number of extra-judicial killings, torture cases, forced disappearances, illegal detention that are attributed to the police, the armed forces and paramilitary groups.

The SR also visited the hydroelectric project of La Parota, in Mexico, in company of the SR on adequate housing, concluding that, considering the size of the affected population in terms of displacement, the project did not comply with the human rights standards enshrined in international instruments ratified by Mexico.

Finally, the SR presents a general report on the situation of indigenous people in Asia, a region that he was allowed to visit only on one occasion. He notes that Asian indigenous are particularly marginalised and suffer from systematic human rights violations as consequence of land loss. Land loss is critical as it might trigger the disappearance of entire people. Moreover, this is exacerbated by extensive agriculture and deforestation due to State concessions or illegal uprooting. As indigenous people are often inextricably connected to their natural environment, they are especially vulnerable. However, they lack any means to defend their rights. Further, the SR notes that there is a systematic displacement practice in favour of infrastructure mega projects, especially dams.

He concludes reaffirming the weight of the Declaration of indigenous people’s rights.

Interactive Dialogue

Bolivia, as concerned country, described the national development plans that are currently undertaken and that include the indigenous people’s conclude and participation. Another point was the recognition of the pluralistic and diverse composition of the Bolivian society up to the level of the constitution.

China, India and other Asian Countries, strongly objected to the annex on the rights of indigenous people in Asia because of diverse reasons: first, objection was made to the assumption of indigenous peoples living in Asia. According to India, the entire population of Asia is indigenous and the acceptance of only a part of the population as indigenous is considered inaccetable. This comment is based on a part of the definition of indigenous people in the ILO Convention 169, disregarding further elements of the definition in other provisions. Secondly, China criticised that the information gathered by the Special Rapporteur was coming mainly from NGO sources, thereby going against the Code of Conduct that specifies that, in particular, information provided by the States concerned have to be considered.

Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked about means to influence development policies in order to be sensitive to indigenous people’s interests and also about indicators to measure this feature of policies. A further concern was the recognition that environmental degradation is tantamount to a form of eviction and Portugal wanted to know how design policies to address these issues.

Cuba raised the point that development policies did not tackle the structural causes for the marginalization of indigenous people.

Mr Stavenhagen replied to the States’ comments, starting with the questions of the European Union. In his view, methodological development is required to find independent indicators for human rights of indigenous peoples in different countries related to different social, economic and cultural situations and related to environmental degradation. He confirmed the Canadian delegate’s concern that particular attention must be paid to indigenous in urban settings, as they run an even greater risk to all into “invisible” population

In reply to Peru’s concern about the implementation of the Declaration, the SR precised that in the long term, both NGOs, IOs, and public policies and justice have to include relevant provisions in their respective plans.

Further, the SR clarified that the subject of free previous and informed consent by indigenous peoples to development policies is in need o fan adequate methodology because often, the SR observed that consultations with indigenous were held but that the results were not fully understood, thereby missing a chance to meet the real needs of the indigenous peoples in question.

Concerning the intervention of the Asian Group, the SR claified that the study had been requested by the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. Mr Stavenhager said that he was conscient about the debates around the definition of indigenous peoples and that it was not up to him to determine a definition. However, he pointed the attention to the fact that the very same Convention quoted by some Asian countries in the interactive dialogue in order to back their views included the element of auto-definition by the indigenous people. He justified himself saying that he was also to report on the groups that define themselves as indigenous.

Noelia Díaz

Enhancing respect for international humanitarian law (IHL): Exploring sanctions and the work of national IHL committees

Side Event to the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

27 November 2007

Information and practice sharing event related to the domestic implementation of IHL Treaties. Discussion of trends and challenges at national, regional and international levels.

Aim - examine the contribution of the national IHL Committees to the reform of national criminal justice systems in order to create the conditions needed to prosecute and punish war crimes and to incorporate provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) into domestic law. Further, explore how national committees act as a catalyst for consultations, providing technical advice and recommendations on draft laws.

1) Ambassador Laura Thompson Chacón, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica in Geneva, reported on the experience of the national IHL committee of Costa Rica.

She explained that the main objective of the committee is to fight impunity and to raise awareness in the society. The IHL committee is composed of public institutions and NGOs and provides recommendations on IHL implementation measures (ex: law drafts). Further, it disseminates information to civil society and works closely together with universities. It also contributes to the debate on conflict-prevention and non-violence.

In its tasks, the national committee is creating regional and international links, in order to benefit from experience sharing with the committees of the neighbouring countries and to be able to act concertedly.

2) Mr. Xavier Philippe, Prof of public law, explained the findings of the interregional ICRC group of experts on sanctions.

The group of experts had as objective to clarify whether there is the need of a sanction other than criminal in order to achieve greater compliance with IHL. The conclusions are manifold and it should be kept in mind that sanctions have to be deterrent, which is achieved through visible and publicized justice.

Disciplinary sanctions (administrative acts) have the advantage to be expedient, to send an effective signal and therefore to be a more likely deterrent. Deterrence, according to the experts group, comes less from the severity of a sanction than from the predictability of the punishment. Predictability depends on the clarity of the rules and on the target groups’ knowledge about it.

However, and in particular from the victims’ point of view, disciplinary sanctions are not sufficient and should not replace criminal sanctions. Moreover, experts agreed that, beyond a punishment, the stigmatization of a criminal was of paramount importance. Open and public arrest and trial of the accused do have this stigmatizing effect.

Further, the speaker recalled the principles stating that gross violations of IHL imperatively have to trigger sanctions. He also revoked that states should condemn systems of “exceptional justice” during conflicts (e.g. “exceptional prisons”).

It was underlined that national justice had to incorporate IHL and that national legislation, even the constitution if needed, has to be modified for full implementation of IHL. Here, a link can be drawn to the establishment of national IHL committees. Reference was also made to the proportionality of the punishment and it was encouraged to take into consideration cultural and traditional aspects of the society in question, particularly when it comes to alternative, i.e. traditional tribunals.

The experts also considered the situations in which justice is to be made while the conflict is ongoing. In this respect, it is important to cover all the parties to the conflict in order to cover all the violations and the victims of all sides.

Regarding the victims’ roles, different situations have been recognized: victims might have one only advocate; or they might be in the centre of the process, treated individually with a view to reparations; or the situations might be a mix of the two. It is important, however, that the victims do not have too high expectations in order to avoid disappointments and ultimately revenge issues.

Transitional justice and its place have also been discussed. Agreement is that this is a complementary mechanism and that it should not substitute the criminal mechanisms. Especially in this context, the range of sanctions can go well beyond privation of liberty.

The group of experts also found that the impact of sanctions varies depending on whether the post-conflict society has just started a reconciliation process or whether it is already in an advanced stage of reconciliation.

Noelia Díaz

30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

The 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent addressed the humanitarian consequences of four main contemporary challenges: environmental degradation, including climate change; international migration; violence in urban settings; and emergent and recurrent diseases and other public health concerns.

General Debate

The general debate consisted of some 109 statements made by Governments and National Societies, and focused on the four main themes of the Conference and how they interact with each other.

On the question of climate change and environmental degradation, delegations emphasized the fact that climate change affects the poorest people in the poorest countries. They called on National Societies to raise awareness about environmental risks and strengthen disaster preparedness and risk reduction measures, in order to address the humanitarian consequences of climate change. National Societies requested that States devise comprehensive disaster response plans that use their capacity, as well as that of other similar organizations.

Concerning international migration, participants stressed that when considering this issue, underlying causes such as poverty, armed violence and conflict should be taken into account. They have also stated that National Societies have a duty to assist migrants regardless of their legal status, and the vulnerable status of women and children migrants was also pointed out.

With regard to urban violence, it was agreed by a number of delegations that such violence should be reduced and prevented. In particular, participants referred to concrete initiatives in order to reduce this, such as the 2006 Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development, or the important role that young people can play in this regard.

On the issue of health, several delegations expressed their concern about the growing impact of recurrent diseases, such as HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis. They also agreed that the Red Cross and Red Crescent could take specific action to combat these epidemics, and so it was important to strengthen them.

In conclusion, all representatives shared the view that collaboration between Governments, National Societies, NGOs and other like-minded organizations was crucial to meet these challenges, and that there was an urgency to deal with these issues. Proposed solutions include preventive measures, public awareness, partnerships, promptness and preparedness.

Election of the members of the Standing Commission

Nine candidates were running for the five seats of the Standing Commission, two from Africa, two from the Americas, three from Asia and two from Europe. 324 delegations were present and voting, including 172 National Societies, 152 States, the International Federation and the ICRC. The absolute majority was established at 163 votes.

The results were as follows:

Elected:

Dr Massimo Barra,
Italian Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
Dr Mohammed Al-Hadid,
Jordan National Red Crescent Society . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Mr Adama Diarra,
Mali Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..187
Mr Steven E. Carr,
American Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..182
Mr Eamon Courtenay,
Belize Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

Not Elected:

Lady Jocelyn Keith,
New Zealand Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Dr Freddy Karup Pedersen,
Danish Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
MrWilliam A. Eteki Mboumoua,
Cameroon Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Mr Tissa Manilal Abeywickrama,
Sri Lanka Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Follow-up to previous conferences

Follow up of the Memorandum Of Understanding between Palestinian Red Crescent and Magen David Adom in Israel:

The text presented on the follow-up of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Palestinian Red Crescent and the MDA was unanimously welcomed by the conference and the report was adopted by consensus by all delegations. During the presentation, it was underlined that even if the MOU is not fully implemented, there is a strong spirit of cooperation between the actors involved. Considering the political context of the region, the members of the conference expressed their satisfaction and their hope for further development. In this perspective, it is interesting to stress that this encouraging view was shared by all the political actors engaged in the area, including Arab States, Arab Red Crescent Societies, Israel, the United States, the American Red Cross society and the European Union.

Overview of the pledges made at the 30th International Conference

340 individual and collective pledges were made for the period of 2008 to 2011, and beyond.

Concerning the main themes of the Conference:

On environmental degradation, representatives pledged to promote preparedness, risk reduction and management.

On urban violence, it was pledged to promote preventive measures, especially through education.

On health, delegations pledged to increase the scope of community-based help, as well as equal access to treatment.

Pledges were also made on other subjects, such as:

Restoring family links

Strengthening international humanitarian law mechanisms

Using IDRL Guidelines to review national legal framework

Reaffirming the role and nature of the ICRC and IFRC, as auxiliary and independent societies in the humanitarian field

Fighting the abuse of power

Also at the heart of pledges was the development of volunteer and youth centers to strengthen National Societies.

Resolutions adopted at the 30th International Conference

Were adopted on consensus all of the resolutions and declarations presented before the Conference, namely:

Draft Declaration: Together for humanity
Draft Resolution: Together for humanity
Draft Resolution: The specific nature of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement in action and partnership and the role of national societies as auxiliaries to the public authorities in the humanitarian field
Draft Resolution: Reaffirmation and implementation of international humanitarian law
Draft Resolution: Adoption of the guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance


R. M.

Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living proposed by Germany and Finland (2nd draft).

Informal Consultations
28th November 2007

This Resolution is part of Item 3 of the 6th Human Rights Council: Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.

This was the second consultation since the draft resolution was proposed. Germany and Finland didn’t really present the draft resolution. They just commented on the several changes from draft 1 to draft 2 which were done at the request of the delegation at the first informal meeting in September. These changes are in bold on the text.

Comments made on the paragraphs:
PP5:
- Philippines strongly ask a reference to the Convention of Migrant Workers and on the Conventions of Disabled persons.
- Argentina, Brazil and Mexico totally agrees with this proposition and the latter adds that the word “Recalling” is not strong enough.
PP11:
- UK thinks that the sentence is too long and proposes to separate it in 2 parts, the bold and the un-bold part of the sentence. For the new second sentence he adds the following amendment at the beginning “And noting that it views are expressed” in general …in that way it will be clear that these are the views of the Council.
- Philippines, Algeria, Argentina, Mexico… support UK on this change.
OP3:
- India thinks it’s not appropriate to introduce “challenges caused by climate change and pollution” in this mandate. There are a lot of theories on this issue but we should let them to the specialist of climate. The concerns of the SR should be the consequences of the climate change, not the climate change itself.
- Mexico reminds that natural disaster have a link with housing.
- Belgium expresses his will to keep the reference on climate change, stating that it’s important.
OP4
op4a
- India is not comfortable with urging the states to give indicators.
- UK delegate informs that he doesn’t think that his capital would agree to be urged to develop indicators.
- Mexico on the contrary wants to keep this reference to the indicators.
op4g
- UK asks what is meant by “equal access to public housing programmes”? It is physical access to people with disabilities?
op4h
- Bangladesh thinks the issue of women is too often expressed in the text; it’s not a resolution on women. On these paragraph he asks why “especially those who faced violence”?
- Cuba proposes to change the mention of the word “women” by “all persons”. This amendment is agreed by all delegations.

OP5
op5a
- Mexico proposes to add at the end of the sentence: “in accordance with existing provision”
op5d
- Belgium proposes to qualify the assistance to make it more realistic.
op5f
- India asks why the Special Rapporteur should submit a report to the GA?
op5g
- India: the SR will already give a considerable contribution so he shouldn’t be the one to finalise the work.
- UK asks whether their will be consultations?
- Bangladesh proposes to change “finalise the” by “continue to”, that would be more neutral.

Answers by Germany and Finland
- PP5: answering to Mexico, the German’s delegate explained that his country has neither signed nor ratified both Conventions. The position of Germany is that they estimate that the Convention of Migrant Workers would attract illegal immigration. Thus, for the credibility, they are opposed to insert this Convention, but not opposed to the notion itself.
- OP3: Germany and Finland explained that they anticipated. They are sure that in the future the climate change will have more consequences.
- OP4a: they are aware that countries can not provide indicators if those have not been finalised yet.
- OP4g: Finland reminded that the “equal access to public housing programmes” was proposal from Mexico.
- OP4h: answering to Bangladesh, the chairs say that women are the one who faces bigger problem on housing rights and that the aim is to ensure these women a house if they are thrown away by males.
- OP5f: they estimated that the SR should submit a report to the GA because of the cruciality of the mandate.
- OP5g: the chairs reminded that this is already the case of the 2004 mandate and that Bangladesh proposal was interesting and that it would be considered for the next coming draft.


Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Resolution on Human Rights Voluntary Goals by Brazil

27th November

This was the 6th meeting on the Resolution proposed by Brazil who expects the text to be adopted on consensus in December during the 6th session of the Human Right Council and they will then start the intergovernmental consultations.

Introductory part:
Brazil is adopting a very flexible and broad language as many delegations insisted. Thus the last revised version is very different from the first presented text. The delegations are asked to work on a consensus basis.
Two new operative paragraphs have been added (former OP4 and OP5 have been deleted):
- OP4 at the request of several delegates which calls for OHCHR.
- OP5 which adapts a certain time framework for intergovernmental process.
The Human Right goals should be ideally launch by 10th December 2008 for the 60th anniversary of the UDHR.
The main concerns have been achieved:
- Call the attention of OHCHR.
- Achieve concrete goals and steps in further integration of human rights process.
The delegate of Brazil ended his introduction by thanking all his homologues for their patience and interest on the issue and then opened the floor.

Comments of the delegations paragraph by paragraph: Preamble Paragraphs then Operative Paragraphs (those concerned by the comments):

PP4:
- only the Federation of Russia expressed comments on that PP, stating the irrelevance
of optional protocols.

PP5:
- Philippines proposed to move this paragraph to PP1 since on of the aim of the
Resolution is to celebrate the 60th anniversary of UDHR.

PP6:
- Russia asked whether the mention of the “working group” on which was kept on the
text was an error, and almost all the delegations mentioned it.
- Italy on behalf of European Union suggested to separate the last part of the last
sentence and to have another paragraph which would read like follows: Recalling that all HR are universal, indivisible, interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
- Cuba, Argentina (co-sponsor) agreed on having another paragraph.

PP7:
- Cuba proposed to add at the end of the sentence “protection of “all” human rights;”
and it was supported by Philippines and Mexico.

PP8:
- Mexico proposed to delete the words “totally or partially” judging them not necessary.

OP1:
- Russia, about the new formulation, “Open-ended Intergovernmental consultations”
informed that it would check with its capital because it’s not clear with the Russian delegation of Geneva.
- Ecuador (co-sponsor) responding to Russia reminded that the idea of changing the
“working group” into a “open-ended Intergovernmental consultations ” had been brought by several delegations during the last discussion on the Resolution which Russia missed.
- Bangladesh asked whether the consultation would be formal or informal as it is not a
working group anymore. What is the legal status of these open-ended Intergovernmental consultations?
- Holly-see asked the same question.

OP2:
- Russian delegate says his delegation is against the exhaustive list of the paragraph
which can prejudice the result of the work.

ii:
-Italy (EU) proposed to delete “in each country, were they do not exist” and add “and implementation”.
- Cuba proposed a different version: delete the equal terms and add “where necessary”
- Philippines supported this amendment.
- Mexico proposed another version: keep the text as it and add …were they do not exist
“implementation”of national HR program.

v: - Italy (EU) and UK didn’t agree with the enumeration of the rights and explained that on the basis of non enumeration one has delete the mention of torture in the last version on OP2 iii.
- Bangladesh also thought one should single out any rights and thus proposed to delete
the paragraph and to add at the and of OP2ii “and Durban Plan of Action” that integrates all the rights mentioned by OP2v.
- Mexico strongly supported the retention of this paragraph and expressed herself
several times on this issue (after all the request for deletion) reminding that the wording comes from the Durban Declaration. It is very important and useful to have these goals at a national level
- Argentina (co-sponsor) also didn’t see the need to mention the Durban Declaration.
- Canada brought specific information saying that the correct wording of the Durban
Declaration reads as follows: … to eliminate discrimination of any kind such as race, color, sex…and not “…based on race…”

OP3: - Russia would rather use “Calls” instead of “welcomes”.
- Italy (EU) suggested a more explicit reference of the civil society and the NGOs.
- Argentina was against and explained that it wasn’t needed as they were obviously
taken into account in the rules of procedure of HRC but informed that it is flexible on this issue.
- Mexico proposed to change “Welcomes” by “Invites”.

OP5: - Italy (EU) wanted to delete the whole paragraph stressing that this is valuable if one still had a working group.
- Ecuador (co-sponsor) didn’t agree on deleting this paragraph.
- Philippines proposed to change the word “Welcomes” by “Requests” and to add …to
be presented “formally”to the HRC…and is joined by Mexico for both proposals.
- Mexico joined by Philippines for both proposals and added that since one already talks
about “a consensual basis” on OP1, it should be deleted from OP5 as to avoid redundancy.

Answers and final comments by Brazil:
Speaking about the Intergovernmental consultations, Brazil originally wanted to have a working group, but for the sake of consensus, and after the request of several delegations, they opted for open-ended Intergovernmental consultations. This Intergovernmental process is not the end but the mean to achieve success on establishing the respect of HR goals. Brazil took a step back in the nature of the Intergovernmental process but the result should remain the same. As for the legal status, the delegate admitted he could not answer that question.
A co-sponsors meeting will be scheduled and other delegations are invited to take part.

Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Asian Group: HRC President briefing with regional groups – 22nd November 2007

The meeting was deemed highly necessary upon the request of the President of the Council. Its purpose is to update delegations on the President’s visit to New York, and preparation of resumed session of the Council.

During his visit to New York, the President of the Council had meetings with around 50 delegations, and all of them deposited high expectations on the council, even if occasionally having some skepticism. During the meetings, the President insisted inter alia on advocating the need of resources by the HRC.

Taken into account all the meetings in New York, the president was able to provide only one example of the Romania’s Mission, illustrating a very good knowledge of the HRC's activities. To his surprise, the Council is not as well-known in New York as it would have been expected. It must definitely become more visible. For instance, the majority of the missions in New York did not even know that live broadcast of the council meetings is available via internet.

The president reported that he had also meetings with countries that do not have missions in Geneva. These were essentially focused on the UPR.


November and December meetings

Sessions between 10th and 14th December will be inter alia devoted to Prof. Pinero report on Myanmar as well as to the report of Working Group on Darfur.

10th December session shall be dedicated to the Human Rights day, 60th Anniversary of the UDHR.

On 21st November, a meeting will take place to proceed to the final rehearsal of the troika selection system.


April meetings

Universal Periodic review will take place for the first session.
Two other issues will be at stake:

1. Election of the Members of the Advisory Committee ( notification of the candidates);
   
2. Selection and nomination of the new membership’s holders.
   

Remarks:

Pakistan appreciated endeavors of the president in New York, particularly his meetings with some Caribbean and Pacific States’ representatives which do not have missions in Geneva, and his careful attention on updating the regional groups in Geneva with all necessary information. Additionally, Pakistan raised queries in regard to the expectations arising from the Optional Protocol as well as the program of the Council altogether.

Saudi Arabia showed some degree of concern in respect of the UPR, the review process per se, articulation and improvement; and contended that troika system might need more clarification, particularly with regard to the way the countries are to respond to their selection as a rapporteur. In conclusion, Saudi Arabia’s delegate did not feel comfortable with the reaction in New York to the HRC’s activity and engagement.

India noticed that in the note on the Troika Selection System submitted by the Secretariat there is a particularly confusing point pertaining to the way in which the possibility of excuse from being a rapporteur should operate. Is it generally recognized that a country will have 24 hours period to pronounce itself on the selection which will take place on the 26th November.

Bahrain asserted that the institution-building is clear, but pointed out to the concern of whether there will be only one joint report of the three rapporteurs assigned for the UPR of one specific State, or whether there will be three different reports. Bahrain’s delegate declared that no information was available on the priority attributed to the States who will end the session in summer 2008.

Bangladesh underlined the fact that the complexity of the relationship between Council and 3rd Committee will remain in the course of upcoming years. Moreover, Bangladesh raised a very pertinent point concerning the time framework for the troika to collect and send questions to the states, in particular wondering whether this is supposed to take place after or before the review.

In his final remarks, the President encouraged the delegates due to the successful progress of the Council, its specificity in comparison with the 3rd Committee and its higher degree of effectiveness. According to him, colleagues in New York appreciated very much endeavors of the Council. He noticed in addition that 6 mandates will be reviewed in December.

On Monday, 26th of November, Troikas will be officially drawn. States will have until Wednesday 28th to pronounce themselves on the selection. Furthermore, the President stated that it does not make sense to have discussion on determination of the level of rapporteurs, their selection should be left to the appreciation of the States, whereas role and limits of operability are already well established within a system. Troikas will be elected only for this membership of the council. In conclusion, the President showed his support to the query presented by Bangladesh regarding the time framework for the questions, which should be discussed in due course.

Vladyslav Lanovoy

Human Rights Council – 16th November 2007

The meeting was dedicated to the presentation of a computerized system of troika selection, though still with some technical problems. The president of the counsel assured the members that the technicalities will be figured out before the next session.

Brief analysis on the troika system:

Troika System is a selection mechanism of the rapporteurs for the Universal Periodic Review, which is envisaged by the HRC to assess compliance of each Member State with the respective human rights obligations. Each Member State is to be assessed by 3 rapporteurs coming from 3 different countries and belonging to distinct regional groups. Troika selection system is deemed to provide for a democratic, geographically proportionate and independent Universal Periodic Review.
Troikas will be composed of Members of the Council only. In order to ensure equitable geographic distribution, each Member State should only be a member of three troikas, with the exception of three Member States that may serve a fourth time (since there are 47 members of the Council and 48 countries will have to be reviewed every year).
The setting up of troikas is a work in progress and a public meeting will take place on 26^th November session to select officially the troikas for the first review cycle.

The course of discussion:

Pakistan rose the point of concern on how many times can a country refuse to be assigned as a rapporteur for the Review mechanism. A maximum of three times can a State be considered as a rapporteur for troika mechanism. Any State has nevertheless a prerogative to be excused from being a rapporteur, but it can only express such a refusal once.

China advised to send notice to all member-states, instead of only coordinating countries. It also believes that a State needs at least 24 hours period so that to be able to submit a refusal to be rapporteur.

Canada stressed that it won’t exercise any sort of opting-out from the rapporteur’s selection and strongly encouraged other members to follow the same course of action.

The United Kingdom drew attention to the fact that once having 16 troikas, there is an additional member at each session. A flaw lies in the fact that there 47 State-members and 48 are needed for troika mechanism. The UK strongly envisaged the proposal of 24 hours to be given for each State to reply to its assignment as a rapporteur, especially taken into account very small delegations which are not even present in Geneva, and which do not have possibility to get immediately in touch with the capital.

Thailand expressed a concern regarding the fact that some small countries may not have capacity to be rapporteur three times in the same session.

The meeting stands adjourned till November 23rd.

Vladyslav Lanovoy