The United Nations Human Rights Council: Background and Policy Issues

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Luisa Blanchfield AnalystSpecialist in International Relations June 1December 14, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33608 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Summary On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council (the Council). The U.N. Secretariat and some governments, including the United States, view the establishment of the Council as a key component of comprehensive U.N. reform. The Council was designed to be an improvement over the Commission, which was widely criticized for the composition of its membership when perceived human rights abusers were elected as members. The General Assembly resolution creating the Council, among other things, increased the number of meetings per year and introduced a “universal periodic review” process to assess each member state’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations. One hundred seventy countries voted in favor of the resolution to create the Council. The United States, under the George W. Bush Administration, was one of four countries to vote against the resolution. The Administration maintained that the Council structure was no better than the Commission and that it lacked mechanisms for “maintaining credible membership.” It initially stated that it would fund and support the work of the Council. During the Council’s first two years, however, the Administration expressed concern with the Council’s focus on Israel and lack of attention to other human rights situations. In April 2008, the Bush Administration announced that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. In June 2008, it further announced that the United States would engage with the Council “only in matters of deep national interest.” The Barack Obama Administration participated as an observer in the 10th regular session of the Human Rights Council (held fromin March 2 to 27, 2009). The Administration stated that it furthers the United States’ interest “if we are part of the conversation and present at the Council’s proceedings.” At the same time, however, it called the Council’s trajectory “disturbing,” particularly its “repeated and unbalanced” criticisms of Israel. In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would run for a seat on the Council. The United States was elected as a Council Member by the U.N. General Assembly on May 12, 2009, and its term will beginbegan on June 19, 2009. Since its establishment, the Council has held 1012 regular sessions and 1112 special sessions. The regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. FiveSix of the 1012 special sessions addressed the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon. Other special sessions focused on the human rights situations in Burma (Myanmar), Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Congress maintains an ongoing interest in the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the context of both human rights and broader U.N. reform. In the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division H, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 of P.L. 111-8), for example, Congress prohibited U.S. contributions to support the Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Council. A similar provision was included in Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). Withholding Council funds in this manner would be a largely symbolic policy action because assessed contributions finance the entire U.N. regular budget and not specific parts of it. This report will be updated as events warrant. Congressional Research Service The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Contents Background ................................................................................................................................1 Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights............................................................1 The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts ................................................................2 The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform ...............................................................3 Council Mandate, Structure, and Procedures................................................................................3 Mandate and Responsibilities ................................................................................................3 Structure and Composition ....................................................................................................4 Status Within U.N. Framework........................................................................................4 Membership....................................................................................................................5 Elections .........................................................................................................................5 Structure .........................................................................................................................5 Meetings .........................................................................................................................6 Reporting........................................................................................................................6 Rules of Procedure..........................................................................................................6 Universal Periodic Review ..............................................................................................6 Special Procedures ..........................................................................................................7 Complaint Procedure.......................................................................................................7 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee ...................................................................8 Overview of the Council’s Work and Elections............................................................................8 Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the Secretary-General’s Response ...........................................................................................................................9 Election Results .................................................................................................................. 10 U.S. Response........................................................................................................................... 10 Barack Obama Administration ............................................................................................ 10 George W. Bush Administration .......................................................................................... 11 Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding ............................................................. 12 Congressional Issues ................................................................................................................. 12 U.S. Funding of the Council................................................................................................ 13 Effectiveness of the Council................................................................................................ 13 Focus on Specific Countries/Bloc Voting....................................................................... 13 Role of Regional Groups in Council Elections.........The “Goldstone Report” on Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories ...................................................... 14 Leadership from Democratic Countries ......................................................................... 14 The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses .......................................................... 15 Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay ......................................................... 15 Inquiry of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism ................................................................................................................... 16 Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants ............................. 17 Tables Table 1. Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council...............................................................8 Table BA-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group ......................................... 19 Congressional Research Service The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Appendixes Appendix A. Enacted or Passed Legislation (110th and 111th Congresses)Appendixes Appendix. Human Rights Council Membership................................... 18 Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership ..................................................................... 19 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19 Congressional Research Service The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Background Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights1 The U.N. Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was the primary intergovernmental policymaking body for human rights issues before it was replaced by the U.N. Human Rights Council (the Council) in 2006. Created in 1946 as a subsidiary body of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),2 the Commission’s initial mandate was to establish international human rights standards and develop an international bill of rights. One of the Commission’s notable successes was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948.3 During its tenure, the Commission played a key role in developing a comprehensive body of human rights laws and regulations.4 Over time, its work evolved to address specific human rights violations and complaints as well as broader human rights issues. It developed a system of special procedures to monitor, analyze and report on human rights violations. The procedures addressed country-specific human rights violations, as well as “thematic” crosscutting human rights abuses such as racial discrimination, religious intolerance, and denial of freedom of expression.5 In recent years, controversy developed over the human rights records of Commission members. Countries widely perceived as systematic abusers of human rights were elected as members. In 2001, Sudan, a country broadly criticized by governments and human rights groups for ethnic cleansing in its Darfur region, was elected. Sudan was reelected in 2004, prompting outrage from human rights organizations and causing the United States to walk out of the Commission chamber in protest.6 These instances significantly affected the Commission’s credibility. Critics claimed that countries used their membership to deflect attention from their own human rights violations by questioning the records of others. Some members were accused of bloc voting and excessive procedural manipulation to prevent debate of their human rights abuses.76 In 2005, the collective impact of these controversies led U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to propose the idea of a new and smaller Council to replace the Commission. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution to dissolve the Commission and create the Council in its place. The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 16, 2006, where, among other actions, it transferred its reports and responsibilities to the new Council. 1 . 1 For further information on the background and evolution on the Commission on Human Rights, see CRS Report RS20110, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Background and Issues, by Vita Bite (archived; available from the author of this report). 2 ECOSOC is a principal organ of the United Nations that coordinates the economic and social work of the specialized U.N. agencies. It is comprised of 54 member governments elected to three-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly. 3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III), December 10, 1948, and can be viewed at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. 4 This includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on March 23, 1976, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which entered into force on January 3, 1976. The United States signed both treaties on October 5, 1977, and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992. 5 Other examples of thematic mandates include the right to development; the right to education; the rights of migrants; and the right to food. 6 Press briefing by Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006. 7 “A New Chapter for Human Rights: A handbook on issues of transition from the Commission on Human Rights to the Human Rights Council,” International Service for Human Rights and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, June 2006. Congressional Research Service 1 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 16, 2006, where, among other actions, it transferred its reports and responsibilities to the new Council. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is a department within the U.N. Secretariat headed by a High Commissioner for Human Rights, currently Navanethem Pillay of South Africa.87 Its mandate is to promote and protect human rights worldwide through international cooperation, and through the coordination and streamlining of human rights efforts within the U.N. system. The OHCHR provided general support to the Commission and will continue to do so for the Council, working specifically with Council experts to document human rights violations. The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts The United States is generally supportive of human rights mechanisms at the United Nations. It played a key role in creating the Commission on Human Rights in 1946, and was a member and active participant of the Commission until it lost its first election in 2001. It was restored to the Commission the following year by election. In 2005, the United States supported doubling the U.N. regular budget resources of OHCHR. This increased the U.N. regular budget for human rights activities from $64 million in 2004-2005 to $83 million in 2006-2007. Congress has also demonstrated continued support for U.N. human rights bodies, often using the mechanisms and special procedures of the Commission to call attention to the human rights abuses of countries such as Cuba and China.98 In addition, Congress receives annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the Secretary of State as mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.109 The Secretary of State is required, among other things, to submit reports on countries that are members of the United Nations. There were instances when both Congress and the executive branch had been critical of the Commission. In 1997, controversy emerged between the U.S. government and the Commission when the Commission appointed a Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions who, among other things, analyzed how the death penalty is implemented in the United States.1110 The Rapporteur reported that economic status, ethnicity, and racial discrimination were indicators for death penalty verdicts, reportedly prompting then-Senator Jesse Helms to declare the Special Rapporteur’s mission “an absurd U.N. charade.”12 811 In 2001, more controversy followed when the United States was not elected to the Commission and widely perceived human rights violators such as Pakistan, Sudan, and Uganda were elected. 7 Pillay’s appointment was confirmed by consensus on July 28, 2008, and her term began on September 1, 2008. She succeeded the previous High Commissioner, Louise Arbour of Canada. Pillay is the fifth U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights since the office was established 15 years ago. The OHCHR has just under 1,000 staff working in 50 countries with a budget of approximately $150 million. 98 Examples include H.Con.Res. 83, introduced on March 3, 2005 [109th], Urging the appropriate representative of the United States to the 61st session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to end its human rights violations; and H.Res. 91 [107th], passed/agreed to in the House of Representatives on April 3, 2001, urging the President to make all necessary efforts to obtain passage during the 2001 meetings of the Commission on Human Rights of a resolution condemning the Cuban government for its human rights abuses. 109 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are submitted to Congress in compliance with Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. 1110 Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, U.N. document E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3, January 22, 1998. 1211 Elizabeth Olson, “U.N. Report Criticizes U.S. for ‘Racist’ Use of Death Penalty,” The New York Times, April 7, 1998. Congressional Research Service 2 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress In 2001, more controversy followed when the United States was not elected to the Commission and widely perceived human rights violators such as Pakistan, Sudan, and Uganda were elected. The Bush Administration and Congress were frustrated and disappointed by the election outcome. The House of Representatives reacted with a Foreign Relations Authorization Act amendment that linked payment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. regular budget with the United States regaining a seat on the Commission. 1312 The Administration, however, stated it would not link U.S. payment of U.N. dues and arrears to the outcome of the Commission elections. 1413 Given the controversy over the Commission, both Congress and the Administration supported the U.N. Secretary-General’s 2005 proposal that the Commission be disbanded and a new Council created. The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform The establishment of the U.N. Human Rights Council was part of a comprehensive U.N. reform effort by former U.N. Secretary-General Annan and member states. In March 2005, the SecretaryGeneral outlined a plan for U.N. reform in his report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights for All. He presented human rights, along with economic and social development and peace and security, as one of three “pillars” on which to base the work of the United Nations. In September 2005, heads of state and other high-level officials met for the World Summit at U.N. Headquarters in New York to address issues of development, security, human rights, and reform. The Summit Outcome document listed several mandates for “Strengthening the United Nations,” including reform of the U.N. Security Council, management structure, and human rights bodies. In particular, the Outcome document mandated the creation of a new Council as part of broader U.N. reform. The United States also viewed the Council as a critical element of overall U.N. reform. The Bush Administration identified the establishment of a new Council as a key reform priority necessary to achieve a “strong, effective, and accountable organization.”1514 Congress also identified U.N. human rights reform as a significant component of overall U.N. reform. Recent proposed legislation has linked payment of U.N. assessed dues with the fulfillment of specific reforms, including those involving human rights.16 Council Mandate, Structure, and Procedures Mandate and Responsibilities On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed resolution A/RES/60/251, which established the Council and outlined its purpose and responsibilities. 1715 Under the resolution, the 13Council is responsible for “promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner.” 12 For more information on this congressional action, see CRS Report RS20110, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Background and Issues, by Vita Bite, ppp. 3-4 (archived; available from the author of this report). 1413 Press Conference of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May 11, 2001. 1514 “U.S. Priorities for a Stronger, More Effective United Nations,” U.S. Department of State publication, June 17, 2005. Other Administration reform priorities included budget, management, and administrative reform, Democracy initiatives, and the creation of a comprehensive Convention on Terrorism. 16 See Appendix A for more information. 1715 One hundred seventy countries voted in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council; four voted against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and three abstained (Belarus, Iran, and (continued...)Venezuela). Congressional Research Service 3 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Council is responsible for “promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner.” The Council will “address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon.” It may also promote and coordinate the mainstreaming of human rights within the U.N. system. In order to achieve the above goals, the Council undertakes a universal periodic review of each U.N. Member State’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. (See the “Universal PeriodPeriodic Review” section for more more information.) The resolution also ensures adequate transition of responsibilities from the Commission on Human Rights to the new Council. Like the Commission, the Council continues to collaborate with OHCHR. It works to maintain and improve the system of special mandates, expert advice, and complaint procedures instituted by the Commission. Under the resolution, the Council also: • promotes human rights education, advisory services, technical assistance, and capacity building with relevant member states; • serves as a forum for dialogue on thematic human rights issues and recommend opportunities for the development of international human rights law to the U.N. General Assembly; and • promotes the full implementation of human rights obligations by member states, and follow-up on human rights commitments from other U.N. conferences and summits.1816 Structure and Composition On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a resolution entitled “Institution-Building of the United Nations Human Rights Council” that addressed many critical details related to the work of the Council, including its mechanisms, procedures, framework, and system of universal periodic review. 1917 Some aspects of the Council’s work, however, continues to be debated and determined by Council members. This section addresses current structural elements of the Council. Key differences between the Council and the Commission are noted where relevant. Status Within U.N. Framework The Council is designated a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, whereas the Commission was a subsidiary body of ECOSOC. This change enhances the standing of human rights within (...continued) Venezuela). 18 the U.N. framework. In its new capacity, the Human Rights Council reports directly to the General Assembly’s 192 members instead of to ECOSOC’s 54 members. 16 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March 15, 2006. 19 During its first year, the Council established four working groups (WGs) to address its working methods: (1) WG to Develop the Modalities of Universal Periodic Review; (2) WG on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates on the Future System of Expert Advice; (3) WG on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates and Special Procedures; and (4) WG on the Agenda, Annual Program of Work, Working Methods, and Rules of Procedures. WG members met throughout the year to negotiate and recommend Council procedures and mechanisms. Based on the recommendations, then-Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba proposed a draft institution-building text that was subsequently negotiated and adopted by Council members in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 (June 18, 2007). See U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007. 17 Congressional Research Service 4 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress the U.N. framework. In its new capacity, the Human Rights Council reports directly to the General Assembly’s 192 members instead of to ECOSOC’s 54 members. Membership The Council comprises 47 members apportioned by geographic region as follows: 13 from African states; 13 from Asian states; six from Eastern Europe states; eight from Latin America and the Caribbean states; and seven from Western European and other states. Members are elected for a period of three years and may not hold a Council seat for more than two consecutive terms. If a Council member commits “gross and systematic violations of human rights,” the General Assembly may suspend membership with a two-thirds vote of members present. For comparison, the Commission was composed of 53 member states elected by members of the ECOSOC. Countries served three year terms with no term limits. Like the Commission, the Council created a formula to ensure equitable distribution of seats by region.2018 Elections All U.N. member states are eligible to run for election to the Council. Countries are elected through secret ballot by the General Assembly with an absolute majority (97 out of 192 votes) required. The resolution instructs countries to consider “the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments” when voting for Council members. A country submitting its name for election must affirm its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights with a written pledge. A key difference between the Council and the Commission is the direct election of Council members by the U.N. General Assembly. Under the Commission, candidates were first nominated by their regional groups and then the nominees were submitted for election by members of ECOSOC. Regional groups often sent the same number of nominees to the election as there were seats available. This meant some member states might cast votes for countries with questionable human rights records in order to fill all regional group seats. The next election will be held in May or June of 2010, and 14 of the 47 Council seats will be open. Structure The Council holds an organizational meeting at the beginning of each Council year. The president Council president presides over the election of four vice-presidents representing other regional groups in the Council. 21 the Council.19 The president and vice-presidents form the Council Bureau, which is responsible for for all procedural and organizational matters related to the Council. At the meeting, members elect a president from among Bureau members for a one-year term. The current president is Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen of Belgium. Under the Commission, the role of president was held held by a chairperson. 2018 Regional distribution of seats on the Commission on Human Rights was as follows: 15 members from African states; 12 from Asian states; five from Eastern European states; 11 from Latin America and Caribbean states; and 10 from Western Europe and other states. 21 Current Vice-Presidents are Elchin Amirbayov of Azerbaijan, Erlinda F. Basilio of the Philippines, Alberto J. Dumont of Argentina, and Marius Grinius of Canada. Their term ends on June 18, 200919 Current Vice-Presidents are Hisham Badr (Egypt), Dian Triansyah Djani (Indonesia), Carlos Portales (Chile), and Andrej Logar (Slovenia). Congressional Research Service 5 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Meetings The Council is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and meets for three or more sessions per year for a total of 10 weeks or more, including a high-level session. It can hold special sessions at the request of any Council member with the support of one-third of the Council membership. By contrast, the Commission on Human rights met in Geneva once a year for approximately six weeks, and since 1990 special sessions were held on request.2220 Reporting The Council submits annual reports directly to the General Assembly. At the end of its first five years, the Council is also required to review and report to the General Assembly on its work and functioning. The Commission submitted reports primarily to ECOSOC, a limited membership body, which reported Commission activities to the General Assembly. In some instances, a special rapporteur addressing a specific human rights situation or issue might report directly to both the Commission and the General Assembly Rules of Procedure The Council follows the rules of procedure created for committees of the General Assembly. 2321 Procedures that relate to the participation of observer states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), specialized agencies, and human rights institutions fall under the practices that were observed by the Commission. These rules encourage consultation and interaction at Council sessions among Council members, observing U.N. member states, NGOs, and other relevant organizations. Countries that are not Council members do not have voting rights. Universal Periodic Review All Council members and U.N. member states are required to undergo a universal periodic review (UPR) that examines a state’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. The review is an intergovernmental process that facilitates an interactive dialogue between the country under review and the UPR working group, which is composed of the 47 Council members and chaired by the Council President. The first UPR cycle lasts four years, with Council members evaluating 48 states per year during three two-week sessions (six weeks total). Observer states may attend and speak at the working group, and relevant stakeholders (such as NGOs) may also attend the meetings and present information that is assembled by OHCHR. All Council members will undergo a review during the term of their membership, and initial members (those with oneand two-year terms) will be reviewed first.24 22 . UPR is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the human rights instruments to which the state under review is party. Voluntary pledges by states are also taken into account, as is input from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for 20 Examples of Special Sessions under the Commission included Situation of human rights in Rwanda (1994); Situation in East Timor (1999); and “Grave and massive violations” of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel (2000). 2321 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at http://www.un.org/ga/60/ga_rules.html. The Commission on Human Rights followed ECOSOC rules of procedure. 24 More information on UPR is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRmain.aspx. Congressional Research Service 6 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress UPR is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the human rights instruments to which the state under review is party. Voluntary pledges by states are also taken into account, as is input from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Congressional Research Service 6 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Human Rights and relevant stakeholders, such as NGOs and national human rights institutions. During the review cycles, which began in April 2008, the UPR working group makes initial recommendations, with subsequent reviews focusing on the implementation of recommendations from the previous review. The full Council also addresses any cases of consistent non-cooperation with the review. After the first four-year UPR cycle is completed, the Council will review the process to identify best practices and lessons learned. In April and May 2008, the UPR working group completed its first and second review sessions. A fourth session was held from February 2 to 13, 2009.25 Special Procedures The Council, like the previous Commission, maintains a system of special procedures that includes country and thematic mandates. Country mandates, which last for one year and can be renewed, allow for special rapporteurs to examine and advise on human rights situations in specific countries. Thematic mandates, which last for three years and can also be renewed, allow special rapporteurs to analyze major human rights phenomena globally.2622 Similar to the Commission, the special rapporteurs serve in an independent, personal capacity and conduct indepth research and site visits pertaining to their issue area or country. They can be nominated by U.N. member states, regional groups within the U.N. human rights system, international organizations, NGOs, or individuals. A newly established “consultative group” nominates rapporteurs for country and thematic mandates. Based on the consultative group’s input, the Council president submits a list of possible candidates to Council members, who then consider each appointment. 2723 Complaint Procedure The Council maintains a complaint procedure that allows individuals and groups to report human rights abuses in a confidential setting. The goal of the procedure is to objectively and efficiently facilitate dialogue and cooperation among the accused state, Council members, and the complainant(s). A working group on Communications and a working group on Situations evaluate the complaints and bring them to the attention of the Council.2824 The groups hold two five-day meetings per year to consider complaints and replies from concerned states. The full Council determines whether to take action on the complaints based on recommendations from the working groups. The Council’s complaint procedure is very similar to the complaint procedure under the Commission on Human Rights, which also allowed for confidential reporting of human rights abuses. 25 For a schedule of UPR, seehttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRmain.aspx. 26 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee replaces the Council’s previous Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Similar to the Sub-Commission, the Advisory Committee is a subsidiary body of the Council and functions as a “think-tank” for Council members. The 22 For more information on Council special procedures, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/ index.htm. 2723 On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct for special procedure mandate holders. See Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, in U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, pp. 45-55. 2824 For more information on the newly-established complaint procedures, see U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, pp. 19-24. Congressional Research Service 7 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Human Rights Council Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee replaces the Council’s previous Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Similar to the Sub-Commission, the Advisory Committee is a subsidiary body of the Council and functions as a “think-tank” for Council members. The committee is composed of 18 experts nominated or endorsed by U.N. member states and elected by Council members through a secret ballot. Upon the Council’s request, the Committee provides research-based advice that focuses on thematic human rights issues. The Committee meets twice a year for a maximum of 10 days, and can schedule meetings on an ad hoc basis with approval from Council members.2925 The previous Sub-Commission came under criticism for duplicating the work of the Council and disregarding the Council’s guidance and direction. The Sub-Commission consisted of 26 independent experts elected for four-year terms, and held an annual four-week session in Geneva.3026 Overview of the Council’s Work and Elections Since it was established in March 2006, the Council has held 1012 regular sessions and 1112 special sessions. 3127 The regular sessions addressed a mixture of procedural and substantive issues, with a focus on improving working methods of the Council.32 The Council has also held 1012 special sessions, fivesix of which have focused on Israeli human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon, Lebanon, or East Jerusalem. Others have addressed the human rights situation in the Democratic Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Burma (Myanmar), as well as the impact of the world food crisis and the global economic crisis on human rights (Seesee Table 1.)). Table 1. Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council Session/Subject Dates First1st Special Session: Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory July 5-6, 2006 Second2nd Special Session: Grave situation of Human Rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli Military Military Operations August 10-11, 2006 Third3rd Special Session: Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories November 15, 2006 Fourth4th Special Session: Human Rights Situation in Darfur December 1213, 2006 Fifth5th Special Session: Human Rights Situation in Myanmar (Burma) October 2, 2007 Sixth6th Special Session: Violations Stemming from Israeli Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Palestinian Territory January 24, 2008 29 7th Special Session: Negative Impact on the Realization of the Rights to Food of the Worsening of the World Food Crisis, Caused inter alia by the Soaring Food Prices May 22, 2008 8th Special Session: Situation of the Human Rights in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo November 28, 2008 9th Special Session: The Grave Violations of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including the recent aggression in the occupied Gaza Strip January 9, 2009 25 For more information on the Advisory Committee, see U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, pp. 15-18. The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled from August 4 to 15 in Geneva, Switzerland. 3026 Additional information on the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm. 3127 A synopsis of the Human Rights Council regular and special sessions is available from the author of this report. 32 Information on regular sessions of the Human Rights Council isthese sessions is also available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ hrcouncil/. Congressional Research Service 8 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Session/Subject Dates Seventh10th Special Session: Negative Impact on the Realization of the Rights to Food of the Worsening of the World Food Crisis, Caused inter alia by the Soaring Food Prices May 22, 2008 Eighth Special Session: Situation of the Human Rights in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo November 28, 2008 Ninth Special Session: The Grave Violations of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including the recent aggression in the occupied Gaza Strip January 9, 2009 Tenth Special Session: The Impact of the Global Economic and Financial Crises on the Universal Realization and Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights February 20, 2009 Eleventh Special Session: The human rights situation in Sri Lanka May 26, The Impact of the Global Economic and Financial Crises on the Universal Realization and Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights February 20, 2009 11th Special Session: The human rights situation in Sri Lanka May 26, 2009 12th Special Session: The human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and East Jerusalem October 15-16, 2009 Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the Secretary-General’s Response In June 2007, Council members adopted an institution-building resolution to address the Council’s working methods. In the resolution, Council members identified the “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” as a permanent part of the Council’s agenda and framework for its future program of work. The Council also established a mechanism for confidential complaint procedures, as well as Council rules of procedure. In addition, the text stated the need for “proposers of a country resolution to secure the broadest possible support for their initiatives (preferably 15 members), before action is taken.”3328 Council members also terminated the mandates of the special rapporteur for Belarus and Cuba.3429 Many U.N. member states and Council observers objected to the Council singling out human rights violations by Israel while terminating the Council’s country mandates of widely perceived human rights abusers.3530 At the conclusion of the Council’s fifth regular session in Geneva in June 2007, a U.N. spokesperson noted Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s “disappointment” with the Council’s decision to “single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.”3631 In response to the Council’s decision to terminate the country mandates of Cuba and Belarus, Ban released a statement that emphasized “the need to consider all situations of possible human rights violations equally,” and 33 noted that “not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and every other human rights treaty.”32 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for universal 28 U.N. document A/HRC/5/L.11, p. 29. This provision was a point of contention among Council members. During negotiations, China maintained that a two-thirds majority should be required to take action on country-specific resolutions—a position that EU countries did not accept. Multiple credible sources confirm that the European Union (EU) agreed to terminate the Council’s Cuba and Belarus mandates if China would agree to the language in the adopted text. 3429 Council members maintained country mandates for countries such as Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan. The mandates for Cuba and Belarus were not included in the final list of renewed mandates in Appendix I of the institution-building text. (U.N. document A/HRC/5/L.11, June 18, 2007, p. 38). 3530 For a synthesis of U.N. member state views, see U.N. press release, “Human Rights Council Hears Praise and Criticism About Adopted Text on Institution Building of Council,” June 19, 2007. See also, “Conclusion of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Institution Building,” Amnesty International External Document, No. 115, June 20, 2007. 3631 Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, June 21, 2007, available at http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2007/db070621.doc.htm. Congressional Research Service 9 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress noted that “not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and every other human rights treaty.”37 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for universal 32 U.N. press release, “Secretary-General Urges Human Rights Council to Take Responsibilities Seriously, Stresses Importance of Considering All Violations Equally,” June 20, 2007, available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/ 2007/sgsm11053.doc.htm. Congressional Research Service 9 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress periodic review, calling them “strong and meaningful,” and noting that they “send a clear message that all countries will have their human rights record and performance examined at regular intervals.”3833 Election Results The Human Rights Council has held four elections. The most recent Council elections were held on May 12, 2009. Eighteen countries were elected, five of which will be serving on the Council for the first time. Re-elected members include Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Uruguay. The new Council members are Belgium, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, and the United States.3934 The new members will begin their term on June 19, 2009. (See Appendix Bthe Appendix for a full list of Council members broken down by region and term.) U.S. Response The United States has generally supported the Human Rights Council’s overall mission. Past and current Administrations and Members of Congress, however, have disagreed as to whether the Council is an effective or credible mechanism for addressing human rights. Barack Obama Administration On March 31, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would run for a seat on the Human Rights Council. The United States was elected as a Council Member by the U.N. General Assembly on May 12, 2009, receiving a total of 167 General Assembly votes. Its term will begin on June 19, 2009. After the vote, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice stated that the Administration is “looking forward to working from within a broad cross section of member states to strengthen and reform the Human Rights Council.” Rice recognized the Council as a “flawed body that has not lived up to its potential,” and emphasized that the Administration views the five-year review of the Council’s activities in 2011 as “an important opportunity to strengthen and reform the Council.”4035 Previously, in February 2009, the Obama Administration had announced that it would participate as an observer in the 10th regular session of the Human Rights Council (held from March 2 to 27, 2009). The Administration stated that it “furthers our interest if we are part of the conversation 37 U.N. press release, “Secretary-General Urges Human Rights Council to Take Responsibilities Seriously, Stresses Importance of Considering All Violations Equally,” June 20, 2007, available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/ 2007/sgsm11053.doc.htm. 38 and present at the Council’s proceedings.”36 At the same time, however, the it stated that the 33 U.N. press release, SG/SM/11053, HRC/8, June 20, 2007. 39 For more information on the fourth election, see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/ga10826.doc.htm. 4035 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #095(09), “Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative, Regarding the Election of the U.S. to the Human Rights Council at the General Assembly Stakeout,” May 12, 2009, available at http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20090512_095.html. Congressional Research Service 10 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress and present at the Council’s proceedings.”41 At the same time, however, the it stated that the 36 Department of State press release, “U.S. Posture Toward the Durban Review Conference and Participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council,” February 27, 2009, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/02/119892.htm. 34 Congressional Research Service 10 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Council’s trajectory was “disturbing,” particularly its “repeated and unbalanced” criticisms of Israel.4237 George W. Bush Administration The Bush Administration opposed the Human Rights Council structure agreed to in March 2006, and consequently the United States was one of four countries to vote against the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council. The Bush Administration stated that it did not have confidence that the new Council would be better than its predecessor, but at the same time indicated that it would work with other member states to ensure the Council was strong and operated as effectively and efficiently as possible. 4338 In April 2006, the Bush Administration announced that it would not run for a Council seat in the first election. A State Department spokesperson stated, “There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run.”4439 The Bush Administration was generally disappointed with the work of the Council during its first two years. A main point of contention was the Council’s focus on Israeli human rights violations while failing to address human rights abuses in other parts of the world. The Administration maintained that the legitimacy of the Council would be undermined if some Council members continue to push such “imbalanced” views.4540 Citing these concerns, the Administration announced that it would not run for a Council seat in the May 2007 elections. 4641 It expressed similar concerns when it announced its decision to not run for a seat in the third Council election, held in May 2008. In July 2007, the Bush Administration stated that it remained committed to supporting human rights in the multilateral system, though it was “deeply skeptical that the U.N.’s Human Rights Council will, in the near future, play a constructive role in our efforts.”4742 The Administration also maintained that despite its concerns, it would continue to support U.S. funding of the Council. 48 41 Department of State press release, “U.S. Posture Toward the Durban Review Conference and Participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council,” February 27, 2009, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/02/119892.htm. 42 Ibid. 43 43 In April 2008, however, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay 37 Ibid. 38 In a statement made after the vote, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called the U.S. position a “matter of principle,” and said the United States could not support the resolution because it lacked “stronger mechanisms for maintaining credible membership.” Drawn from Ambassador Bolton’s statement in the U.N. provisional verbatim record. U.N. document, A/60/PV.72, March 15, 2006, p. 6. 4439 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6, 2006. 4540 It further stated it did not object to discussing potential Israeli human rights abuses as long as violations by other countries were also discussed. U.S. Statement on the Third Special Session of the Human Rights Council, Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, November 15, 2006. 4641 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March 6, 2007. 4742 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. 4843 Drawn from a press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006, and remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. Congressional Research Service 11 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress In April 2008, however, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget.4944 In June 2008, a State Department spokesperson announced that the United States would engage with the Council “only when we [the United States] believe that there are matters of deep national interest before the Council and we feel compelled; otherwise, we are not going to.”5045 According to the official, instead of focusing on human rights situations around the world, the Council “turned into a forum that seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel.” The official added that future U.S. participation would be “ad hoc.”5146 According to Bush Administration officials, the United States continued to work with other multilateral human rights mechanisms, such as the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).5247 Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding Some Members of Congress have sought to limit U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council because of concerns over the Council’s effectiveness. 5348 On March 11, 2009, Congress enacted H.R. 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which included a provision on Human Rights Council funding. Section 7053 of Division H, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009, specified that “none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for a United States contribution to the United Nations Human Rights Council.” The provision specified that it shall not apply if (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Human Rights Council. Because the United States was elected as a Human Rights Council member on May 19, 2009, the provision will likely not apply. Similar legislation was enacted in FY2008.5449 Congressional Issues The 111th Congress will likely remain interested in the work of the Council both as a mechanism for addressing human rights abuses and as an element of broader U.N. reform. Ultimately, future 49 U.S. policy toward the Council will depend on whether the United States views the Council’s work as effective and credible. 44 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), “Statement by Zalmay Khalilzad on the Durban II Conference and the Human Rights Council,” April 8, 2008, available at http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/ press_releases/20080408_075.html. 5045 Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2008, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpd/2008/jun/105716.htm. 5146 Ibid. 5247 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. 5348 For information on possible political and budget implications of withholding Council funds, see the “U.S. Funding of the Council,””, under the “Congressional Issues” section. 5449 On December 26, 2007, Congress agreed to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which included an identical provision on Human Rights Council funding. Congressional Research Service 12 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress U.S. policy toward the Council will depend on whether the United States views the Council’s work as effective and credible. U.S. Funding of the Council Comprehensive U.N. reform is a pressing issue for Congress, and the Human Rights Council is a component of this broader U.N. reform effort.55 As a result, there is continued congressional interest in U.S. funding of the Council. Specifically, some Members of Congress have proposed that the United States withhold a proportionate share of its assessed contributions, approximately 22%, from the U.N. regular budget, which is used to fund the Council. Since 1980, the United States has withheld proportionate shares of its contributions to the U.N. regular budget for U.N. programs and activities it has opposed. However, withholding Council funds in this manner would be a largely symbolic policy action because assessed contributions finance the entire U.N. regular budget and not specific parts of it.5650 On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Council (Sec. 695).5751 In April 2008, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, announced that the United States would withhold a portion of U.S. contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that under current law U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council for 2008 and 2009 would be approximately $1.5 million per year.5852 Effectiveness of the Council Since its establishment, the Council has faced considerable criticism from governments, NGOs, and other observers who contend that it does not effectively address human rights issues. Many contend that this apparent ineffectiveness stems from a number of political and organizational issues. Focus on Specific Countries/Bloc Voting The Council’s focus on Israel during its regular and special sessions alarmed many countries and human rights organizations. After the first elections, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)5953 held 17 seats on the Council—accounting for about one-third of the votes needed to call a 55 For information on recent congressional efforts to limit U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council, see the “Congressional Reaction” section. 56 special session. 54 Some observers believe that consequently the Council held more special sessions on Israel than on any other country or human rights situation. 50 In the past, the United States withheld certain amounts from U.N. activities and/or programs pending clarification on the exact cost or the program or activity. This was done in order to determine a more appropriate measure of the proportionate figure to withhold. 5751 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat. 1844). 58 52 For more information, see Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for S. 1698 (110th), July 16, 2007, available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8328/s1698.pdf. 5953 The OIC is an intergovernmental group composed of 57 states with a goal of combining their efforts and resources to (continued...) Congressional Research Service 13 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress special session. 60 Some observers believe that consequently the Council held more special sessions on Israel than on any other country or human rights situation.“speak with one voice to safeguard the interest and ensure the progress and well-being of... Muslims in the world over.” For more information, see http://www.oic-oci.org/. 54 After the second elections, OIC members occupied 15 of 47 Council seats. This includes a majority in both the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 13 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Role of Regional Groups in Council Elections Some Council members and observers are worried that the process of elections by regional group does not allow for competition among member states running for Council seats. In the May 2007 elections, for example, three out of five regional groups nominated the same number of countries as there were seats available. This limited the number of choices and guaranteed the election of nominated member states regardless of their human rights records. Leadership from Democratic Countries Some have noted that the Council lacks leadership, particularly from democracies and countries with positive human rights records.6155 Many observers have speculated that pro-democracy Council members are not promoting their initiatives as they have in the past because they need support from other Council members, particularly from the Non-Aligned Movement, in negotiations on Council structure and mechanisms. 6256 Alternately, some observers maintain that the Council can still change its current course and improve. They emphasize that the Council has yet to fully implement some of the mechanisms that differentiate it from the Commission—most notably the universal periodic review process. Council supporters also maintain that the composition of Council membership is a significant improvement over the composition of Commission membership. They emphasize that the most egregious human rights abusers did not attempt to run in Council elections because of the new criteria and process. Some supporters also point out that widely perceived human rights violators that announced their candidacy, such as Belarus, failed to win a seat in the second election. Proponents further highlight the Council’s recent adoption of resolutions on the human rights situation in Sudan, Myanmar (Burma), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples of the Council’s continued improvement. Moreover, some advocates suggest that the May 2009 election of the United States to the Council could increase the Council’s credibility and enhance its ability to effectively address human rights issues.63 (...continued) “speak with one voice to safeguard the interest and ensure the progress and well-being of... Muslims in the world over.” For more information, see http://www.oic-oci.org/. 60 After the second elections, OIC members occupied 15 of 47 Council seats. This includes a majority in both the57 The “Goldstone Report” on Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories On September 15, 2009, a report entitled Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (also referred to as the “Goldstone Report”) was published. 58 The report, which was mandated by a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, concluded there is “evidence of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law” by Israel during the Gaza conflict and that (...continued) African and Asian regional groups, which together account for over half of the Council membership. After the third election, OIC members accounted for 16 of 47 Council seats. 6155 “Human Rights Hoax,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007. 62 56 “Dawn of a New Era? Assessment of the U.N. Human Rights Council and its Year of Reform,” U.N. Watch, May 7, 2007, p. 7. 6357 Nick Amies, “Human Rights Organizations Welcome U.S. Bid for U.N. Council Seat,” Deutsche Welle, February 4, 2009. Congressional Research Service 14 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress 58 See U.N. document A/HRC/12/48, September 25, 2009. Congressional Research Service 14 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The report also found evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.59 The Goldstone Report has generated considerable debate among the international community and U.S. policymakers, including Members of Congress. On November 3, 2009, for example, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the President and Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the Goldstone Report in multilateral fora.60 The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses When considering the work of the Council, Members of Congress will likely monitor its activities related to the United States. The following sections address recent instances of the Council’s investigations of human rights situations in the United States. Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay On February 16, 2006, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights released a report on the “situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.”6461 The report was written by five independent rapporteurs appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.6562 It alleges, among other things, that the United States violated the human rights of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba, and that consequently the facility should be closed. According to the report, the United States is responsible for the alleged “force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike,” and using “excessive violence” when transporting detainees. The report also alleges that detainees are denied the right to “challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body,” which violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 6663 It requests that the five U.N. rapporteurs be granted full and unlimited access to the facility, and allowed private interviews with detainees. When researching the report, the rapporteurs collected their information from interviews with former detainees, reports from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), media reports, and a questionnaire answered by the United States. The rapporteurs were not permitted to visit the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. In its rebuttal to the report, the Bush Administration wrote that it was “engaged in a continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, and that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and related detention operations.”67 The Administration maintained that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were treated “humanely,” and that potential human rights violations were thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.68 On July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new capacity as Council experts, renewed their call for the closing of the Guantanamo Detention Center. They encouraged the United States to develop a timeline for closing the facility, and urged U.N. member states, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), and other relevant agencies and organizations to “collaborate actively, constructively, and urgently with the United States,” to ensure the closure of the detention center.69 64 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006. 59 For the Human Rights Council resolution mandating the report, see U.N. document, A/HRC/S-9/L.1, January 12, 2009. United Nations Press Release, “UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict; calls for end to impunity,” September 15, 2009. More information on the Goldstone Report is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/ FactFindingMission.htm. 60 H.Res. 867 [111th], introduced on October 23, 2009, by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 61 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006. 62 The special rapporteurs include Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; Leandro Despouy, rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Manfred Nowak, the rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; Asthma Jahangir, the rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and Paul Hunt, the rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health. 6663 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, was adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution 39/46 on December 10, 1984. The Convention entered into force on June 26, 1987, and the United States became party to it on November 20, 1994. 67 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006. 68 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006. 69 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006. 65 Congressional Research Service 15 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service 15 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress In its rebuttal to the report, the Bush Administration wrote that it was “engaged in a continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, and that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and related detention operations.”64 The Administration maintained that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were treated “humanely,” and that potential human rights violations were thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.65 On July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new capacity as Council experts, renewed their call for the closing of the Guantanamo Detention Center. They encouraged the United States to develop a timeline for closing the facility, and urged U.N. member states, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), and other relevant agencies and organizations to “collaborate actively, constructively, and urgently with the United States,” to ensure the closure of the detention center.66 Inquiry of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism In October 2006, the Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin of Finland, wrote a letter of inquiry to the United States regarding its counter-terrorism practices.7067 In December 2006, the Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States to discuss his concerns.7168 Scheinin hoped to engage in a dialogue with U .S. officials and groups to discuss a variety of issues, including “U.S. counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices ... issues regarding detention, arrest and trial of terrorist suspects and the rights of victims of terrorism or persons negatively impacted by counter terrorism measures.”7269 Scheinin visited the United States from May 16 to 25, 2007.7370 He met with officials from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice, and traveled to Miami to observe the trial against Jose Padilla. He was not allowed access to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay to interview detainees. Scheinin met with some Members of Congress, as well as academics and NGOs. In his preliminary findings, Scheinin dismissed criticism by some that the United States had become an enemy of human rights and complimented its judicial system, rule of law, and respect for individual rights.7471 Scheinin emphasized, however, that he did not consider the U.S. fight against terrorism to be a “war”—though he recognized that the United States views itself as “engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”75 He also stated that the United States violated international law by detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for several years without charges, thereby “undermining the right of fair trial.”76 In addition, he highlighted reports from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that noted the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States. These activities, according to Scheinin, violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.77 He also noted with regret that laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminated important legal mechanisms that protect individual rights. 70 64 65 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006. 66 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006. 67 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act may violate U.S. obligations under international human rights law. 7168 U.N. Press Release, “United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism,” January 16, 2007. 7269 Ibid. Scheinin also stated his intent to identify counter-terrorism measures and formulate conclusions and recommendations that balance human rights with the fight against terrorism. 7370 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism to Visit United States,” May 10, 2007. For an overview of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, see http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/ rapporteur/srchr.htm 7471 For more detailed information on Scheinin’s findings, see U.N. Office in Geneva Press Release, “Preliminary Findings on the Visit to the United States by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism,” May 29, 2007. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. Scheinin also stated that U.S. labeling of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants is a “description of convenience, without legal effect” since it is not a category under international law, where individuals are described as either “combatants” or “civilians.” 77 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on March 23, 1976. It was signed by the United States on October 5, 1977, and was ratified on behalf of the United States on September 8, 1992. As of April 19, 2007, 160 countries were party to the Covenant. The text of the Covenant is available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm. Congressional Research Service 16 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service 16 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress itself as “engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”72 He also stated that the United States violated international law by detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for several years without charges, thereby “undermining the right of fair trial.”73 In addition, he highlighted reports from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that noted the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States. These activities, according to Scheinin, violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.74 He also noted with regret that laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminated important legal mechanisms that protect individual rights. Then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad disagreed with Scheinin’s findings, stating, “We have a different point of view.”7875 Khalilzad emphasized that the United States followed U.S. laws, procedures, and decision-making authorities. He stated, “We are a rule of law country and our decisions are based on rule of law.”7976 Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants The Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante, visited traveled to the United States from April 30 to May 17, 2007.8077 He visited the Arizona and California borders borders to observe U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. He also also met with migrants in Florida, New York, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and visited the Florence Florence Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, to observe the living conditions of migrant detainees. Bustamante’s preliminary findings highlighted (1) the lack of a centralized system for tracking tracking information on detained migrants, (2) the lack of representation for migrants being deported deported (many of whom are often forced to represent themselves in judicial proceedings), and (3) poor working and living conditions for migrants affected by Hurricane Katrina.8178 In addition, Bustamante recommended that the United States work to ensure that its domestic laws and immigration activities are “consistent with its international obligations to protect the rights of migrant workers,” especially in the context of international agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He also stated that the United States “overly-relies” on local law enforcement for its immigration activities, which could potentially impact the federal government’s ability to effectively address migrant issues and ensure compliance with international law.82 78 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. Scheinin also stated that U.S. labeling of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants is a “description of convenience, without legal effect” since it is not a category under international law, where individuals are described as either “combatants” or “civilians.” 74 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on March 23, 1976. It was signed by the United States on October 5, 1977, and was ratified on behalf of the United States on September 8, 1992. As of April 19, 2007, 160 countries were party to the Covenant. The text of the Covenant is available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm. 75 Evelyn Leopold, “U.N. Expert Faults U.S. on Human Rights in Terror Laws,” The Washington Post, May 26, 2007. 79 76 77 Ibid. More information on the mandate of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants is available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/rapporteur/. 8178 For a more detailed description on Bustamante’s findings, see U.N. Office in Geneva Press Release, “Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants Ends Visit to the United States,” May 21, 2007. 82 Ibid. 80 Congressional Research Service 17 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Appendix A. Enacted or Passed Legislation (110th and 111th Congresses) 111th H.R. 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Human Rights Council (Sec. 7052). 110th H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States”; or (2) the United States is a member of the Council (Sec. 695). H.Res. 557 “strongly condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council’s agenda.” The resolution was introduced by Representative John Campbell on July 19, 2007, and was passed/agreed to on September 25, 2007 Congressional Research Service 17 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress impact the federal government’s ability to effectively address migrant issues and ensure compliance with international law.79 79 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 18 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership Table BA-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group African States (13) Asian States (13) Angola (2010)a Bangladesh (2012) Cameroon (2012) Bahrain (2011) Burkina Faso (2011) China (2012) India (2010) Latin American and Caribbean States (8) Eastern European States (6) Western European and Other States (7) Argentina (2011) Belgium (2012) Bolivia (2010) Bosnia & Herzegovina (2010) France (2011) Brazil (2011) Hungary (2012) Italy (2010) Chile (2011) Slovakia (2011) Netherlands (2010) Norway (2012) Mexico (2012) Russian Federation (2012) Cuba (2012) Djibouti (2012) Indonesia (2010) Egypt (2010) Japan (2011) Nicaragua (2010) Slovenia (2010) United Kingdom (2011) Jordan (2012) Uruguay (2012) Ukraine (2011) United States (2012) Gabon (2011) Ghana (2011) Kyrgyzstan (2012) African States (13) Asian States (13) Angola (2010) Bangladesh (2012) Cameroon (2012) Burkina Faso (2011) Djibouti (2012) Egypt (2010) Gabon (2011) Ghana (2011) Madagascar (2010) Mauritius (2012) Nigeria (2012) Senegal (2012) South Africa (2010) Zambia (2011) Bahrain (2011) China (2012) India (2010) Indonesia (2010) Cuba (2012) Kyrgyzstan (2012) Pakistan (2011) Philippines (2010) Qatar (2010) Republic of Korea (2011) Saudi Arabia (2012) Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Notes: Council membership is staggered by year. All Council members are eligible for reelection for a full second term. a. Dates represent year of term end. Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield AnalystSpecialist in International Relations lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856 Congressional Research Service 19