Order Code RL33608
The United Nations Human Rights Council:
Issues for Congress
Updated July 31, 2008
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in International Relations
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.” The Administration initially
stated that it would fund and support the work of the Council. During the Council’s
first two years, however, the United States expressed concern with the Council’s
focus on Israel and lack of attention to other human rights situations. On April 8,
2008, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad,
stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008
U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council
budget. On June 6, 2008, the Administration further announced that the United
States would engage with the Council “only in matters of deep national interest.” The
United States has not run for a seat in any of the three Council elections and is
currently a Council observer with no voting rights.
Since its establishment, the Council has held eight regular sessions and seven
special sessions. The regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human
rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. Four of the seven special sessions
addressed the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in
Lebanon. Other Special Sessions have addressed the human rights situation in
Darfur, Sudan (December 2006), the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma)
(October 2007), and the right to food and the world food crisis (May 2008).
Congress maintains an ongoing interest in the credibility and effectiveness of
the Council in the context of both human rights and broader U.N. reform. In
Divisions J, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriation Act, 2008, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-
161), for example, Congress prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human
Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on
Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United
States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Council. 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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The U.N. Human Rights Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Mandate and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Structure and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Status Within U.N. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Rules of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Universal Periodic Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Special Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Complaint Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Human Rights Council Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Overview of the Council’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Criticism and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the
Secretary-General’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Second Council Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Third Council Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Recent Council Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Seventh Regular Session (March 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eighth Regular Session (June 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Special Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
U.S. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
U.S. Response to the Establishment of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Decisions Not to Run for a Council Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
U.S. Withholding of Council Funding (April 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
U.S. Decision to Disengage from the Council (June 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Previous U.S. Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Future U.S. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Response from Organizations and Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Human Rights Groups and Other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Response to the Council’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Congressional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
U.S. Funding of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Impact of Observer Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Inquiry of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
while Countering Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights
of Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Enacted or Passed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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 Navanethem Pillay of South Africa.8 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
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 Pillay’s appointment was confirmed by consensus on July 28, 2008. Her term will begin
on September 1, 2008, and she will succeed the previous High Commissioner, Louise
Arbour of Canada. Pillay is the fifth U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights since the
office was established 15 years ago. The OHCHR has just under 1,000 staff working in 50
countries with a budget of approximately $150 million.

CRS-3
rights abuses of countries such as Cuba and China.9 In addition, Congress receives
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the Secretary of State as
mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.10 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.11 The Rapporteur reported that
economic status, ethnicity, and racial discrimination were indicators for death penalty
verdicts, reportedly prompting then-Senator Jesse Helms to declare the Special
Rapporteur’s mission “an absurd U.N. charade.”12
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.13 The Administration, however, stated it would not link U.S. payment
of U.N. dues and arrears to the outcome of the Commission elections.14 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.
9 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
resolution condemning the Cuban government for its human rights abuses.
10 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.
11 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.
12 Elizabeth Olson, “U.N. Report Criticizes U.S. for “Racist” Use of Death Penalty,” The
New York Times
, April 7, 1998.
13 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).
14 Press Conference of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May
11, 2001.

CRS-4
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
work of the United Nations. In September 2005, heads of state and other high-level
officials met for the World Summit at U.N. Headquarters in New York to address
issues of development, security, human rights, and reform. The Summit Outcome
document listed several mandates for “Strengthening the United Nations,” including
reform of the U.N. Security Council, management structure, and human rights
bodies. In particular, the Outcome document mandated the creation of a new Council
as part of broader U.N. reform.
The United States also viewed the Council as a critical element of overall U.N.
reform. The Bush Administration identified the establishment of a new Council as
a key reform priority necessary to achieve a “strong, effective, and accountable
organization.”15 Congress also identified U.N. human rights reform as a significant
component of overall U.N. reform. Recent proposed legislation has linked payment
of U.N. assessed dues with the fulfillment of specific reforms, including those
involving human rights.16
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.17 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.
15 “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].
16 See Appendix A for more information.
17 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
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:
! 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.18
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.19 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
18 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March
15, 2006.
19 During its first year, the Council established four working groups (WGs) to address its
working methods: (1) WG to Develop the Modalities of Universal Periodic Review; (2) WG
on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates on the Future System of Expert Advice; (3)
WG on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates and Special Procedures; and (4) WG on
the Agenda, Annual Program of Work, Working Methods, and Rules of Procedures. WG
members met throughout the year to negotiate and recommend Council procedures and
mechanisms. Based on the recommendations, then-Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba
proposed a draft institution-building text that was subsequently negotiated and adopted by
Council members in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 (June 18, 2007). See U.N.
document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the
Human Rights Council
, June 18, 2007.

CRS-6
become a principal organ of the United Nations in the same vein as the Security
Council or Secretariat.20
Membership. The Council is composed of 47 members apportioned by
geographic region as follows: 13 from African states; 13 from Asian states; six from
Eastern Europe states; eight from Latin America and the Caribbean states; and seven
from Western European and other states. Members are elected for a period of three
years and may not hold a Council seat for more than two consecutive terms. If a
Council member commits “gross and systematic violations of human rights,” the
General Assembly may suspend membership with a two-thirds vote of members
present. For comparison, the Commission was composed of 53 member states
elected by members of the ECOSOC. Countries served three year terms with no term
limits. Like the Council, the Commission created a formula to ensure equitable
distribution of seats by region.21
Elections. All U.N. member states are eligible to run for election to the
Council. Countries are elected through secret ballot by the General Assembly with
an absolute majority (97 out of 192 votes). When voting, the resolution instructs
countries to consider “the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection
of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments.” A country
submitting its name for election must affirm its commitment to human rights with a
written pledge.
A key difference between the Council and the Commission is the direct election
of Council members by the U.N. General Assembly. Under the Commission,
candidates were first nominated by their regional groups and then the nominees were
submitted for election by members of ECOSOC. Regional groups often sent the
same number of nominees to the election as there were seats available. This forced
some member states to cast votes for countries with questionable human rights
records in order to fill all regional group seats. The next election will be held in May
or June of 2009, and 18 of the 47 Council seats will be open. (See Appendix B for
a list of current members grouped by region and duration of membership.)
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.22 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
20 “‘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.
21 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.
22 Current Vice-Presidents are Elchin Amirbayov of Azerbaijan, Erlinda F. Basilio of the
Philippines, Alberto J. Dumont of Argentina, and Marius Grinius of Canada. Their term
will end on June 18, 2009.

CRS-7
Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria. 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
Human rights met in Geneva once a year for approximately six weeks, and since
1990 special sessions were held on request.23
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.”24 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.25 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.26 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 lasts four years, with Council members evaluating 48 states per
year during three two-week sessions (six weeks total). Observer states may attend
and speak at the working group, and relevant stakeholders (such as NGOs) may also
attend the meetings. All Council members will undergo a review during the term of
23 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).
24 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.
25 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at [http://www.un.org/ga/60/ga
_rules.html].
26 The Commission on Human Rights followed ECOSOC rules of procedure.

CRS-8
their membership, and initial members (those with one- and two-year terms) will be
reviewed first.27
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 review cycles,
which began in April 2008, the UPR working group makes initial recommendations,
with subsequent reviews focusing on the implementation of recommendations from
the previous review. The full Council also addresses any cases of consistent non-
cooperation with the review. After the first four-year UPR cycle is completed, the
Council will review the process to identify best practices and lessons learned. In
April and May 2008, the UPR working group completed its first and second review
sessions. The 16 countries scheduled for review in the third session in December
2008 are Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu,
United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Bahamas, Barbados, Israel,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, and Serbia.28
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.29 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.30
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
27 More information on UPR is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/
UPR/Pages/UPRmain.aspx].
28 A full UPR schedule is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/
Documents/uprlist.pdf].
29 For more information on Council special procedures, see [http://www2.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm].
30 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.

CRS-9
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.31 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
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.32 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.33
Overview of the Council’s Work
Since it was established in March 2006, the Council has held eight regular
sessions and seven 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 four sessions on human rights violations in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon, one session addressing the human
rights situation in Darfur, Sudan, one session addressing human rights in Myanmar
(Burma), and one session on the right to food and the world food crisis.
Criticism and Support. Since its establishment, 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,
31 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.
32 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. The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled from August 4 to 15 in
Geneva, Switzerland.
33 Additional information on the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights can be found at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm].

CRS-10
the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)34 held 17 seats on
the Council — accounting for about one-third of the votes needed
to call a special session.35 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
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.36 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.37
Alternately, some observers maintain that the Council can still change its current
course and improve. They emphasize that the Council has yet to fully implement
some of the mechanisms that differentiate it from the Commission — most notably
the universal periodic review process. Council supporters also maintain that the
composition of Council membership is a significant improvement over the
composition of Commission membership. They emphasize that the most egregious
human rights abusers did not attempt to run in Council elections because of the new
criteria. 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 resolutions
on the human rights situation in Sudan and Myanmar (Burma) as examples of the
Council’s continued improvement.
34 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/].
35 After the second elections, OIC members occupied 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. After the third election, OIC members accounted for 16
of 47 Council seats.
36 “Human Rights Hoax,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007.
37 “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.

CRS-11
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.”38 Council members also terminated the mandates of the
special rapporteur for Belarus and Cuba.39 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.40
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.”41 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.”42 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for
universal periodic review, calling them “strong and meaningful,” and noting that they
38 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.
39 See footnote 37. 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).
40 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.
41 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].
42 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].

CRS-12
“send a clear message that all countries will have their human rights record and
performance examined at regular intervals.”43
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.44 In the weeks
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.
Third Council Election. The third Human Rights Council elections were
held on May 21, 2008. Fifteen countries were elected, three of which will be serving
on the Council for the first time. Re-elected members include Argentina, Bahrain,
Brazil, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, and Zambia. The new Council members are Burkina Faso, Chile , and
Slovakia.45
Recent Council Sessions
Since its establishment, the Human Rights Council has held eight regular
sessions.46 Outcomes from the most recent sessions are discussed below.
Seventh Regular Session (March 2008). At its seventh regular session
held in Geneva from March 3 to 28, 2008, the Human Rights Council extended the
mandates of 13 Independent Experts and Special Rapporteurs for three years —
including those on the effects of foreign debt; human rights and international
solidarity; minority issues; human rights defenders; the sale of children; child
43 U.N. press release, SG/SM/11053, HRC/8, June 20, 2007.
44 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
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).
45 For more information on the third election, see [http://www.un.org/ga/62/elections/
hrc_elections.shtml].
46 A synopsis of the first four Human Rights Council regular sessions is available from the
author of this report.

CRS-13
prostitution and child pornography; and violence against women. It also extended
for one year the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs for the situation of human
rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar (Burma), and
Somalia, and renewed the mandates of the working groups on the use of mercenaries
as a means of violating human rights, and enforced and involuntary disappearances.
The Council also established the mandate of an Independent Expert on the issues of
human rights obligations related to access of safe drinking water and sanitation.
Council members did not renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council adopted 36 resolutions on a variety of issues, including the role of
good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights; human rights of
persons with disabilities; the right to food; human rights and extreme poverty;
protection of human rights while countering terrorism; and composition of the staff
of the Office of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The
Council adopted resolutions on human rights situations requiring the Council’s
attention — including the situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Sudan, Myanmar (Burma).47 Council members also adopted four resolutions
involving Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory that address (1) human rights
violations emanating from Israeli military attacks and incursions in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory; (2) the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; (3)
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and (4) human rights in the
occupied Syrian Golan.48
Eighth Regular Session (June 2008). At the Council’s eighth regular
session, held from June 2 to 18, 2008, members adopted 14 resolutions addressing
a range of issues.49 The resolutions extended the mandates of several Special
Rapporteurs for three years, including the Rapporteurs on extrajudicial summary or
arbitrary executions; right to education; independence of judges and lawyers; torture
and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and trafficking in
persons. Members also adopted the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review
process for 32 countries, and engaged in a number of general debates — including
a discussion of the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Palestinian
territories. In addition, Council members adopted a resolution on the elimination of
discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members.
47 For a synopsis of the resolutions, see U.N. press release, “Human Rights Council Adopts
36 Resolutions and Extends Mandates of 13 Special Procedures at Seventh Regular
Session,” March 28, 2008.
48 For a synopsis of the resolutions, see U.N. press release, “Human Rights Council Adopts
36 Resolutions and Extends Mandates of 13 Special Procedures at Seventh Regular
Session,” March 28, 2008. More information on the seventh regular session is available at
[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/7session/index.htm].
49 Council members also agreed to presidential statements on the Universal Periodic Review
Process and the extension of Special Procedure mandate holders. The texts are available at
[http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=10&se=77&t=13].

CRS-14
Council members also adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in
Myanmar (Burma).50 The resolution strongly urged the Myanmar government to
desist from politically related arrests and immediately release all political prisoners.
It also called on the government to stop the recruitment of child soldiers, and for full,
transparent, and independent investigations into reports of human rights violations.
The Council’s ninth regular session will be held from September 6 to 26, 2008, in
Geneva.51
Special Sessions. Since its establishment, the Council has held seven
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.”52 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.53 To
date, the special rapporteurs have not been dispatched.54
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.55
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
50 U.N. document, A/HRC/RES/8/14, June 18, 2008, available at
[http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_8_14.pdf].
51 More information on the eight regular session is available at
[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/8session/resolutions.htm].
52 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-1/L.1/Rev.1, July 18, 2006.
53 More information on the first special session can be found at [http://www.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/index.htm].
54 At its third regular session, held in Geneva from November 19 to December 8, 2006, the
Council adopted text regretting that the special rapporteurs had not yet been sent to the
Occupied Territory, and calling for the “speedy implementation” of their mission.
55 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].

CRS-15
it did not adequately address possible human right violations by Hezbollah against
Israel.56

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.”57 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.58 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.59
The text did not condemn Sudan for its human rights abuses, and some member
states felt the language should have been stronger. However, most member states
were relatively satisfied that the Council was able to come to consensus given the
importance and urgency of the issue.60
Fifth Special Session (October 2007).61 The Council held its fifth special
session on the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma) on October 2, 2007.
Council members adopted a resolution by consensus that “strongly deplores the
continued violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar.”62 The
resolution also urges the government to exercise restraint and to desist from violence
against peaceful protestors. Moreover, Council members urged the Myanmar
56 Drawn from country statements in U.N. Press Release, “Council Strongly Condemns
Grave Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Lebanon,” August 11, 2006.
57 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-3/L.1, November 14, 2006.
58 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].
59 U.N. document, Human Rights Council. Decision S-4/101, December 13, 2006 [advanced
edited version].
60 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.
61 For more information on the Council’s fifth special session, see
[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/5/index.htm].
62 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-5/2, November 28, 2007, p. 3.

CRS-16
government to immediately release those who were arrested for peaceful protests, as
well as all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.63 In the resolution,
Council members also requested that the Council’s Special Rapporteur on the human
rights situation in Myanmar monitor and report on the current situation at the
Council’s Sixth regular session.64
Sixth Special Session. The Council held its sixth special session on
“violations stemming from Israeli Incursions in Occupied Palestinian Territory”on
January 24, 2008. Council members adopted a resolution that (1) expresses grave
concern with Israel’s repeated military attacks on the Occupied Territory, including
the Gaza Strip; (2) calls for urgent international action to end the grave violations;
(3) calls on Israel to lift its siege on the Gaza Strip and reopen border crossings; and
(4) requests the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council
on the implementation of the resolution at the next session.65
Seventh Special Session (May 2008). On May 22, 2008, the Council held
its seventh special session on the”negative impact on the realization of the right to
food of the worsening of the world food crisis, caused inter alia by the soaring food
prices.”66 Council members adopted a resolution on the issue, which expressed grave
concern at the worsening of the global food crisis, and called upon states and other
relevant stakeholders to take all necessary measures to ensure the realization of the
right to food as an essential human rights objective.67
U.S. Policy
During the Council’s first two years, the Administration was generally
disappointed with the work of the Council. A main point of concern was the
Council’s focus on Israeli human rights violations while it failed to address human
rights abuses in other parts of the world. The Administration maintained that the
legitimacy of the Council would be undermined if some Council members continue
to push such “imbalanced” views. It stated it does not object to discussing potential
Israeli human rights abuses as long as violations by other countries are also
63 For information on the situation in Myanmar, see CRS Report RL33479, Burma-U.S.
Relations
, by Larry A. Niksch.
64 More information on the work of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar is available at
[http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mmya.htm].
65 See U.N. Human Rights Council resolution S-/1, January 28, 2008. The resolution was
adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favor, one against, and 15 abstentions. Canada was the
only country to vote against the resolution. More information on the special session is
available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/6/index.htm].
66 The special session was called by Cuba, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement,
along with Egypt on behalf of the Africa group. More information on the session is
available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/7/index.htm].
67 See U.N. Human Rights Council resolution S-7/1, May 22, 2008, available at
[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/7thSpecial_Session
_Resolution.pdf].

CRS-17
discussed.68 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.”69 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.70
On April 8, 2008, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay
Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions
to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights
Council budget.71 On June 6, 2008, a State Department official announced that the
United States would engage with the Human Rights Council only when there was an
issue of “deep national interest.”72
U.S. Response to the Establishment of the Council
Overall, the United States supports the mission of the Council.73 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.74
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
68 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.
69 Statement of the United States at the Third Special Session of the U.N. Human Rights
Council, November 15, 2006.
70 Ibid.
71 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), “Statement by Zalmay
Khalilzad on the Durban II Conference and the Human Rights Council,” April 8, 2008,
available at [http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20080408_075.html].
72 Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, June
6, 2008, available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpd/2008/jun/105716.htm]. See
“Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding,” and “U.S. Withholding of Council
Funding (April2008)” sections for more information on these U.S. actions.
73 Remarks on the Human Rights Council Elections by Kristen Silverberg, Assistant
Secretary for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, May 17, 2006.
74 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
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 resolution creating the Council. They should have
the opportunity to run.”75 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.76 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,”77 it was pleased that countries like Iran and Venezuela were not elected.78
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
75 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6,
2006.
76 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.
77 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/].
78 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 11,
2006.

CRS-19
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.79 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. The United States did not run for a seat in the third
Council elections, held in May 2008.
Congressional response to the Administration’s decision not to run in the
Council elections was 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.”80 Lantos called the U.S. decision not to run in the second Council
election an “act of unparalleled defeatism.”81
At the same time, other Members of Congress were 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.”82 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.”83
79 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March
6, 2007.
80 Warren Hoge, “U.S. Won’t See a Seat on the U.N. Rights Council,” The New York Times,
April 6, 2006, p. 6.
81 Press Release, Office of Representative Tom Lantos, “Lantos Blasts Administration
Decision Not to Take Part in United Nations Human Rights Council,” March 6, 2007.
Representative Henry Hyde, former Chairperson of the House International Relations
Committee and a strong advocate of U.N. reform, also supported U.S. membership on the
Council. At a March 27, 2006, news conference at U.N. Headquarters, Representative Hyde
reportedly stated, “I think we should engage in the process.... It is the best that’s available
and you do what you can with what you have at hand.” (Colum Lynch, “U.S. Will Not Join
U.N. Rights Council,” The Washington Post, April 7, 2006, p. A16.)
82 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].
83 “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.

CRS-20
Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding
Some Members of Congress sought to limit U.S. contributions to the Human
Rights Council because of concerns over the Council’s work.84 On December 26,
2007, Congress agreed to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161), which included a provision on Human Rights Council funding.
Section 695 specified that “none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made
available for a United States contribution to the United Nations Human Rights
Council.” The provision specified that it shall not apply if (1) the Secretary of State
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the
national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the
Human Rights Council.
U.S. Withholding of Council Funding (April 2008)
In July 2007, the Administration stated that it remained committed to supporting
human rights in the multilateral system, though it was “deeply skeptical that the
U.N.’s Human Rights Council will, in the near future, play a constructive role in our
efforts.”85 The Administration also maintained that despite its concerns it will
continue to support U.S. funding of the Council.86 On April 8, 2008, however, U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that the
United States would withhold a portion of U.S. contributions to the 2008 U.N.
regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget.
Khalilzad stated that the Council “is less willing to take affirmative action, but is
more willing to focus on Israel-bashing exercises.”87
U.S. Decision to Disengage from the Council (June 2008)
On June 6, 2008, the State Department spokesperson announced that the United
States would engage with the Council “only when we [the United States] believe that
there are matters of deep national interest before the Council and we feel compelled;
84 For information on possible political and budget implications of withholding Council
funds, “U.S. Funding of the Council,” under the “Congressional Issues” section.
85 Moreover, the Administration stated that the primary responsibility for the Council’s
failures “lies with Member States, rather than the U.N. as an institution.” Remarks by
Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and
Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007.
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, and remarks
by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and
Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007.
87 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), “Statement by Zalmay
Khalilzad on the Durban II Conference and the Human Rights Council,” April 8, 2008,
available at [http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20080408_075.html].

CRS-21
otherwise, we are not going to.”88 According to the official, instead of focusing on
human rights situations around the world, the Council “turned into a forum that
seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel.” The official added that future
U.S. participation will be “ad hoc.”89
Previous U.S. Involvement
Prior to the June 6, 2008, announcement that it would disengage from the
Council, the United States was “actively involved” in the Council despite its non-
member status.90 Specifically, the U.S. delegation conferred with like-minded
Council members regarding “when to pursue condemnatory resolutions directed at
violating states,” and held various bilateral meetings on the subject.91 It also
submitted proposals on the universal periodic review process and mandate review for
consideration by the Council.92
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.93
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
88 Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, June
6, 2008, available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpd/2008/jun/105716.htm].
89 Ibid. The State Department official also stated, “Part of our strategy is to take a look at
any suggestions or thoughts we have to improve the performance of the Council. There’s a
five-year review period, and that review period is going to fall outside the term of this
Administration, but of course... we feel as stewards of the national interest, we are going to
think about ways that might improve the function of the Council.”
90 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg,
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007, available at
[http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070726p.html].
91 Testimony by Deputy Assistant Secretary Erica Barks-Ruggles, House International
Relations Committee hearing, “U.N. Human Rights Council: Reform or Regression,”
September 6, 2006.
92 The Administration had previously stated that it would continue to work cooperatively
with other like-minded countries in the upcoming sessions to ensure that the Council
“reverses course” and fulfills its purpose. 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.
93 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.

CRS-22
questionable human rights record, and was encouraged by the election of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.94 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.”95
The Administration was also disappointed with the Council’s new institution-
building package adopted in June 2007.96 It called the package “seriously flawed,”
and voted against its adoption.97 The Administration expressed 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.
Future U.S. Role

According to Administration officials, the United States continues to work with
other multilateral human rights mechanisms, such as the U.N. Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights and the General Assembly’s Third Committee
(Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).98 Congress remains interested in the work of
the Council both as a mechanism for addressing human rights abuses and as an
element of broader U.N. reform. Ultimately, future U.S. policy toward the Council
may depend on whether Congress and the Administration view the Council’s future
work as effective and credible.
Response from Organizations and Other
Governments
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
94 Press statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 15,
2006.
95 Remarks by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad at the General Assembly Stakeout, U.S.
Mission to the United Nations Press Release, May 17, 2007.
96 For more information, see “Explanation of Vote on the Human Rights Council Institution
Building Package,” remarks to the Third Committee by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad,
November 16, 2007.
97 Statement by Sean McCormack, State Department Spokesperson, June 19, 2007.
98 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg,
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007.

CRS-23
human rights abusers ran for seats and were elected to the Council in the first
elections.99 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.100 Another
common concern expressed by some groups is whether NGOs will continue to be
active participants in the Council process.101
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.102 Supporters also emphasize the
importance of the universal periodic review process, observing that since every
country is subject to periodic review, there may be less selectivity and targeting of
specific countries in resolutions. Some groups are pleased that Council members will
undergo a periodic review of their human rights record within their term of
membership. 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.103 Some 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.104
Response to the Council’s 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.105 Other
99 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.
100 Frederic Burnand, “Geneva NGOs Brace for New U.N. Rights Body,” Swiss Info, March
23, 2006.
101 “Briefing Paper on Asian Candidates to the New Human Rights Council Membership,”
FORUM-ASIA, May 8, 2006, p. 3.
102 Edith M. Lederer, “Groups Hail New U.N. Human Rights Council,” Associated Press,
May 8, 2006.
103 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].
104 Maggie Farley, “U.S. Won’t Seek Seat on U.N. Rights Panel,” Los Angeles Times, April
7, 2006, p. 22.
105 “Human Rights Watch Blasts New U.N. Rights Watchdog,” Reuters, October 6, 2006.
(continued...)

CRS-24
human rights groups gave the Council credit for some of its improvements, noting
that parts of the Council’s work represent “steps in the right direction.”106 However,
these groups also emphasized 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 regarded the Council’s fourth special session on Darfur
as a positive development, but some were disappointed that the Council did not go
far enough to condemn the government of Sudan for its role in the crisis. Some
observers noted that the language in the resolution was relatively weak when
compared to previous country-specific resolutions adopted by the Commission. U.N.
Watch calls the resolution a “soft approach” and emphasized that it does not include
the word “violation.”107 Others contended that the text had to be watered-down in
order to achieve consensus among Council members.
Many organizations were concerned with the human rights records of some of
the countries that were elected to the Council during the second election in May 2007
— particularly Angola, Egypt, and Qatar.108 Some organizations were 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.109
Some groups were dismayed with the U.S. government’s June 2008 decision to
disengage from the Council except in matters of national interest. A representative
for Human Rights Watch, an international NGO, stated, “The U.S. decision to walk
away from the Human Rights Council is counter-productive and short-sighted.
Whatever the Council’s problems, this decision is a victory for abusive states and a
betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide.”110 Amnesty International also
105 (...continued)
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.
106 “First Session of the Human Rights Council: A Step in the Right Direction,” Amnesty
International Public Statement, July 3, 2006.
107 “Human Rights Council Darfur Resolution Falls Short,” U.N. Watch Press Release,
December 13, 2006.
108 “Evaluation of 2007-2010 U.N. Human Rights Council Candidates: Joint Analysis by
U.N. Watch and Freedom House,” May 7, 2007.
109 Joint NGO 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].
110 “HRW Slams U.S. Over Disengagement from UN Rights Council,” The Hindu, June 7,
2008, and US: Leaving UN Rights Council Fails Victims of Abuse: US Failure to Engage
Added to Council’s Shortcomings,” June 6, 2008, available at
[http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19048.htm].

CRS-25
disagreed with the U.S. move, calling it an “aberration.”111 Other groups, however,
supported the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Council. The International
Organization Against Torture, viewed the move as a political gesture, stating, “The
U.S. has always clearly shown its opposition to the Council. This is a slightly more
public way of putting pressure on it in order to raise the stakes.”112
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.113 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.114 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.115 The United Kingdom and other European Union
members actively lobbied the United States to support the resolution.116 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.117 Some governments attempted to link the U.S. decision not to run
111 “U.S. Quits Human Rights Council?” Human Rights Tribune, June 6, 2008, available at
[http://www.humanright-geneva.info/US-quits-Human-Rights-Council,3184].
112 Ibid.
113 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.
114 Ibid.
115 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.
116 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.”
117 Press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006.

CRS-26
in the first election with its alleged human rights abuses toward detainees in the
Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.118
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.119 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.120
On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.110-161), which prohibits U.S.
contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in the
national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the
Council (Sec. 695).121 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.122
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.123 Under the ECOSOC rules of procedure for non-
118 U.N. document A/60/704, “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba,”
February 28, 2006.
119 For information on recent congressional efforts to limit U.S. contributions to the Human
Rights Council, see the “Congressional Reaction” section.
120 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.
121 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat.
1844).
122 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].
123 As an observer state, the United States may attend and speak at the proceedings of the
(continued...)

CRS-27
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.124 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, if the United States chose to participate in the
Council, it may have to rely on close collaboration and cooperation with like-minded
countries to further its human rights agenda. In 2002, the United States held observer
status on the Commission on Human Rights for the first time in the Commission’s
history (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.”125 The report was written by five independent
rapporteurs appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.126
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.127 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
123 (...continued)
UPR working group and the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.
124 Rules of Procedure of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, part XII, rules 1-3.
125 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006.
126 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.
127 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, was adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution 39/46
on December 10, 1984. The Convention entered into force on June 26, 1987, and the United
States became party to it on November 20, 1994.

CRS-28
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.”128 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.129 On
July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new capacity as Council
experts, renewed their call for the closing of the Guantanamo Detention Center.
They encouraged the United States to develop a timeline for closing the facility, and
urged U.N. member states, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),130
and other relevant agencies and organizations to “collaborate actively, constructively,
and urgently with the United States,” to ensure the closure of the detention center.131
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.132 In December 2006, the
Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States to discuss his concerns.133
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.”134
128 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006.
129 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006.
130 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].
131 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with
Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006.
132 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act
may violate U.S. obligations under international human rights law.
133 U.N. Press Release, “United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human
Rights and Counter-terrorism,” January 16, 2007.
134 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.

CRS-29
Scheinin visited the United States from May 16 to 25, 2007.135 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.136 Scheinin emphasized, however, that he does not
consider the U.S. fight against terrorism to be a “war” — though he recognizes that
the United States views itself as “engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the
Taliban.”137 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.”138 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.139 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.”140 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.”141
135 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]
136 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.
137 Ibid.
138 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.”
139 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].
140 Evelyn Leopold, “U.N. Expert Faults U.S. on Human Rights in Terror Laws,” The
Washington Post
, May 26, 2007.
141 Ibid.

CRS-30
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, 2007.142 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
proceedings), and (3) poor working and living conditions for migrants affected by
Hurricane Katrina.143
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.144 Bustamante is expected to present a full report on his
findings to the Human Rights Council at a future session.
142 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/].
143 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.
144 Ibid.

CRS-31
Appendix A. Legislation in the 110th Congress
An overview of legislation related to the funding and reform of the Human
Rights Council in the 110th Congress follows.
Proposed Legislation
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.R. 2712, the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform act
of 2007, requires the Secretary of State to certify to Congress that no Human Rights
Council members are subject to U.N. Security Council sanctions or under a Security
Council-mandated investigation for human rights abuses. The act directs that if these
requirements are not met, the United States must withhold a proportionate share of
its contributions to the Council from the U.N. regular budget, and shall not run for
a seat on the Human Rights Council (Title IV, Sec. 402). The act was introduced on
June 14, 2007, by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and referred to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
Enacted or Passed Legislation
H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.110-161) prohibits
U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of
State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in
the national interest of the United States;” or (2) the United States is a member of
the Council (Sec. 695).145
H.Res. 557 “strongly condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council for
ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly
target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council’s
agenda.” The resolution was introduced by Representative John Campbell on July
19, 2007, and was passed/agreed to on September 25, 2007
145 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat.
1844).

CRS-32
Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership
Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group
Latin American
and Caribbean
Eastern European
Western European
African States (13)
Asian States (13)
States (8)
States (6)
and Other States (7)
Angola (2010)a
Bangladesh (2009)
Argentina (2011)
Azerbaijan (2009)
Canada (2009)
Cameroon (2009)
Bahrain (2011)
Bolivia (2010)
Bosnia &
France (2011)
Burkina Faso (2011) China (2009)
Brazil (2011)
Herzegovina (2010) Germany (2009)
Djibouti (2009)
India (2010)
Chile (2011)
Slovakia (2011)
Italy (2010)
Egypt (2010)
Indonesia (2010)
Cuba (2009)
Russian Federation
Netherlands (2010)
Gabon (2011)
Japan (2011)
Mexico (2009)
(2009)
Switzerland (2009)
Ghana (2011)
Jordan (2009)
Nicaragua (2010) Slovenia (2010)
United Kingdom (2011)
Madagascar (2010)
Malaysia (2009)
Uruguay (2009)
Ukraine (2011)
Mauritius (2009)
Pakistan (2011)
Nigeria (2009)
Philippines (2010)
Senegal (2009)
Qatar (2010)
South Africa (2010)
Republic of Korea
Zambia (2011)
(2011)
Saudi Arabia (2009)
Notes: Council membership is staggered by year. All Council members are eligible for reelection for
a full second term.
a. Dates represent year of term end.