Order Code RL33608
The United Nations Human Rights Council:
Issues for Congress
Updated March 9, 2007
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division

---

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, increases the number of meetings per year, reduces the
number of Council seats from 53 to 47, and introduces 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 was one of four countries to vote against the resolution,
stating that the Council was no better than the Commission and that it lacked
mechanisms for “maintaining credible membership.” Despite these initial concerns,
the Administration has said it will continue to fund and support the work of the
Council. It also decided the United States would not run in the first Council elections
held in May 2006. In March 2007, the State Department announced that the United
States will not run for a seat in the second Council elections to be held in May 2007.
Currently, the United States is an observer to the Council and has no voting rights.
Since its establishment, the Council has held three regular sessions and four
special sessions. The regular sessions have addressed a combination of specific
human rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. Three of the four special
sessions have addressed possible Israeli human rights violations in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon. In December, the Council held its fourth
special session on the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan.

The reaction of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights groups,
and governments to the new Council can be described as cautiously optimistic.
Generally, they believe the new Council is an improvement over the Commission,
but view the Council’s first full year of work as an indicator of its success. To date,
some governments (including the United States) and NGOs have expressed concern
with the Council’s initial focus on Israel.
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. Some
Members have proposed legislation that would withhold Council funding if certain
criteria are not met. Due to the nature of U.N. budget mechanisms, withholding
Council funds would be a largely symbolic gesture and may have little or no effect
on the Council’s operational work. It is expected that interest in this issue will
continue in the 110th Congress as the Council continues to hold its first year of
meetings and expected U.N. reform efforts move forward. This report will be
updated as events warrant.

---

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
The U.N. Human Rights Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Mandate and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Structure and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Most Recent Council Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
U.S. Policy Towards the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Response from Organizations and Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Congressional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
U.S. Funding of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Impact of Observer Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Legislation Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Tables
Table 1. Human Rights Council Membership by Regional Group . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

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
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).
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.

---

CRS-2
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.7 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.
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 Louise Arbour of Canada. 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 reelected to the Commission the following year. 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.8 In addition, Congress receives
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.
8 Examples include H.Con.Res. 83, introduced on March 3, 2005, 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, 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the Secretary of State as
mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.9 The Secretary of State is required,
among other things, to submit reports on countries which are members of the United
Nations.
There have been instances when both Congress and the Executive Branch have
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 to analyze how the
death penalty is implemented in the United States.10 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.”11
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 United Nations with the United States regaining a seat on the
Commission.12 The Administration, however, stated it would not link U.S. payment
of U.N. dues and arrears to the outcome of the Commission elections.13 Given the
controversy over the Commission, both Congress and the Administration supported
the U.N. Secretary-General’s 2005 proposal to disband the Commission and create
a new Council.
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 Secretary-General 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
8 (...continued)
resolution condemning the Cuban government for its human rights abuses.
9 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are submitted to Congress in compliance with
Section 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
10 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.
11 Elizabeth Olson, “U.N. Report Criticizes U.S. for “Racist” Use of Death Penalty,” The
New York Times, April 7, 1998.
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, p. 3-4
(archived; available from the author).
13 Press Conference of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May
11, 2001.

---

CRS-4
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 views 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.”14 Congress has 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.15
The U.N. Human Rights Council

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.16 Under the resolution, the 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 will also promote and coordinate
the mainstreaming of human rights within the U.N. system. In order to achieve the
above goals, the Council will undertake a universal periodic review of each U.N.
Member State’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. The
review will be a “cooperative mechanism” based on a dialogue between the reviewers
and the countries involved. Each member will undergo a periodic review during the
term of its membership. The Council is tasked with developing guidelines for the
universal periodic review process within one year of its first session. These review
processes are currently ongoing.
14 “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. Further information on U.S. policy toward U.N.
reform can be found at [http://www.un.int/usa/reform-un.htm].
15 See “Legislation Appendix” for a full list of legislation proposed in the 109th Congress.
16 One hundred seventy parties 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 Venezuela).

---

CRS-5
The resolution also ensures adequate transition of responsibilities from the
Commission on Human Rights to the new Council. Like the Commission, the
Council will continue to collaborate with the OHCHR. It will work to maintain and
improve the system of special mandates, expert advice, and complaint procedures
instituted by the Commission. The Council shall also:
! review all the mandates, mechanisms, and functions of the
Commission within one year of its first session;
! promote human rights education, advisory services, technical
assistance, and capacity building with relevant member states;
! serve 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
! promote the full implementation of human rights obligations by
member states, and follow-up on human rights commitments from
other U.N. conferences and summits.17
Structure and Composition
Many crucial details related to the work of the Council, such as its mechanisms,
procedures, framework, and system of universal periodic review will be debated and
determined by Council members as part of its first year of work. This section
addresses what is known about the current structural elements of the Council. Key
differences between the Council and the Commission are noted where relevant.
Status Within U.N. Framework. Under the General Assembly resolution,
the Council is designated a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, whereas the
Commission was a subsidiary body of ECOSOC. This change significantly enhances
the standing of human rights within the U.N. framework. In its new capacity, the
Council reports directly to the General Assembly’s 192 members instead of through
ECOSOC’s 54 members. Former Secretary-General Annan stated that eventually he
would like to see the Council become a principal organ of the United Nations in the
same vein as the Security Council or Secretariat.18
Membership. The Council is composed of 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
17 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March
15, 2006.
18 “‘The Eyes of the World Are Upon You,’ Secretary-General says in address to first
meeting of Human Rights Council,” U.N. Press Release, June 19, 2006.

---

CRS-6
limits. Like the Council, the Commission created a formula to ensure equitable
distribution of seats by region.19
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). When voting, the resolution instructs
countries to consider “the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection
of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments.” A country
submitting its name for election must affirm its commitment to 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 forced
some member states to cast votes for countries with questionable human rights
records in order to fill all regional group seats. The first Council elections were held
on May 9, 2006. See Table 1 for a list of members grouped by region and duration
of membership. The next election will be held in May 2007, and 14 of the 47
Council seats will be available.
Structure. At the inaugural session, the Council elects a president for a one-
year term. The president presides over the election of four vice-presidents
representing other regional groups in the Council.20 The president and vice-
presidents form the Council “Bureau.” The presidency rotates among different
Bureau members on an annual basis. The president appoints experts, rapporteurs, and
working groups to examine human rights issues. The current president is
Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico. Under the Commission, the role of
“president” was held by a chairman.
Meetings. The Council is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and meets
for three or more sessions per year for ten weeks or more, including a main 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.21
19 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.
20 Current Vice-Presidents are: Tomas Husak of the Czech Republic (Eastern European
states), Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco (African states), Blaise Godet of Switzerland,
(Western Europe and other states), and Musa Burayzat of Jordan (Asian states).
21 Examples of Special Sessions under the Commission included Situation of human rights
in the territories of the former Yugoslavia (1992); 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). More information on these sessions is
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
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.”22 The
Commission submitted reports primarily to ECOSOC, a limited membership body,
which reported Commission activities to the General Assembly.
Rules of Procedure. The Council follows the rules of procedure created for
committees of the General Assembly.23 Procedures that relate to the participation of
observer states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
specialized agencies, and human rights institutions fall under the practices that were
observed by the Commission.24 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.
The Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights. The Sub-Commission was the main subsidiary body of the Commission,
and it is currently operating in the same capacity for the Council, though its future is
uncertain. The Sub-Commission undertakes human rights studies, identifies and
analyzes potential human rights issues, and assists the Council with its work when
directed. It consists of 26 independent experts elected for four-year terms and holds
an annual four-week session in Geneva attended by observers from member states,
human rights groups, U.N. bodies, NGOs, and other organizations.25 The Human
Rights Council is currently debating whether to replace the Sub-Commission with
a new body, and Council members have been unable to reach a consensus. Several
proposals have been considered, such as establishing a new permanent Sub-
Commission with a revised mandate, completely abolishing the Sub-Commission,
and establishing a non-permanent ad hoc expert advice body to assist the Council
when necessary.26 It is expected that negotiations on the future of the Sub-
Commission will continue in the coming months.
21 (...continued)
available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special-sessions.htm].
22 The first annual report of the Human Rights Council was considered by the Third
Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on November 10, 2006, and submitted to
the 61st General Assembly for consideration. The report is available at
[http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/A.61.53.pdf].
23 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/docs/gaA.520.Rev.15_En.pdf].
24 The Commission on Human Rights followed ECOSOC rules of procedure that can be
viewed at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/ECOSOC.rules_En.pdf].
25 Additional information on the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights can be found at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm].
26 For a summary of the debate on the future of the Sub-Commission, see U.N. Office at
Geneva Press Release, “Human Rights Council Considers Expert Advice Body to Replace
Former Sub-Commission,” December 7, 2006.

---

CRS-8
Most Recent Council Sessions
To date, the Council has held three regular sessions and four special sessions.
The fourth regular session will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from March 12 to
April 6, 2007. Key outcomes from past sessions are highlighted below.
First Regular Session (June 2006). The Council held its first meeting in
Geneva, Switzerland, from June 16 to 30, 2006, adopting eight resolutions, three
decisions, and two statements by Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba. A high-
level meeting was held during the first four days of the session. During the sessions,
parties exchanged views on a mixture of substantive and procedural issues, including
the nature of the universal periodic review process, the role of human rights
defenders in protecting and promoting human rights, and the overall implementation
of the General Assembly resolution that created the Council.27 Countries also
discussed special procedures, reviewed the mandates and mechanisms inherited from
the Commission, and renewed several working group mandates.28 Additional
outcomes from the first session include, among other things:
! a one-year extension for all Council and Sub-Commission mandates,
mechanisms, functions, and responsibilities previously under the
Commission;
! creation of an intersessional open-ended Working Group to review
and make recommendations on these existing mandates,
mechanisms, functions, and responsibilities inherited from the
Commission;
! adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of all
Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and the U.N. Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which were forwarded to the
General Assembly for adoption; and
! creation of an intersessional, open-ended Working Group to
establish the components and procedures of the universal periodic
review process.
The only country-specific resolution considered or passed at the first Council
session involved Israel and the Arab Territories. This issue was identified for
discussion by Council President de Alba based on consultations with other Council
member and observer States. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC), introduced a resolution requesting special rapporteurs to report
on Israeli human rights abuses in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories at
the next Council session and in subsequent sessions. The Council adopted the
resolution with a vote of 29 in favor, 12 against, and 5 abstentions.
27 “Human Rights Council concludes first session,” U.N. Media Centre, June 30, 2006.
28 The Council welcomed the report of the Working Group on Optional Protocol to the
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and extended its mandate for two years.
It endorsed the recommendations and conclusions of the Working Group on the Right to
Development, renewing its mandate for one year. The Working Group on the Effective
Implementation of the Durban Declaration was extended for three years.

---

CRS-9
Second Regular Session (September 2006). The second regular Council
session was held in Geneva, Switzerland from September 18 to October 6 and
November 27 to 29, 2006. The Council adopted 18 texts that, among other things:
! requested the Working Group on the Review of Mandates to review
the draft manual of Council special procedures;
! determined that all legislative measures and actions taken by Israel
that may alter the “character and legal status”of the Occupied Syrian
Golan are in violation of international law and therefore null and
void;
! urged Israel to reverse its settlement policy in the Occupied Arab
Territories, and to prevent any new settlements; and
! requested parties who have not done so to sign the Peace Agreement
in Darfur, Sudan, as well as to end ongoing human rights violations
in Darfur, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups such as
women and children.29
Additionally, the Council considered the reports of independent rapporteurs and
experts assigned to monitor human right situations in Belarus, Cambodia, Cuba, the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Haiti, Liberia, the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan. It also heard statements from special
rapporteurs tasked with examining possible Israeli human rights abuses in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon. The Council held a series of 1503
procedure meetings (closed-door sessions where Council members discussed human
right violation of specific countries) for Iran, Kyrgystan, and Uzbekistan. Members
determined that the 1503 procedure for Kyrgystan should be discontinued.
Third Regular Session (December 2006). The third regular Council
session was held in Geneva from November 29 to December 8, 2006.30 At the
session, then-Secretary-General Annan urged Council members not to allow their
current focus on the Middle East to “monopolize attention at the expense of others
where there are equally grave or even graver violations.”31 The Council adopted six
resolutions and one decision, which included:
! creating an open-ended intersessional working group to make
“concrete” recommendations on the Council agenda, annual program
of work, methods of work, and rules of procedure;32
29 The report of the second regular session is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/2session/].
30 The report of the third regular session is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/3session/].
31 Statement Delivered to the Third Regular Session of the Human Rights Council by U.N.
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, on behalf of Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, November 29, 2006.
32 The Working Group held its first session during the week of January 15, 2007, and was
chaired by Council President De Alba.

---

CRS-10
! requesting the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to
consult with the Lebanese government on how to implement
recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry report on
Lebanon;
! convening a Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian Region;
! deciding that the Council will act as a “preparatory committee” for
the upcoming Durban Review Conference; and
! establishing an ad hoc committee on the “Elaboration of
Complementary Standards,” to fill the gaps in the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, and
provide new standards for fighting all forms of contemporary racism.
Council members also heard reports from the Working Group on the Universal
Periodic Review, which concluded its work on November 23, 2006. Additionally,
members considered progress reports on complaint procedures and the review of
Council mandates and mechanisms. The Council also engaged in an interactive
dialogue on a variety of issues, including the prevention of genocide, and the rights
of indigenous peoples.
Special Sessions. Since its establishment, the Council has held four special
sessions, including three sessions addressing Israeli human rights violations in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon, and one session addressing the
human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan. A brief summary of each session follows.
First Special Session (July 2006). The first special session on the Human
Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was held on July 5, 2006 in
Geneva. The Council adopted a resolution demanding that Israel end its military
operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and, among other things, “refrain
from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”33 The resolution was
adopted with a vote of 29 in favor, 11 opposed, and five abstentions. In the
resolution, the Council agreed to send a group of experts and special rapporteurs to
the Palestinian Territory to examine potential Israeli human rights abuses.34 To date,
the special rapporteurs have not been dispatched.35
Second Special Session (August 2006). On August 10 and 11, 2006, the
Council held a second special session on the Grave Situation of Human Rights in
Lebanon Caused by Israeli Military Operations. At the session, the Council adopted
a resolution condemning Israeli military operations in Lebanon, particularly the
Israeli air strikes in Qana on July 30, 2006. The resolution ordered the dispatch of a
high-level commission of human rights law experts to investigate “the systematic
targeting and killings of civilians by Israel,” and examine “the types of weapons
33 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-1/L.1/Rev.1, July 18, 2006.
34 More information on the first special session can be found at [http://www.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/index.htm].
35 At its third regular session, held in Geneva from November 19 to December 8, 2006, the
Council adopted text “regretting” that the special rapporteurs had not yet been sent to the
Occupied Territory, and calling for the “speedy implementation” of their mission.

---

CRS-11
used,” and the “extent and deadly impact” of the attacks, and report to the Council.36
The resolution was adopted with a vote of 27 in favor, 11 opposed, and 8 abstentions.
Some member states abstained or voted against the resolution because they believed
it did not adequately address possible human right violations by Hezbollah against
Israel.37

Third Special Session (November 2006). The Council held a third
special session on Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
on November 15, 2006. Council members adopted a resolution expressing “shock
and horror” regarding the Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun, and
expressed alarm over the “gross and systematic violations of human rights of the
Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”38 In addition, the Council
decided to send a high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun to examine the
condition of the victims and make recommendations on how to protect Palestinian
civilians from Israeli attacks.
Fourth Special Session (December 2006). At the fourth special session,
the Council broke its pattern of concentrating on Israeli human rights violations and
addressed the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan.39 From December 12 to 13,
2006, the Council discussed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and adopted by
consensus a decision that: (1) expressed the Council’s concern for the seriousness of
the human rights situation; (2) urged the government of Sudan to cooperate with the
Human Rights Council and the OHCHR; and (3) decided to dispatch a high-level
mission to examine the human rights situation in Darfur and report to the Council.40
The text did not condemn Sudan for its human rights abuses, and some member
states felt the language should have been stronger. However, most member states
were relatively satisfied that the Council was able to come to consensus given the
importance and urgency of the issue.41
36 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-2/2, August 17, 2006, p. 3-4. The high-level Commission
issued its report on November 23, 2006. A copy of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon’s
report is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/
A.HRC.3.2.pdf].
37 Drawn from country statements in United Nations Press Release, “Council Strongly
Condemns Grave Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Lebanon,” August 11, 2006.
38 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-3/L.1, November 14, 2006.
39 Further information on the fourth special session, including press releases and country
statements, is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm].
40 U.N. document, Human Rights Council. Decision S-4/101, December 13, 2006 [advanced
edited version].
41 Due to visa problems, the high-level panel did not visit Sudan as part of its research —
though the panel did travel to neighboring Chad to interview Sudanese refugees. For more
information, see U.N. News Service article, “Lacking Visas, U.N. Mission to Darfur to
Carry Out Work Without Visit to Sudan,” February 14, 2007.

---

CRS-12
U.S. Policy Towards the Council
Overview. Overall, the United States supports the work of the Council and
views it as an improvement over the Commission on Human Rights.42 However, the
United States opposed the final Council structure, and was one of four countries to
vote against the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council. 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.” He stated that the United States did not have
confidence that the new Council would be better than its predecessor, but at the same
time indicated the United States would work with other member states to ensure the
Council is strong and operates as effectively and efficiently as possible.43
During negotiations for the resolution creating the Council, the United States
supported several measures it believed would make it more difficult for human rights
abusers to be elected. It agreed with Secretary-General Annan’s proposal that a
two-thirds vote should be required in the General Assembly for election instead of
an absolute majority, noting that election by an absolute majority would make it
easier for a country to be elected to the Council than to be removed. The United
States also supported “exclusionary criteria” for Council membership, arguing that
member states under Security Council sanctions for human rights abuses or acts of
terrorism should not be eligible to run for a Council seat. Additionally, the United
States felt that there should be fewer than 47 seats to further reduce the possibility
that human rights abusers were elected. It was disappointed with the reduction of
seats in the Western European and Others regional group (to which the United States
belongs) from ten to seven.
Despite these concerns, the United States expressed support for several
components of the Council. It agreed with the Council’s enhanced status in the U.N.
system as a subsidiary body to the General Assembly. The United States also
supported the increase in number of Council meetings per year, saying it could give
the Council the flexibility to respond immediately to pressing human rights issues.
U.S. Decision Not to Run for a Council Seat. On April 6, 2006, the
United States 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.”44 State
Department officials admitted that if the United States ran, losing the election was
a possibility. They determined that the United States would most likely be elected
42 Remarks on the Human Rights Council Elections by Kristen Silverberg, Assistant
Secretary for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, May 17, 2006.
43 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.
44 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6,
2006.

---

CRS-13
with a good lobbying effort (though it was not guaranteed). Officials said that instead
of focusing U.S. political capital on getting elected, the United States could more
effectively leverage its resources by campaigning against candidates with poor human
rights records and in favor of those with a demonstrated commitment to human
rights.45 When the election results were announced, the United States stated that
while several countries elected to the Council lacked “a genuine commitment to the
protection and promotion of human rights,”46 it was pleased that countries like Iran
and Venezuela were not elected.47
On March 6, 2007, the Administration announced that it would not run for a
Council seat in the May 2007 elections. A State Department spokesperson stated that
the Council had “not proved itself to be a credible body,” and had exhibited a “nearly
singular focus on Israel,” while not adequately addressing human rights situations in
countries such as Cuba, Burma, or North Korea.48 The Administration emphasized
that it will continue to promote human rights globally, and will remain actively
engaged in human rights issues, not only within the U.N. system but outside as well.
Congressional Reaction. Congressional response to the Administration’s
decision not to run in the Council elections has been mixed. Representative Tom
Lantos, Chairperson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, reportedly stated
that the decision not to run in the first Council election was “a major retrenchment
in America’s long struggle to advance the cause of human rights around the world
and it is a profound signal of U.S. isolation at a time when we need to work
cooperatively with our Security Council Partners.”49 Similarly, Lantos called the
U.S. decision not to run in the second Council election an “act of unparalleled
defeatism.”50 Representative Henry Hyde, former Chairperson of the House
International Relations Committee and a strong advocate of U.N. reform, also
supported U.S. membership on the Council. At a March 27, 2006 news conference
at U.N. Headquarters, Representative Hyde reportedly stated, “I think we should
engage in the process.... It is the best that’s available and you do what you can with
what you have at hand.”51
45 Drawn from a press briefing by Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006.
46 The introduction to the 2005 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices listed several countries elected to the Council that were cited for their poor human
right records. They included Azerbaijan, Cuba, China, Ecuador, Pakistan, and Russia. Other
Council members such as Saudi Arabia and Cameroon were also cited for their poor human
rights records. Country Reports can be viewed at [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/].
47 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 11,
2006.
48 Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March 6, 2007.
49 Warren Hoge, “U.S. Won’t See a Seat on the U.N. Rights Council, The New York Times,
April 6, 2006, p. 6.
50 Press Release, Office of Representative Tom Lantos, “Lantos Blasts Administration
Decision Not to Take Part in United Nations Human Rights Council,” March 6, 2007.
51 Colum Lynch, “U.S. Will Not Join U.N. Rights Council,” The Washington Post, April 7,
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
At the same time, other Members of Congress have been supportive of the
Administration’s decision not to run for a seat on the Council. In March 2006,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wrote a letter to President Bush stating that joining
the Council “undermines our own [the United States] credibility and confers
unwarranted legitimacy on this new body.”52 Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, agreed with the
Administration’s decision not to run in the second Council election. She reportedly
stated, “rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the
Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political
manipulation.”53
The First Council Sessions: U.S. Participation and Concerns. The
United States has been “heavily involved,” and “participated actively,” in Council
sessions despite its non-member status.54 Specifically, the U.S. delegation has
conferred with like-minded Council members regarding “when to pursue
condemnatory resolutions directed at violating states,” and has held various bilateral
meetings on the subject.55 It has also submitted proposals on the universal periodic
review process and mandate review for consideration by the Council. The
Administration has stated it will continue to work cooperatively with other like-
minded countries in the upcoming sessions to ensure that the Council “reverses
course” and fulfills its purpose.56
The Administration has been generally disappointed with the work of the
Council to date. A main point of concern is the Council’s focus on Israeli human
rights violations while it has failed to address human rights abuses in other parts of
the world. Specifically, the Administration maintains that the legitimacy of the
Council may be undermined if some Council members continue to push such
“imbalanced” views. It has stated it does not object to discussing potential Israeli
human rights abuses as long as violations by other countries are also discussed.57 In
the case of the third special session held on Israeli human rights abuses in the
51 (...continued)
2006, p. A16.
52 Letter from Senator Bill Frist to President George W. Bush, March 30, 2006, available at
[http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/FristHRC.pdf].
53 George Gedda, “U.S. Criticizes U.N. Human Rights Body,” Los Angeles Times, March
6, 2007.
54 Remarks by Ambassador John Bolton, on the Human Rights Council, Sudan, North Korea,
and other matters, at the Security Council stakeout, U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press
Release, October 6, 2006.
55 Testimony by Deputy Assistant Secretary Erica Barks-Ruggles, House International
Relations Committee hearing, “U.N. Human Rights Council: Reform or Regression,”
September 6, 2006.
56 Statement by Miriam K. Hughes, Deputy U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social
Council, on the Report of the Human Rights Council in the General Assembly, U.S. Mission
to the United Nations Press Release, November 10, 2006.
57 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.

---

CRS-15
Occupied Palestinian Territory, the United States maintained that the Council
“should not address particular military actions taken during a period of armed
conflict that are clearly governed by the law of war.”58 The United States said it was
“unfortunate” that the Council used its limited resources to focus on issues not
clearly within its mandate while other human rights concerns were not addressed.59
Overall, the United States was satisfied with the Council decision to convene
a fourth special session on the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan. It welcomed
the Council’s special session and commended the Human Rights Council for
“drawing the world’s attention to this ongoing crisis.” Additionally, it called on the
government of Sudan to “shoulder its responsibility to protect all individuals against
human rights violations,” and also noted its concern with the spreading violence in
Chad and the Central African Republic.60
U.S. Position on the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights. On May 15, 2006, Mark Wallace, the former U.S.
Representative for U.N. Management and Reform, called for the elimination of the
Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and its
subsidiary bodies.61 He stated that the work of the experts and working groups was
duplicative under the Council. He said that the Sub-Commission “disregards
directives and guidance from its parent body,” and that its reports do not reflect the
interest of member states, but “the personal interests of the members of the Sub-
Commission, who in some cases are simple government officials posing as
‘independent experts’ in contravention of U.N. rules.”62 This position is consistent
with some broader United States efforts to eliminate mechanisms it believes to be
burdensome to the U.N. process. It also reflects recent controversy over Jean Ziegler,
a Sub-Commission expert from Switzerland, who is alleged by the United States and
Canada to have defended countries widely perceived as human rights abusers.63
On December 7, 2006, the Council held discussions on the future of the Sub-
Commission. The United States emphasized that the Council would “be best served
by a system of expert advice that was flexible, small, and responsive solely to the
needs of the Council.” Specifically, it advocated for an expert advice mechanism that
would provide technical assistance to programs in order to help governments “deepen
and broaden the roots of human rights protection.” In order to avoid politicization
58 Statement of the United States at the Third Special Session of the U.N. Human Rights
Council, November 15, 2006.
59 Ibid.
60 Statement by Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor, U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations in Geneva to the Human Rights Council Special Session on Sudan, U.S.
Mission to the United Nations Press Release, December 12, 2006.
61 Subsidiary bodies include the Working Groups on Minorities, the Working Group on
Contemporary Forms of Slavery, and the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
62 Press statement by Mark D. Wallace, U.S. Representative for U.N. Management and
Reform, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, U.S. Department of State, May 15, 2006.
63 Steven Edwards, “Harper urged to block U.N. appointment: Human rights groups oppose
controversial Swiss Politician,” The National Post, April 13, 2006.

---

CRS-16
of membership, the United States maintained that members should not be elected but
be nominated by member states, NGOs, or regional groups and selected by the
Council president.64
Future U.S. Role. Though the Bush Administration remains “constructively
skeptical,” that the Council will be an improvement over the Commission, it states
it will continue to fund and support the Council.65 The Administration maintains that
it will continue to collaborate with like-minded members and observe the work of the
Council. In particular, the United States believes the special rapporteur system and
country-specific resolutions are important mechanisms from the Commission that
should be continued under the Council.66 Congress remains highly 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. Congressional interest and engagement is
expected to continue as the Council moves forward with its agenda. Ultimately,
future U.S. policy toward the Council may depend on whether Congress and the
Administration view the Council’s work as effective and credible.
Response from Organizations and Other Governments
Reaction from Human Rights Groups and Other Organizations.
Response to the formation of the Council from a majority of NGOs, human rights
groups, and other relevant agencies and organizations appears to be cautiously
optimistic. Some groups share concerns about the Council’s work, however, and one
source of apprehension is the composition of Council membership. Though the new
membership criteria discouraged some countries from running, several perceived
human rights abusers ran for seats and were elected to the Council.67 Some groups
were also concerned about the increase in frequency of the Council meetings. While
they supported the increase and believed it would make the Council more effective,
they worried that smaller NGOs and human rights groups would have a difficult time
obtaining funds to attend these meetings.68 Another common concern expressed by
groups was whether NGOs would continue to be active participants in the Council
process.69
Proponents of the Council suggest that the decision of perceived human rights
abusers such as Sudan, North Korea, and Zimbabwe not to run for Council election
64 U.N. Office at Geneva Press Release, “Human Rights Council Considers Expert Advice
Body to Replace Former Sub-Commission,” December 7, 2006, p. 9.
65 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.
66 Ibid.
67 Human Rights Watch stated that seven of the 65 members running for a Council seat were
“unworthy” of membership due to poor human rights records. They included Azerbaijan,
China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Only Iran was not elected.
68 Frederic Burnand, “Geneva NGOs Brace for New U.N. Rights Body,” Swiss Info, March
23, 2006.
69 “Briefing Paper on Asian Candidates to the New Human Rights Council Membership,”
FORUM-ASIA, May 8, 2006, p. 3.

---

CRS-17
was an early indicator of the Council’s success.70 Supporters also emphasize the
importance of the universal periodic review process, observing that since every
country is subject to periodic review, there may be less selectivity and targeting of
specific countries in resolutions. Some groups are pleased that Council members will
undergo a periodic review of their human rights record within their term of
membership. As a result of this new mechanism, a country with a questionable
human rights record could be subject to an immediate and comprehensive human
rights review. Some also observe that the presence of many perceived promoters and
protectors of human rights on the Council may positively influence members with
poorly perceived human rights records. In addition, many human rights groups and
NGOs were surprised and disappointed with the U.S. vote against the General
Assembly resolution creating the Council.71 Some have called the subsequent U.S.
decision not to run in the first election a “missed opportunity,” noting that the first
year of the Council is most important because the procedures and future work are
established during that time.72
Some NGOs were disappointed with the Council’s focus on Israel during its
regular and special sessions. Human Rights Watch called the Council’s work during
the second regular session a “huge disappointment,” noting that while the Council
debated human rights violations in countries and regions other than Israel, Lebanon,
or the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it did not pass any decisions or resolutions on
these situations.73 Other human rights groups give the Council credit for some of its
improvements, noting that parts of the Council’s work represent “steps in the right
direction.”74 However, these groups also emphasize that in order for the Council to
be viewed as credible, it must address human rights violations that do not involve
Israel.
Most groups generally regard the Council’s fourth special session on Darfur as
a positive development, but some are disappointed that the Council did not go far
enough to condemn Sudan for its role in the crisis. Some observers noted that the
language in the resolution was relatively weak when compared to previous country-
specific resolutions adopted by the Council. U.N. Watch calls the resolution a “soft
approach” and emphasizes that it did not include the word “violation.”75 Others
70 Edith M. Lederer, “Groups Hail New U.N. Human Rights Council,” Associated Press,
May 8, 2006.
71 Ten human rights groups wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging U.S.
support of the resolution. The letter is available at [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/24/
usint12716.htm].
72 Maggie Farley, “U.S. Won’t Seek Seat on U.N. Rights Panel,” Los Angeles Times, April
7, 2006, p. 22.
73 “Human Rights Watch Blasts New U.N. Rights Watchdog,” Reuters, October 6, 2006.
The Human Rights Watch Annual Report is available at [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k6/]. For
its perspective on U.N. human rights bodies, including the Council, see pages 32-35.
74 “First Session of the Human Rights Council: A Step in the Right Direction,” Amnesty
International Public Statement, July 3, 2006.
75 “Human Rights Council Darfur Resolution Falls Short,” U.N. Watch Press Release,
(continued...)

---

CRS-18
contend that the text had to be watered-down in order to achieve consensus among
Council members.
Reaction from Other Governments. There was a wide range of reactions
from U.N. member states regarding the establishment of the Human Right Council.
A main point of contention was the number of votes required for election.76 Overall,
most parties support the mainstreaming of human rights issues into the U.N. system
and agree that the Council should be elevated to a subsidiary body of the General
Assembly within the U.N. system. Member states that were consistent targets of
country-specific resolutions under the Commission on Human Rights, including
China and Iran, oppose the “politicization and finger-pointing” they say are
associated with country resolutions.77 Most countries agree that the resolution
creating the Council was a fair compromise, and that the true worth of the Council
would be determined through its future work.
Some governments were disappointed with the U.S. decision to vote against the
resolution creating the Council.78 The United Kingdom and other European Union
members actively lobbied the United States to support the resolution.79 U.S. Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State Mark Lagon noted that a number of countries approached
the United States about running and offered their support in both the first election and
future elections.80 Some governments attempted to link the U.S. decision not to run
with its alleged human rights abuses toward detainees in the Guantanamo Naval Base
in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.81
75 (...continued)
December 13, 2006.
76 Some countries, such as Argentina, the European Union, New Zealand, and the United
States, supported the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly for
election to the Council instead of an absolute majority.
77 Ibid.
78 In a Kremlin International News Broadcast interview on March 2, 2006, Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Alexander Yakovenko stated that the United States should be elected to
the Council if it runs, and that Russia would like the United States to participate in the
Council’s work.
79 British Ambassador to the United Nations Emyr Jones Parry said that adopting a text
without U.S. support “isn’t good for human rights and not particularly good for the
Council,” in a March 2, 2006 Associated Press article by Edith M. Lederer titled, “European
Union backs proposal for new U.N. Human Rights Council, leaving U.S. isolated.”
80 Press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006.
81 U.N. document A/60/704, “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba,”
February 28, 2006.

---

CRS-19
Congressional Issues
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. As a result, there
is continued congressional interest in U.S. funding of the Council. Specifically, some
Members of Congress have proposed 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.82 Additionally, it is difficult
to identify the portion of the regular budget that would be allocated to the Council.
For example, the funding may come not only from the Human Rights section of the
budget, but also from the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council
Affairs and Conference Management section, and the Administration and Staff
Assessment section.
In preparation for the transition from the Commission to the Council, the U.N.
Secretary-General provided budget documents estimating the biennial cost of the
Commission and the Council for 2006 and 2007. The two-year budget requirement
for the Council was estimated at $4,503,700, with $4,328,700 representing new
funding.83 The difference of $175,000 was previously budgeted for the Commission
on Human Rights in 2006 and 2007.84 If the U.S. government were to withhold a
proportionate share of the Council’s gross cost, the annual withholding would be
estimated at $495,407.85
Impact of Observer Status
The ability of the United States to promote its human rights agenda within the
U.N. framework may be significantly affected by its observer status and its initial
policy position on the Council. Under the ECOSOC rules of procedure for non-
Member State participation, the Council may invite “any State that is not one of its
own members to participate in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern
to that State.” The invited observer status does not carry the right to vote, but allows
82 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.
83 The total two-year budget includes a minimum of ten weeks for formal meetings;
additional personnel requirements for review of Council mechanisms and mandates; and
personnel requirements and resources for the periodic review of human rights records.
84 See U.N. documents A/C.5/60/28, A/60/7Add.34, and A60/721.
85 This estimate was calculated by taking 22% of the gross biennial cost of the Council
($4,503,700), which equals $990,814. This number is divided by two years to estimate the
annual proportionate withholding.

---

CRS-20
the state to submit proposals that can be put forward for vote at the request of any
Council member.86 Many Council members may be interested in U.S. statements and
policies, but the United States’s inability to vote may diminish its influence on the
work of the Council. As a result, the United States may have to rely on close
collaboration and cooperation with like-minded countries to further its human rights
agenda. In 2002, the United States held observer status on the Commission on
Human Rights for the first time in the Commission’s history. It was subsequently
reelected from 2003 to 2006.
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 involvement and/or investigations regarding human
rights and 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.”87 The report was written by five independent
rapporteurs appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.88
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 “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.89 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 non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), media reports, and a questionnaire answered
by the United States. The rapporteurs did not visit the detention facility in
Guantanamo Bay.
In its rebuttal to the report, the United States wrote that it is “engaged in a
continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, that the law of war applies to the conduct
86 Rules of Procedure of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, part XII, rules 1-3.
87 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006.
88 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.
89 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.

---

CRS-21
of that war and related detention operations.”90 The Administration rejected the
findings of the report, maintaining that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated
“humanely,” and that potential human rights violations were thoroughly investigated
by the U.S. government.91 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 closure of the facility, and urged U.N. member states, the International
Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),92 and other relevant agencies and organizations
to “collaborate actively, constructively, and urgently with the United States,” to
ensure the closure of the detention center.93
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.94 On December 20, 2006, the
Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States in the spring of 2007 to
discuss his concerns.95 Scheinin stated that he hopes to engage in a dialogue with
members of the government, NGOs, law enforcement officials, and civil society 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.”96 He has also stated his intent to identify counterterrorism measures and
formulate conclusions and recommendations that balance human rights with the fight
against terrorism. The final dates of the Special Rapporteur’s visit have not yet been
confirmed.
90 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006.
91 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006.
92 Since 2002, the ICRC has visited the Guantanamo Detention Center to monitor whether
detainees are treated in accordance with international law. The ICRC has stated it “remains
concerned that significant problems regarding conditions and treatment at Guantanamo Bay
have not been adequately addressed,” and “will pursue its discussions on these issues with
the U.S. authorities.” More information on the role of ICRC at U.S. detention centers can
be found at [http://www.icrc.org].
93 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with
Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006.
94 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act
may violate U.S. obligations under international human rights law.
95 U.N. Press Release, “United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human
Rights and Counter-terrorism,” January 16, 2007.
96 Ibid.

---

CRS-22
Legislation Appendix
An overview of proposed legislation related to the funding and reform of the
Human Rights Council in the 109th and 110th Congress follows:
H.R. 225 (110th). H.R. 225 was introduced on January 4, 2007, and states that
the new Human Rights Council “fails to adequately reform the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights.” The bill seeks to withhold U.S. funding of the
Council beginning October 1, 2007. It was introduced by Representative Cliff
Stearns and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 2745 (109th). In 2005, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act,
passed in the House of Representatives with a vote of 221 to 184. It would withhold
50% of U.S. assessed dues to the U.N. regular budget if a series of reforms are not
implemented. Specifically, the act states that a U.N. member country would be
ineligible for membership on any U.N. human rights body if it is under Security
Council sanctions or under U.N. investigation for human rights abuses.
S. 1383 (109th). S. 1383 calls for “urgent and essential reform of the United
Nations.” It would give the President the authority to withhold 50% of U.S.
contributions to the United Nations if he determines that the United Nations is not
making adequate progress on reforms, among other things. The bill was introduced
by Senator Norm Coleman on July 12, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
S.Res. 419 (109th). S.Res. 419 advocates that the United States withdraw its
financial support from the Human Rights Council until meaningful reforms are
implemented. The resolution was introduced on March 31, 2006 by Senator Bill
Frist (R-TN), and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.97
H.R. 5476 (109th). H.R. 5476 calls for the withholding of U.S. funds from the
Council. It was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns on May 24, 2006, and
referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
H.Amdt. 1154 to H.R. 5672 (109th). H.Amdt. 1154 proposes prohibiting
funds from the administration and operation of the Council while countries
designated as states sponsors of terrorism are Council members.98 It was introduced
by Representative Michael McCaul on June 28, 2006, and agreed to by a voice vote.
97 Representative Christopher Smith opposed this resolution, stating that despite his own
disappointment with the Council, “the United States cannot isolate itself from international
human rights mechanisms... We must now make every effort to influence the
implementation of the Council.” The statement is available at [http://www.house.gov/list/
press/nj04_smith/prUNHRCSENRES.html].
98 Currently, Cuba is the only Council member designated by the Secretary of State as a
state sponsor of terrorism. The 2006 membership of the Commission on Human Rights had
three members identified as State Sponsors of Terrorism: Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan.

---

CRS-23
Table 1. Human Rights Council Membership by Regional Group
LATIN AMERICAN &
WESTERN EUROPEAN &
AFRICAN STATES (13)
CARIBBEAN STATES (8)
OTHER STATES (7)
Algeria - 2007**
Nigeria - 2009
Argentina - 2007
Canada - 2009
Cameroon - 2009
Senegal - 2009
Brazil - 2008
Finland - 2007
Djibouti - 2009
South Africa - 2007
Cuba - 2009
France - 2008
Gabon - 2008
Tunisia - 2007
Ecuador - 2007
Germany - 2009
Ghana - 2008
Zambia - 2008
Guatemala - 2008
Netherlands - 2007
Mali - 2008
Mexico - 2009
Switzerland - 2009
Mauritius - 2009
Peru - 2008
United Kingdom - 2008
Morocco - 2007
Uruguay - 2009
EASTERN EUROPEAN
ASIAN STATES (13)
STATES (6)
Bahrain - 2007
Malaysia - 2009
Azerbaijan - 2009
Bangladesh - 2009
Pakistan - 2008
Czech Republic - 2007
China - 2009
Philippines - 2007
Poland - 2007
India - 2007
Republic of Korea - 2008
Romania - 2008
Indonesia - 2007
Saudi Arabia - 2009
Russian Federation - 2009
Japan - 2008
Sri Lanka - 2008
Ukraine - 2008
Jordan - 2009
Note: Council membership is staggered by year. Members elected in the first elections drew lots to
determine when their term would end. All Council members are eligible for reelection for a full
second term.
crsphpgw
* Dates represent year of term end.

---