Order Code RL33608
The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues
for Congress
Updated September 18, 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 would not run for a seat in the second Council elections 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 five regular sessions and four
special sessions. The regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human
rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. Three of the four special sessions
addressed the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories 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 are disappointed with some aspects of the Council’s work during its first year.
Some NGOs and governments, including the United States, are particularly
concerned 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, for example, 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 enters its second year 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
Status Within U.N. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Rules of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Universal Periodic Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Special Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Complaint Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Human Rights Council Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overview of the Council’s First Year of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the
Secretary-General’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Second Council Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recent Council Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
First Regular Session (June 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Second Regular Session (September 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Third Regular Session (December 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fourth Regular Session (March 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fifth Regular Session (June 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Special Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Policy Towards the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Decisions Not to Run for a Council Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Congressional Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
U.S. Response to the Council’s First Year of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Future U.S. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Response from Organizations and Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Reaction from Human Rights Groups and Other Organizations . . . . . 21
Response to the Council’s First Year of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Reaction from Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Congressional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
U.S. Funding of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Impact of Observer Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Inquiry of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
while Countering Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights
of Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Legislation Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. Human Rights Council Membership by Regional Group . . . . . . . . . . . 29
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 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.
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 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.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 that 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
Sections 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 of this report).
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. (See
“Universal Period Review” section for 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 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:
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/Issues/reform.html].
15 See “Legislation Appendix” for a full list of legislation proposed in the 110th Congresses.
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
! 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
On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a resolution entitled “Institution-
Building of the United Nations Human Rights Council” that addressed many crucial
details related to the work of the Council, including its mechanisms, procedures,
framework, and system of universal periodic review.18 Some aspects of the Council’s
work, however, will continue 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 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.19
Membership. The Council is composed of 47 members apportioned by
geographic region as follows: 13 from African states; 13 from Asian states; six from
17 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March
15, 2006.
18 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, at
[http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/5session/a_hrc_5_l11.doc].
19 “‘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
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 Council, the Commission created a formula to ensure equitable
distribution of seats by region.20
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. See Table 1 for a list of members
grouped by region and duration of membership. The next election will be held in
May or June of 2008, and 15 of the 47 Council seats will be open.
Structure. The Council holds an organizational meeting at the beginning of
each Council year. At the meeting, members elect a president from among Bureau
members for a one-year term. The president presides over the election of four vice-
presidents representing other regional groups in the Council.21 The president and
vice-presidents form the Council Bureau, which is responsible for all procedural and
organizational matters related to the Council. The current president is Ambassador
Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Under the Commission, the role of president was
held by a chairperson.
Meetings. The Council is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and meets
for three or more sessions per year for ten 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
20 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 Guillermo Valles Galmes of Uruguay, Mohamed-Siad
Doualeh of Djibouti, Daya Jayathilake of Sri Lanka, and Van Eenennaaam of the
Netherlands.
CRS-7
Human rights met in Geneva once a year for approximately six weeks, and since
1990 special sessions were held on request.22
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.”23 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.24 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.25 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 observer 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
working group and the country under review. It is conducted by a UPR working
group composed of the 47 Council members and chaired by the Council President.
The first UPR cycle will last 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. All Council members will undergo a review during the
term of their membership, and initial members (those with one- and two-year terms)
will be reviewed first.
UPR is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and 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 Human Rights and relevant stakeholders,
such as NGOs and national human rights institutions. During the first review cycle,
22 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). More information on these
sessions is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special-sessions.htm].
23 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].
24 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/docs/gaA.520.Rev.15_En.pdf].
25 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].
CRS-8
the UPR working group will make initial recommendations, and subsequent reviews
may focus on the implementation of recommendations from the previous review.
The full Council will address 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.
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.26 Similar to the
Commission, the special rapporteurs serve in an independent, personal capacity and
conduct in-depth 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.27
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.28 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.
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
26 For more information on Council special procedures, see [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/chr/special/index.htm].
27 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.
28 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, p. 19-24. Also see [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
chr/complaints.htm].
CRS-9
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.29 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.30
Overview of the Council’s First Year of Work
Since it was established in March 2006, the Council has held five regular
sessions and four special sessions. The regular sessions dealt with a mixture of
procedural and substantive issues, with a focus on improving working methods of the
Council. The special sessions included three sessions on human rights violations in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon, and one session addressing the
human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan.
During its first year the Council has faced considerable criticism from
governments, NGOs, and other observers:
! 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)31 held 17 seats on
the Council — accounting for about one-third of the votes needed
to call a special session.32 Some observers believe that consequently
the Council held more special sessions on Israel than on any other
country.
! 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
29 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, p. 15-18.
30 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].
31 The OIC is an intergovernmental group composed of 57 states with a goal of combining
their efforts and resources to “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/].
32 After the second elections, OIC members currently occupy 15 of 47 Council seats. This
includes a majority in both the African and Asian regional groups, which together account
for over half of the Council membership.
CRS-10
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.33 To date, the Council
has addressed only human rights issues related to Sudan and Israel.
Some observers have speculated that pro-democracy Council
members are not pushing their initiatives as they have in the past
because they need support from other Council members, particularly
the Non-Aligned Movement, in negotiations on Council structure
and mechanisms.34
Alternately, some observers maintain that the Council can still change its current
course and improve during its second year. They emphasize that the Council has yet
to 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. 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 last
election. Finally, proponents highlight the Council’s recent adoption of a resolution
on the human rights situation in Sudan as an example of the Council’s success and
continued improvement — noting that it is the only country-specific resolution to be
adopted by consensus.
Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the
Secretary-General’s Response. In the institution-building text adopted on June
18, 2007, 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.”35 Council members also terminated the mandates of the
33 “Human Rights Hoax,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007.
34 “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.
35 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.
CRS-11
special rapporteur for Belarus and Cuba.36 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.37
At the conclusion of the Council’s fifth regular session in Geneva in June 2007,
a U.N. spokesperson noted Secretary-General Ban’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.”38 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 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.”39 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for
universal 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.”40
Second Council Election. On May 17, 2007, the General Assembly elected
14 new Council members in the second Council elections. Reelected members
include India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Philippines, and South Africa. Newly elected
members are Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Egypt, Italy, Madagascar,
Nicaragua, Qatar, and Slovenia. India and Indonesia received the highest number
of votes, earning 185 and 182 votes, respectively. With two exceptions (the Eastern
European group and Western European and Others group), regional groups
nominated the same number of countries as there were seats available.41 In the weeks
36 See footnote 35. 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).
37 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.
38 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].
39 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].
40 U.N. press release, SG/SM/11053, HRC/8, June 20, 2007.
41 Member States that announced their candidacies in the second election include Angola,
Egypt, Madagascar, and South Africa from the African group (four seats available); India,
Indonesia, Philippines, and Qatar in the Asian group (four seats available); Belarus, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and Slovenia in the Eastern European group (two seats available); Bolivia
(continued...)
CRS-12
leading up to the election, the Eastern European group nominated only two states,
Belarus and Slovenia, for two available seats. Many Council members and observers
were concerned that Belarus, a widely perceived human rights abuser, would be
elected to the Council. Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others
reportedly mounted a successful lobbying effort to encourage the last-minute
candidacy and election of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Recent Council Sessions
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.42 Countries also
discussed special procedures, reviewed the mandates and mechanisms inherited from
the Commission, and renewed several working group mandates.43 Members also:
! agreed to a one-year extension for all Council and Sub-Commission
mandates, mechanisms, functions, and responsibilities previously
under the Commission;
! established and make recommendations on these existing mandates,
mechanisms, functions, and responsibilities inherited from the
Commission; and
! established open-ended Working Groups to review 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 Palestinian Territories. Pakistan, on behalf of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), introduced a resolution requesting
41 (...continued)
and Nicaragua in the Latin American and Caribbean group (two seats available); and
Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands in the Western European and Other group (two seats
available).
42 “Human Rights Council concludes first session,” U.N. Media Centre, June 30, 2006.
43 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-13
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.44
Second Regular Session (September 2006). The Council held its
second regular session in Geneva, Switzerland from September 18 to October 6 and
November 27 to 29, 2006. The Council adopted 18 texts that, among other things:
! 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.45
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
Territories, Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan. It also heard statements from special
rapporteurs tasked with examining possible Israeli human rights abuses in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon. The Council held a series of 1503
procedure meetings (when specific human rights violations are discussed and
considered by Council members behind closed doors)46 for Iran, Kyrgystan, and
Uzbekistan. Members determined that the 1503 procedure for Kyrgystan should be
discontinued.
Third Regular Session (December 2006). The Council held its third
regular session in Geneva from November 29 to December 8, 2006.47 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
44 The Council adopted the resolution with a vote of 29 in favor, 12 against, and 5
abstentions.
45 The report of the second regular session is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/2session/].
46 For more information on 1503 procedures, see [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
chr/complaints.htm].
47 The report of the third regular session is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/3session/].
CRS-14
there are equally grave or even graver violations.”48 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;49
! 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; and
! calling for the “speedy implementation” of an urgent fact-finding
mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as directed by a
previous Council resolution.50
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.
Fourth Regular Session (March 2007). The Council held its fourth
regular session in Geneva from March 12 to 30, 2007. Members adopted 10
resolutions and four decisions. Participants heard progress reports from the
Council’s intergovernmental working groups on Universal Periodic Review and on
the Review of Mandates. Members also adopted a resolution expressing concern
with the human rights situation in Darfur. The resolution establishes a group, led by
the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Sudan, to work with the government of Sudan
and the African Union to ensure effective follow-up and implementation of Council
resolutions and recommendations related to Darfur.51 Council members also decided
to discontinue consideration of human rights situations in Iran and Uzbekistan under
resolution 1503 procedures. Council members also:
! adopted a resolution on the Occupied Palestinian Territories that
noted with regret that Israel had not implemented previous Council
resolutions and hindered the work of urgent fact-finding missions,
and called for the implementation of the resolutions;
48 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.
49 The Working Group held its first session during the week of January 15, 2007, and was
chaired by Council President De Alba.
50 See U.N. document A/HRC/2/L.13, October 2, 2006.
51 For more information on the fourth regular session, see U.N. press release, “Human
Rights Council Concludes Fourth Session,” March 30, 2007, available at
[http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm].
CRS-15
! adopted a resolution on the right to development to ensure that the
Council’s agenda “promotes and advances sustainable development
and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;”52 and
! decided to request the Secretary-General to seek the views of
member states on the “implications and negative effects of unilateral
coercive measures on their populations.”53
Fifth Regular Session (June 2007). The Council held its fifth regular
session in Geneva, Switzerland, from June 11 to 18, 2007. Members considered
thematic reports on the right to food and the independence of judges and lawyers, as
well as country reports on Belarus, Cuba, Cambodia, Haiti, and Somalia.54 Council
members also adopted an institution-building text and three additional resolutions.
The resolutions (1) welcomed the report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNHCHR) on the follow-up report of the Commission of Inquiry on
Lebanon and urged the UNHCHR to support Lebanon’s activities and programs that
are consistent with the report; (2) called for the implementation of previous Council
resolutions on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and
requested the President of the Council and the UNHCHR to report on the
implementation at the next session; and (3) welcomed the report of the U.N. Experts
Group on Darfur and requested the group to continue its work for six months and to
report to the Council at its next session. The Council’s sixth regular session will be
held in Geneva from September 12 to 28, 2007.
Special Sessions. During its first year the Council held four special
sessions.
First Special Session (July 2006). The first special session on the Human
Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was held on July 5, 2006 in
Geneva. The Council adopted a resolution demanding that Israel end its military
operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and, among other things, “refrain
from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”55 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 Territories to examine potential Israeli human rights abuses.56 To
date, the special rapporteurs have not been dispatched.57
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 For more information on the fifth regular session, see U.N. press release, “Human Rights
Council Adopts Three Resolutions on Lebanon, Occupied Palestinian Territory, and
Darfur,” June 20, 2007.
55 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-1/L.1/Rev.1, July 18, 2006.
56 More information on the first special session can be found at [http://www.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/index.htm].
57 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
(continued...)
CRS-16
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
used,” and the “extent and deadly impact” of the attacks, and report to the Council.58
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.59
Third Special Session (November 2006). The Council held a third
special session on Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
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.”60 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.61 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.62
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
57 (...continued)
Occupied Territory, and calling for the “speedy implementation” of their mission.
58 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].
59 Drawn from country statements in United Nations Press Release, “Council Strongly
Condemns Grave Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Lebanon,” August 11, 2006.
60 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-3/L.1, November 14, 2006.
61 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].
62 U.N. document, Human Rights Council. Decision S-4/101, December 13, 2006 [advanced
edited version].
CRS-17
were relatively satisfied that the Council was able to come to consensus given the
importance and urgency of the issue.63
U.S. Policy Towards the Council
Overview. Overall, the United States supports the mission of the Council.64
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.65
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. Decisions 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
63 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.
64 Remarks on the Human Rights Council Elections by Kristen Silverberg, Assistant
Secretary for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, May 17, 2006.
65 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.
CRS-18
resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run.”66 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
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.67 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,”68 it was pleased that countries like
Iran and Venezuela were not elected.69
On March 6, 2007, the Administration announced that the United States 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.70 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.”71 Similarly, Lantos called the
U.S. decision not to run in the second Council election an “act of unparalleled
defeatism.”72 Representative Henry Hyde, former Chairperson of the House
66 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6,
2006.
67 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.
68 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/].
69 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 11,
2006.
70 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March
6, 2007.
71 Warren Hoge, “U.S. Won’t See a Seat on the U.N. Rights Council, The New York Times,
April 6, 2006, p. 6.
72 Press Release, Office of Representative Tom Lantos, “Lantos Blasts Administration
(continued...)
CRS-19
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.”73
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 the
United States joining the Council “undermines our own credibility and confers
unwarranted legitimacy on this new body.”74 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 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.”75
U.S. Response to the Council’s First Year of Work. The United States
has been “heavily involved,” and “participated actively,” in Council sessions despite
its non-member status.76 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.77
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.78
The Administration is 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
72 (...continued)
Decision Not to Take Part in United Nations Human Rights Council,” March 6, 2007.
73 Colum Lynch, “U.S. Will Not Join U.N. Rights Council,” The Washington Post, April 7,
2006, p. A16.
74 Column Lynch, “U.S. Will Not Join U.N. Rights Council,” The Washington Post, April
7, 2006, p. A16. For further letter excerpts, see [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=318].
75 “Ross-Lehtinen Comments on U.S. Decision Not to Seek Membership on U.N. Human
Rights Council,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Press Release, March 6, 2007.
76 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.
77 Testimony by Deputy Assistant Secretary Erica Barks-Ruggles, House International
Relations Committee hearing, “U.N. Human Rights Council: Reform or Regression,”
September 6, 2006.
78 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.
CRS-20
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.79 In the case of the
third special session held on Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories, 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.”80 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.81
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 related spreading
violence in Chad and the Central African Republic.82
The United States was pleased with the outcome of the second Council elections
in May 2007. It strongly opposed the candidacy of Belarus, a country with a
questionable human rights record, and was encouraged by the election of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.83 U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad stated that Bosnia’s election
“bodes well for the reform for the Human Right Council ... and should be helpful in
our [the United States’] deliberation on the future of our role vis-à-vis the Council.”84
The Administration was also disappointed with the Council’s new institution-
building package in June 2007, calling it “seriously flawed.”85 It expressed serious
concern with the Council’s decision to end the mandates of the U.N. special
rapporteurs for Cuba and Belarus, countries that are widely believed to violate human
rights. The United States also opposed the Council’s decision to establish a
permanent agenda item for the human rights situation in the Occupied Arab and
Palestinian Territories.
79 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.
80 Statement of the United States at the Third Special Session of the U.N. Human Rights
Council, November 15, 2006.
81 Ibid.
82 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.
83 Press statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 15,
2006.
84 Remarks by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad at the General Assembly Stakeout, U.S.
Mission to the United Nations Press Release, May 17, 2007.
85 Statement by Sean McCormack, State Department Spokesperson, June 19, 2007.
CRS-21
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.86 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.87 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 discourage some countries from running, several perceived
human rights abusers ran for seats and were elected to the Council in the first
elections.88 Some groups are also concerned about the increase in frequency of the
Council meetings. While they support the increase and believe it will make the
Council more effective, they worry that smaller NGOs and human rights groups
could have a difficult time obtaining funds to attend these meetings.89 Another
common concern expressed by some groups is whether NGOs will continue to be
active participants in the Council process.90
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
is an early indicator of the Council’s success.91 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
86 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.
87 Ibid.
88 Human Rights Watch stated that seven of the 65 members running for a Council seat in
the 2006 Council elections 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.
89 Frederic Burnand, “Geneva NGOs Brace for New U.N. Rights Body,” Swiss Info, March
23, 2006.
90 “Briefing Paper on Asian Candidates to the New Human Rights Council Membership,”
FORUM-ASIA, May 8, 2006, p. 3.
91 Edith M. Lederer, “Groups Hail New U.N. Human Rights Council,” Associated Press,
May 8, 2006.
CRS-22
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. 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 are surprised and disappointed with the U.S. vote against the General
Assembly resolution creating the Council.92 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 was most important because the procedures and future work were
established during that time.93
Response to the Council’s First Year of Work. 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 Territories, it did not pass any decisions or resolutions on these
situations.94 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.”95 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 the government of Sudan for its role in the crisis. Some
observers note that the language in the resolution was relatively weak when
compared to previous country-specific resolutions adopted by the Commission. U.N.
Watch calls the resolution a “soft approach” and emphasizes that it does not include
the word “violation.”96 Others contend that the text had to be watered-down in order
to achieve consensus among Council members.
Many organizations are concerned with the human rights records of some of the
countries that were elected to the Council during the second election in May 2007 —
92 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].
93 Maggie Farley, “U.S. Won’t Seek Seat on U.N. Rights Panel,” Los Angeles Times, April
7, 2006, p. 22.
94 “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.
95 “First Session of the Human Rights Council: A Step in the Right Direction,” Amnesty
International Public Statement, July 3, 2006.
96 “Human Rights Council Darfur Resolution Falls Short,” U.N. Watch Press Release,
December 13, 2006.
CRS-23
particularly Angola, Egypt, and Qatar.97 Some organizations are also worried that the
General Assembly could not select among competing candidates in each regional
group because, in all but two cases, regional groups nominated the same number of
countries as there are seats available.98
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.99 Overall,
however, 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.100 Most countries agree that the resolution
creating the Council is a fair compromise, and that the true worth of the Council will
be determined through its work
Some governments were disappointed with the U.S. decision to vote against the
resolution creating the Council.101 The United Kingdom and other European Union
members actively lobbied the United States to support the resolution.102 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.103 Some governments attempted to link the U.S. decision not to run
97 “Evaluation of 2007-2010 U.N. Human Rights Council Candidates: Joint Analysis by
U.N. Watch and Freedom House,” May 7, 2007.
98 Joint NGOs Letter to the President of the U.N. General Assembly regarding the U.N.
Human Rights Council Elections, from: Amnesty International, the Carter Center,
Democracy Coalition Project, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Global Policy, Open
Society Institute, World Federation of United Nations Associations, and International
Service for Human Rights. The letter is available at [http://www.ishr.ch/lca/statements
_council/otherngos/JointNGOLetter_Elections.pdf].
99 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.
100 Ibid.
101 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.
102 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.”
103 Press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006.
CRS-24
with its alleged human rights abuses toward detainees in the Guantanamo Naval Base
in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.104
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.105 The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that under current law U.S. contributions to
the Human Rights Council for 2008 and 2009 will be approximately $1.5 million per
year.106
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.107 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
the state to submit proposals that can be put forward for vote at the request of any
Council member.108 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
104 U.N. document A/60/704, “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba,”
February 28, 2006.
105 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.
106 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].
107 As an observer state, the United States may attend and speak at the proceedings of the
Universal Periodic Review working group and the Human Rights Council Advisory
Committee.
108 Rules of Procedure of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, part XII, rules 1-3.
CRS-25
Human Rights for the first time in the Commission’s history (previously it was a
member with full voting rights). It was subsequently elected 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.”109 The report was written by five independent
rapporteurs appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.110
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.111 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 were not permitted to 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
of that war and related detention operations.”112 The Administration maintains that
detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated “humanely,” and that potential human rights
violations are and have been thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.113 On
July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new capacity as Council
109 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006.
110 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.
111 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.
112 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006.
113 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006.
CRS-26
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),114
and other relevant agencies and organizations to “collaborate actively, constructively,
and urgently with the United States,” to ensure the closure of the detention center.115
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.116 In December 2006, the
Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States to discuss his concerns.117
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.”118
Scheinin visited the United States from May 16 to 25, 2007.119 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.120 Scheinin emphasized, however, that he does not
consider the U.S. fight against terrorism to be a “war” — though he recognizes that
114 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].
115 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with
Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006.
116 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act
may violate U.S. obligations under international human rights law.
117 U.N. Press Release, “United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human
Rights and Counter-terrorism,” January 16, 2007.
118 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.
119 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]
120 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.
CRS-27
the United States views itself as “engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the
Taliban.”121 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.”122 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, are in
violation of international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.123 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 eliminate important legal mechanisms that protect individual rights. Scheinin
is expected to present a full report on his findings to the Human Rights Council at a
future session.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad disagreed with
Scheinin’s findings, stating, “We have a different point of view.”124 Khalilzad
emphasized that the United States is following 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.”125
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 the United States from April 30 to May 17, 2007.126 He visited
the Arizona and California borders to observe U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement operations. He also met with migrants in Florida, New
York, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and visited the Florence Detention Center in
Florence, Arizona, to observe the living conditions of migrant detainees.
Bustamante’s preliminary findings highlight (1) the lack of a centralized system for
tracking information on detained migrants, (2) the lack of representation for migrants
being deported (many of whom are often forced to represent themselves in judicial
121 Ibid.
122 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.”
123 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 September
8, 1992. As of April 19, 2007, 160 countries are party to the Covenant. The text of the
Covenant is available at [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm].
124 Evelyn Leopold, “U.N. Expert Faults U.S. on Human Rights in Terror Laws,” The
Washington Post, May 26, 2007.
125 Ibid.
126 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/].
CRS-28
proceedings), and (3) poor working and living conditions for migrants affected by
Hurricane Katrina.127
In addition, Bustamante recommends 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.128 Bustamante is expected to present a full report on his
findings to the Human Rights Council at a future session.
Legislation Appendix
An overview of proposed legislation related to the funding and reform of the
Human Rights Council in the 110th Congress follows:
110th Congress
S. 1698, the Human Rights Council Reform Act of 2007, directs that “no funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act for contributions for
international organizations may be made available to support the United Nations
Human Rights Council.” The bill was introduced by Senator Norm Coleman on June
26, 2007, and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on July 25, 2007.
H.R. 225 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 on January 4,
2007, by Representative Cliff Stearns, and was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
H.Amdt. 379 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, prohibits “availability of funds for use
by the Department of State as a contribution for the United Nations Human Rights
Council.” The amendment was offered on June 21, 2007, by Representative Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, and was agreed to by a voice vote. H.R. 2764 was placed on the
Senate legislative calendar on July 10, 2007.
S.Amdt.2712 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, prohibits U.S. contributions to support
the Human Rights Council unless (1) “the President determines and certifies ... that
the provision of funds to support the United Nations Human Rights Council is in the
127 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.
128 Ibid.
CRS-29
national interest of the United States;” or (2) the United States is a member of the
Council. The amendment was introduced by Senator Norm Coleman, and agreed to
by unanimous consent on September 6, 2007.
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 referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Table 1. Human Rights Council Membership by Regional Group
LATIN AMERICAN &
WESTERN EUROPEAN &
AFRICAN STATES (13)
CARIBBEAN STATES (8)
OTHER STATES (7)
Angola - 2010*
Mauritius - 2009
Bolivia - 2010
Canada - 2009
Cameroon - 2009
Nigeria - 2009
Brazil - 2008
France - 2008
Djibouti - 2009
Senegal - 2009
Cuba - 2009
Germany - 2009
Egypt - 2010
South Africa - 2010
Guatemala - 2008
Italy - 2010
Gabon - 2008
Zambia - 2008
Mexico - 2009
Netherlands - 2010
Ghana - 2008
Nicaragua - 2010
Switzerland - 2009
Madagascar - 2010
Peru - 2008
United Kingdom - 2008
Mali - 2008
Uruguay - 2009
EASTERN EUROPEAN
ASIAN STATES (13)
STATES (6)
Bangladesh - 2009
Pakistan - 2008
Azerbaijan - 2009
China - 2009
Philippines - 2010
Bosnia & Herzegovina - 2010
India - 2010
Qatar - 2010
Romania - 2008
Indonesia - 2010
Republic of Korea - 2008
Russian Federation - 2009
Japan - 2008
Saudi Arabia - 2009
Slovenia - 2010
Jordan - 2009
Sri Lanka - 2008
Ukraine - 2008
Malaysia - 2009
Note: Council membership is staggered by year. All Council members are eligible for reelection for
a full second term.
* Dates represent year of term end.